/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170130.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 30, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 21 Headlines ADVANTAGE COLLECTION: Sievert Moves for Certification of Class ALLPRO STAFFNET: "Hodge" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA APPLE INC: Should be Forced to Install Safety Features, Suit Says AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Flinders Embryo Destruction AXA EQUITABLE: Faces "Wenokur" Insurance Suit in Arizona BANK OF AMERICA: Morgan Stanley, UBS Must Provide ISDAFix Docs BELLAMY'S: IMF Bentham to Finance Investors' Class Action BB LOCKSMITH: Faces "Losey" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay BLD SERVICES: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Unpaid Wages and OT Pay BRAZILIAN WAX: Faces "Miller" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA CALTEX AUSTRALIA: Investigates Franchisees Amid Wage Fraud Claims CAJUN CONSTRUCTORS: Faces "Valderde" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pay CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Prisoners' Mental Health Suit CANADA: City of Westmont Settles John Garland Sex Abuse Case CENTRELINK: Slater and Gordon Probing Debt Recovery System CONGREGATION YETEV: Faces "Abreu" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law CORIZON HEALTH: "Richardson" Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA D.B.A. DIANE'S: Rosenberg Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code DOLLAR GENERAL: Workers Union Files Securities Lawsuit in Tenn. DR. REDDY'S: Pension Fund Sues Over Divalproex ER Price-Fixing DREAMWORKS: May 18 Non-Poaching Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Duany" Securities Class Action in Del. ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS: Roberts Seeks Payment of Wages ENTERTAINMENT ONE: Time for Three Files Class Suit Over Contract FACEBOOK INC: Quirky Sues Over Video Advertising FAJAS DEPOT: Faces "Bravo" Suit Seeking to Recoup "Unpaid" OT FCA US: Faces "Sebastian" Suit Over RICO Act Violations FENIX PARTS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit FIAT CHRYSLER: Investors Sue Over Emissions Recall Missteps FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Union Sues Over Overpriced Econazole FOURTH STREET: 6th Cir. Declines to Dissolve Wage Case Settlement FRATELLI MANAGEMENT: Faces "Ponce" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla. FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages GEICO INDEMNITY: Starks Seeks to Certify EFTA and UCL Classes GENERAL CABLE: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces "Schriver" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces "Hinterleiter" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson & Weaver Probing Securities Claims JIMMY CHOO: Agreed to Pay $2.5MM to Settle Privacy Suit JOHNSON & BELL: Files Motion to Dismiss Security Breach Case JP MORGAN CHASE: Turner Alleges Violation of Consumer Fraud KALVISTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson & Weaver Probing Claims KAUFMAN ENGLETT: Suit Over Bankruptcy Retainer Fees Dismissed KENT COUNTY: Faces Potential Lawsuit Over Fire Hydrants LAND SOURCE: Waterford Estate Residents Mull Class Action LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fails to Pay Employee's OT Work, "Rego" Suit Says LINCOLN NATIONAL: Face US Life Suit Over Insurance Rate Hike LOUISVILLE SLUGGER: Faces Class Action Over Baseball Bats MALLINCKRODT PLC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set MICHAELS STORES: Newark Judge Dismisses FCRA Class Action MIDLAND FUNDING: Dunbar Sues Over Debt Collection Practices NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Fuchs" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y. NATIONAL DEBT: Fuggetta Seeks Payment of Wages and OT Pay NCAA: Faces Lawsuit for Sacrificing Player Safety NELNET INC: Faces "Metallo" TCPA Class Suit in NY NIGERIA: Retired Military Officers Sue Over Debarment Allowance NOVOCURE LIMITED: Johnson & Weaver Probing Securities Claims O.C. COMMUNICATIONS: Soto Alleges Calif. Labor Law Violations ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Paddock Alleges Securities Laws Violation PENSKE LOGISTICS: Settles Truckers' Wage-and-Hour Class Action PPI INC: Faces "Slack" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages PRESIDIO BRANDS: Shank Sues over All-Natural Label in Products QUALCOMM INC: Stromberg Sues Over Modem Chipset Prices RENT-A-CENTER: Johnson & Weaver Investigates Potential Claims REWALK ROBOTICS: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action RITE OF PASSAGE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay SA FAMILY HELP: "Elizondo" Suit To Recover Overtime Pay SAMSUNG: Warranty Book Won't Avert Class Action SAMSUNG: Irregularly-Sized Batteries Cause of Note 7 Overheating SCOTT MELLINGER: Faces Suit for Illegally Detaining Arrestees SEATTLE, WA: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Homeless Camp Sweeps SEATTLE GENETICS: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Suit SPIN MASTER: Faces "Hejduk" Suit Over Defective Products SPOKEO INC: Sued in Illinois Over Displays Paid Advertisements STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Sobrinho Seeks Payment of Overtime Pay STARKIST: Settlement Vouchers Delayed Due to Appeals STEEL & TUBE: Law Firm Attempts to Increase Homeowner Nervousness SPIN MASTER: Faces "Hejduk" Suit Over Defective Products TASK FORCE: Faces "Higar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT THOMAS ARNOLD: "Ramirez" Claims FLSA, Ariz. Wage Law Violations TIME WARNER: Faces "Collura" Suit Over Proposed AT&T's Merger TOYOTA MOTOR: Has Prelim. Settlement in Defective Frames Suit TRADEWINDS BEVERAGE: Sues Over Iced Tea Product False Ad SUNDAY RILEY: Faces Class Action Over Bionic Anti-Aging Cream UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Samfiru Tumarkin Files Class Action in Ontario UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Merkovich" Suit UNITED KINGDOM: Hindraf to Take Rights Class Action to ECHR V.C. LAUDERDALE: Faces "Onyenecho" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations VIRGINIA: Arguments in DMV Class Action Scheduled for Feb. 2 VOLKSWAGEN: Car Owners Dissatisfied with Buy Back Delay WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Neal" Suit Over TCPA Violation WECTEC GLOBAL: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Pay WELCH FOODS: "Iglesias" Misbranding Suit Removed to N. D. Calif. WILCOX & WILCOX: Sued in Super Ct. Over Labor Code Violations WISCONSIN: Officials Face Class Action Over Solitary Confinement YAHOO! INC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set YRBL CORPORATION: Faces "De La Cruz" Suit Over Unpaid Wage and OT YS REALTY: "Chaca" Seeks Payment of Wages and Overtime Pay ZENITH EDUCATION: Faces "Covington" Suit Over Unpaid Wages and OT * Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - May 1, 2017 - NYC * Class Members Actively Participates in Litigation * Monetary Value of Employment-Related Settlements Down in 2016 * Ohio Drivers Ineligible for Auto Parts Price-Fixing Settlement * Workplace Lawsuits May Spike Under Trump Administration ********* ADVANTAGE COLLECTION: Sievert Moves for Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JUDITH SIEVERT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ADVANTAGE COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00059 (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint, and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence, the Plaintiff states. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice. Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes. In dicta, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification motion. Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount."). As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PnFtrlLy The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com ALLPRO STAFFNET: "Hodge" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH HODGE and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLPRO STAFFNET LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00065 (M.D. Tenn., January 18, 2017), seeks to recover compensation for worked hours in excess of 40 hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Allpro Staffnet, LLC -- http://www.allprostaffnet.com/-- offers medical staffing services to the residents of Nashville, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilbert Russell Mcwherter, Esq. Michael L. Russell, Esq. Emily S. Emmons, Esq. SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Phone: 615-354-1144 Email: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com eemmons@gilbertfirm.com APPLE INC: Should be Forced to Install Safety Features, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jef Cozza at Top Tech News reports a new class-action lawsuit filed in California aims to hold Apple accountable for a number of automobile accidents caused by drivers getting distracted by their iPhones. The folks behind lawsuit are hoping to force the company to install a new safety feature on its devices to prevent users from texting while they are driving. According to the suit, Apple has possessed the technology required to implement such a feature since 2008, and was granted a patent for it in 2014. The suit alleges that the company has refused to employ the technology out of fear that doing so would cost it market share. The complaint is seeking an injunction that would halt the sale of all iPhones in the state of California that do not come with such a lock-out feature, as well as a court order forcing Apple to immediately update all iPhones currently on the market to install the feature. The suit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, January 17, by MLG Automotive Law, on behalf of Julio Ceja, a California resident whose car was struck from behind while stopped at a stoplight, by a driver who was distracted while using her iPhone. "It has migrated from a menacing problem to a full-blown epidemic of national importance: texting and driving is the single most deadly thing one can do behind the wheel of an automobile," the lawsuit noted. According to the complaint, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has said that texting and driving is six times more dangerous than drinking and driving. "In a recent study conducted by the NHTSA, it was concluded that drivers take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds when sending or receiving a text." The suit added that when driving at 80 miles per hour, that is the equivalent of driving 539 feet, almost the length of two football fields, while wearing a blindfold. The complaint also cited the National Safety Counsel's 2014 injury and fatality report, which found that cell phone use caused 26 percent of all car accidents in the U.S. As many as 1.5 million people may be texting while driving at any given time, according to information from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Meanwhile, the Federal Highway Administration has estimated that California drivers suffer around 500,000 automobile accidents every year. Given Apple's approximate 40 percent market share of the cell phone market, that corresponds to roughly 52,000 accidents a year that are caused by drivers distracted by iPhones in California alone. Additionally, with approximately 3,000 traffic fatalities in the state annually, the same statistics would imply that every year around 312 fatalities are caused by drivers who are distracted by their iPhones at the time of their accidents. This lawsuit isn't the only one Apple is facing at the moment. A similar suit against the company was filed a month ago in California's Santa Clara County Superior Court by a family blaming Apple's FaceTime feature for the death of their five-year-old daughter who was riding in the back seat of a car that was rear- ended by a 20-year-old driver. That driver admitted to using FaceTime on his iPhone 6 Plus while driving. According to that lawsuit, Apple is responsible for the girl's death because of its "failure to install and implement the safer, alternative design for which it sought a patent in December 2008 (later issued by the United States Patent Office in April 2014) to 'lock out' the ability of drivers to utilize the 'FaceTime' application on the Apple iPhone when driving a motor vehicle, which resulted in the injuries sustained by plaintiffs," the girl's family said in the complaint. The family is seeking medical costs and punitive damages. AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Flinders Embryo Destruction ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wills, writing for The Advertiser, reports that families who lost 50 frozen embryos when a backup generator at Flinders Medical Centre failed because of human error during the statewide blackout could sue the State Government for negligence in a class action, leading law firms have warned. Former police commissioner Gary Burns on Jan. 23 released his report into the emergency services' response to the statewide blackout, saying people had "unrealistic expectations" about how quickly help would get to them and should make their own plans to ride out disasters. A key recommendation among the 62 handed down was for development of an Adelaide CBD evacuation plan, which would be deployed in the event of any future disasters. Health Minister Jack Snelling on Jan. 23 expressed concern for families affected by the embryo tragedy. He said he would look at compensation and be a model litigant. "It's disturbing such a straightforward mistake could have such catastrophic results," he said. "I am incredibly sorry for the families that lost embryos. It is extremely distressing." Flinders Fertility, a clinic in the FMC that was caring for the destroyed embryos, on Jan. 23 said it was considering its position in the wake of Mr Burns's report. Tindall Gask Bentley partner Mal Byrne told The Advertiser "nothing will heal the pain these families have experienced", but the state could be liable in a negligence case. Seventeen ICU patients were also moved to the adjacent private hospital in the blackout. The embarrassing report into the FMC failure found a control switch on one of the generators was turned off and there were no alarms set to alert maintenance staff. It was handed to the Government on November 1, almost three months ago. A spokesman for Mr Snelling said release was delayed as it was part of the wider review. The report finds one of five FMC generators failed after an hour and 45 minutes, cutting power to parts of the major hospital for an hour and a half until mains supply returned. "The direct cause of this loss of standby power was related to the failure of the diesel fuel system of one generator, most likely caused by human error in wrongly leaving a control switch off," the report found. It adds that a "contributing cause" to the failure was "the lack of alarms to notify maintenance staff of an impending shutdown". To restart the generator, fuel needed to be added into a main tank. But the report found the absence of power meant it was not possible to pump diesel into the machine. "Although maintenance staff attempted to improvise solutions during the event, this was hampered by overall conditions and lack of equipment for such a situation," it found. Mr Snelling said a contractor that carried out maintenance at the FMC in the days before the blackout asserted its staff had not left the control switch in the off position. "Very few other people in the hospital have access into the room where the generator is," he said. "It is a locked room and only a small number of individuals have keys. "For the person, and they would only know themselves . . . this will be a matter that will have to sit on their conscience." Mr Byrne said families that lost embryos could be eligible for compensation, potentially from a class action together, or by proceeding with multiple individual actions. "It would not surprise me if some of the family members involved have or will suffer psychiatric injury as infertile couples can have a powerful emotional investment and attachment to their embryos," he said. "Given the individual and systemic failures identified in the report, the families may be able to sue the state in negligence if they can also show they have suffered psychiatric injury, over and above normal grief, arising out of the circumstances." Duncan Basheer Hannon has also said there was a good case against the Government. Flinders Fertility said it was examining the reports and its "paramount focus" had been working with affected families to help them achieve the goal of parenthood. The clinic said it had also moved to a more reliable laboratory since the blackout. A separate report was similarly scathing of an outage at Port Augusta Hospital. Power there was lost for about 5 1/2 hours and another generator called in. Systems Solutions found the hospital's 44-year-old generator had a range of defects, including split hoses and pipes as well a poor record of adequate maintenance. It reports the generator went down after overheating because it was too weak to meet the hospital's power demand as well as being old and poorly tested. There was also an oil leak in metal pipes and break in a rubber hose carrying fuel. Mr Snelling said there was a lack of clarity over who was responsible for maintenance of the system because the hospital was run as a public-private partnership. He said a new generator would be bought to replace the old model. Emergency Services Minister Peter Malinauskas said he did not believe another statewide blackout in SA was probable, and they were "incredibly rare" occurrences. "But you have to be prepared for all eventualities," he said. Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said the Government was "caught short" in the blackout and had no credible plan to boost system reliability and bring down prices. "We have a report from Gary Burns that doesn't address the elephant in the room," he said. "It doesn't address power. This is completely and utterly unacceptable." AXA EQUITABLE: Faces "Wenokur" Insurance Suit in Arizona -------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Wenokur, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00165-BSB (D. Ariz., January 18, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for unlawful cost of insurance "COI" increases which violate the terms of the Plaintiff's insurance policy. AXA Equitable offers a variety of insurance products and variable and fixed interest annuity products principally to individuals, small and medium-size businesses and professional and trade associations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Kamber, Esq. Kamber Law LLC 142 West 57th Street New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 920-3072 Email: skamber@kamberlaw.com - and - Deborah Kravitz Kamber Law LLP 401 Center Street,Suite 111 Healdsburg, CA 95448 Tel: (707) 820-4247 Email: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Morgan Stanley, UBS Must Provide ISDAFix Docs -------------------------------------------------------------- Dani Kass at Law360 reports a New York federal judge on January 20 ordered BNP Paribas, ICAP, Morgan Stanley and UBS to hand over documents they provided to government investigators regarding fixing the ISDAfix benchmark rate, which is used to set terms for swaps transactions, to a pension fund bringing a potential class action over the alleged manipulation. The banks must give Alaska Electrical Pension Fund the white papers, presentations, written memoranda and briefs that they had given to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman said. The court had denied an initial motion to compel in November, finding the request was "overbroad and encompassed materials that were plainly irrelevant." The pension fund then submitted the instant narrowed request, which the judge said meets "relevance and proportionality standards" outlined by the court. The banks had argued that they're protected under the work-product doctrine, which Judge Furman shot down. First, the documents were made during an investigation with the hope of stopping the government from bringing suit, and were voluntarily provided to the government. "The court need not decide categorically whether confidentiality agreements can ever protect work product that is shared voluntarily with a government agency because, at most, they are 'just one of several factors to be considered,' and they are not enough to carry the day here," the order states. Among those other factors, were that there were no explicit agreements of confidentiality between most of the banks and the government, he said. ICAP said it understood its materials wouldn't be shared, Morgan Stanley said it had provided an "explicit request" for confidentiality and UBS said it "worked hard to protect confidentially." "It goes without saying that an 'explicit agreement' requires a meeting of two or more minds; a unilateral 'understanding' or reservation of rights does not suffice," Judge Furman said. BNP Paribas said it had an oral agreement with the CFTC that the government would keep the information confidential and not waive work product protection, but has not provided proof of that agreement, the order states. The September 2014 suit alleges the banks worked closely with interdealer broker ICAP PLC, which until January 2014 was tasked by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association with managing the daily setting of the U.S. dollar-rate version of ISDAfix. The banks were responsible for submitting rate quotes, which ICAP essentially compiled. But the suit says the parties worked together to set the rate at the point where it was most profitable for them, including engaging in a process known in the industry as "banging the close" where they bought and sold derivative products just before the fix was closed in order to get the price they wanted. Eight financial institutions have already settled the allegations, handing over more than $380 million combined. Goldman Sachs in December agreed to pay $56.5 million, and in May, JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed to pay $52 million while Bank of America Corp., Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC each agreed to pay $50 million. UBS and Morgan Stanley declined to comment. Representatives for the plaintiffs, BNP Paribas and ICAP didn't immediately respond to request for comment on January 20. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Scott & Scott LLP, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Grant & Eisenhofer PA, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Trief & Olk, Berger & Montague PC, McCulley McCluer PLLC and Fine Kaplan & Black RPC. BNP Paribas is represented by Joshua A. Goldberg and William F. Cavanaugh Jr. of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. ICAP is represented by Brian S. Fraser. Shari A. Brandt and H. Rowan Gaither IV of Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP. Morgan Stanley is represented by Jon R. Roellke and Anthony R. Van Vuren of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. UBS is represented by Joel S. Sanders, Marc J. Fagel, Peter Sullivan, Eric J. Stock and Nathaniel L. Bach of Gibson Dunn. The case is Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corp. et al., case number 1:14-cv-07126, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. BELLAMY'S: IMF Bentham to Finance Investors' Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Brian Robins, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that the woes confronting troubled infant milk formula group Bellamy's Australia have deepened with the confirmation of a second class action from disgruntled investors in the wake of the company's recent upheavals. The news put the company's shares under renewed pressure, closing down another 4 per cent at $3.85. Litigation funder IMF Bentham announced on Jan. 23 it would finance an action planned by Slater and Gordon Lawyers, while later in the day, ICP said it was funding a separate action planned by Maurice Blackburn. "The claims relate to alleged misleading or deceptive conduct and an alleged breach by Bellamy's of its continuous disclosure requirements in connection with its trading prospects and future earnings performance during the period between 14 April 2016 to 9 December 2016," IMF Bentham said. Maurice Blackburn is targeting investors who acquired their shares in Bellamy during the same time frame, until December 9, but a cap has been introduced on how much the litigation funder, in its case ICP, may receive. Although participating investors will not receive less than 50 per cent of the payout, after costs. "After consultation with some of the largest institutional shareholders on the ASX, [ICP] offers benchmark funding commissions of between eight and 25 per cent, meaning more net returns to investors upon success," ICP chief executive, Mr John Walker said. "ICP has also included a safety-net provision that offers additional investor protection by ensuring that they won't receive any less than 50 per cent of a net recovery [after costs are accounted for] on success." Under this approach, if the intended legal action is settled quickly, then the commission flowing to ICP is closer to 8 per cent, while it will rise the longer the action proceeds. "If any settlement is not large, clients would receive at least half of the proceeds, after legal costs," Mr Walker said. "That cap has come from institutions letting the market know what they want in litigation funding." A spokesman for Bellamy's said it was not aware of any legal action being taken. IMF Bentham said it was to fund the class action "on a conditional basis" ahead of a decision to proceed with the action, or not, while Maurice Blackburn's decision to pursue Bellamy's marks a step up in competition between class action litigants. "Greater competition in the litigation funding arena would ultimately see better products offered for clients to drive down costs and see more money returned to those seeking justice -- this offering does just that," Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said of his group's tie-up with ICP in taking on Bellamy's. "The class action will be hugely disturbing for the current directors," Jan Cameron, a co-founder of Bellamy's said. "For the individual directors to be in this position is truly awful -- it is sleepless nights stuff." Ms Cameron, who also co-founded the clothing retailer Kathmandu, said she would be seeking to force Bellamy's to re-issue a letter it sent to shareholders, since she claims the letter contains "material inaccuracies". "There are material inaccuracies which will require a new statement to shareholders," she said. In its criticism of the slate of new independent directors put forward by Ms Cameron and her associates, Bellamy's has pointed to their limited experience on the boards of public companies. But given the limited assets of Bellamy's, some say the sole asset of Bellamy's is the brand, she said. "Without inflating my abilities, I get brands. The brand is the only thing that is going to pull Bellamy's out" of its present difficulties, Ms Cameron said. "[The brand] is a huge thing for Bellamy's. I get brands. I'd prefer a good brand than material assets." BB LOCKSMITH: Faces "Losey" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Losey, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BB Locksmith, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-CV-29-FtM-99CM (M.D.N.Y., January 17, 2017) is brought against the Defendants for unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus W. Viles, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC 6350 Presidential Court, Suite A Fort Myers, FL 33919 Tel: 239-334-3933 Fax: 239-334-7105 Email: Marcus@vilesandbeckman.com Joanne@vilesandbeckman.com BLD SERVICES: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Unpaid Wages and OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Smith, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated employees v. BLD Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00167-JFM (N.D. Md., January 18, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for unpaid wages and overtime compensation in violation Fair Labor Standard Act and Maryland Wage and Hour Law. The Defendant is a full-service construction, general contracting and construction management firm, based in Kenner Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: George E. Swegman, Esq. Benjamin L. Davis, Esq. The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Tel: (410) 244-7005 Fax: (410) 244-8454 Email: gswegman@nicholllaw.com bdavis@nicholllaw.com BRAZILIAN WAX: Faces "Miller" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- SEBRE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRAZILIAN WAX, INC., and ANDREIA GUILMET, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00201-RWS (N.D. Ga., January 18, 2017), alleges that Defendants have misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals as independent contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. BRAZILIAN WAX, INC. owns and operates 17 boutiques located in Georgia and Tennessee under the trade name "Brazilian Wax by Andreia" through numerous wholly-owned subsidiaries and/or affiliates. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bricker S. Daughtry, Esq. Adam B. Land, Esq. FORTSON, BENTLEY AND GRIFFIN, P.A. 2500 Daniell's Bridge Road Georgia Building 200, Suite 3A Athens, GA 30606 Phone: 706-548-1151 E-mail: bsd@fbglaw.com abl@fbglaw.com CALTEX AUSTRALIA: Investigates Franchisees Amid Wage Fraud Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adele Ferguson, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that oil refiner and petrol giant Caltex Australia is heading for a legal battle with its franchisees after ramping up an investigation and audit into hundreds of stores amid allegations of rampant worker exploitation. Heightening tensions among its network of 650 franchise sites come weeks after Caltex was outbid by arch-rival BP for the purchase of 527 Woolworths-owned fuel and convenience store sites. The sale is subject to regulatory approval but if it proceeds it will strip Caltex of an exclusive supplier arrangement to supply up to 3.5 billion litres of petrol and diesel to Woolworths. Caltex has made some headway with a few smaller acquisitions but it means the pressure is on to find new revenue streams and bolster its share price, which, in the past year has underperformed the S&P/ASX200 by a whopping 30 per cent. Having to deal with a wage fraud scandal that has the potential to damage its brand if it isn't handled properly is something the company can ill afford. It is understood that Caltex wrote to at least 150 franchisees two days before Christmas warning them they were being investigated and that "Caltex is taking allegations of breaches of workplace obligations within the Caltex franchise network very seriously". (It said the entire network will be subject to a similar audit over the next 18 months). The letter said franchisees had until January 25 to supply specific documents to Ernst & Young. It said "you should treat any requests for information and assistance as though they are requests being made by Caltex". Caltex is the latest franchise network to become embroiled in allegations of wage fraud and a flawed business model. Reviewing the model In November the Fair Work Ombudsman, which enforces minimum pay rates across Australia, conducted a series of raids on Caltex service stations across the country. Some workers, mostly students from Pakistan and India on student visas, are being paid as little as $12 an hour, which is less than half the award rate. Since the scandal broke Caltex has tried to go on the front foot by instigating a holistic review of its franchise model and governance processes. It has made a significant number of key management changes and hired a string of consultants, accountants and lawyers. The letter sent to franchisees and obtained by The Financial Review is understood to have sent chills downs the spines of franchisees, particularly the sentence warning them they could be terminated. "Caltex reserves its right in respect of any default identified during the investigation and audit . . . to take immediate steps to terminate the franchise agreement [both in accordance with the Franchise Code and Oil Code] or to conduct follow-up investigations and audits," the letter says. Under the Caltex franchise agreement, if a franchisee is terminated due to a breach of the franchise agreement (which can occur for wage underpayment as well as other reasons) the value of the business is returned to Caltex with the franchisee receiving only the value of any stock or other owned assets. This allows Caltex to punt the franchisee immediately without compensation. Future of franchisees In one case a franchisee from South Australia was terminated and lost seven stores, which he says were valued at $5 million. Another in NSW was terminated, losing four stores, with $1.5 million of his money blowing up. It has created a lot of uncertainty, particularly when the newly appointed general manager of retail operations outlined in a newsletter that any franchise agreements due to expire will most likely be held over rather than renewed. It said it expected more Calstores (corporate stores) "in the event that serious breaches lead to the termination of any agreements, or screening checks lead us to not proceed with proposed agreements, or there are new sites brought in to Caltex Australia for example". Importantly, it said any new franchise arrangements would only be offered on a short-term basis, heightening speculation that Caltex is preparing to ditch the franchise model and make a land grab for the stores. "All of these measures will give Caltex time to confirm the sustainability of our business model and to ensure we have the right business model and arrangements for both parties before we enter long term arrangements," the letter said. More than 100 franchisees are so concerned they are believed to have sought legal advice from three different law firms in the past few weeks. Some are considering joining a class action, while others want to challenge the legality of the audit and investigation. The AFR can reveal that the Ernst and Young audit requires franchisees to hand over details of employees, residency status, nature of the visa held, all employee files including super records, all rosters from July 1, 2015 to June 2016, employee timesheets and console user records, a summary of how the payment of payroll takes place, ATO integrated client accounts, PAYG payment summary lodged with the ATO for June 2014, 2015 and 2016 and Business Activity Statements for all quarters from June 2015 to June 2016. Caltex chief executive Julian Segal said in a statement the company was investigating every allegation received, cooperating with the Fair Work Ombudsman and other authorities and "implementing a forensic audit program to detect and sanction wrong-doing, including the termination of franchise agreements where that is reasonable and appropriate". 'I wanted to be able to sleep at night' In the past year Caltex audited eight franchisees and terminated five of them for misconduct. It is a high strike rate. It increased that to 50 in November and is now stretching it out across the entire network. A number of former and current franchisees, including Kevin Crossey who operated a number of sites in NSW between 1998 and 2014, have come forward alleging the Caltex franchise model is flawed, forcing underpayment of wages. Mr. Crossey said he repeatedly told head office there was a problem with wage fraud but he was ignored. Mr. Crossey sold out in 2014 because it was getting increasingly difficult to make a living. "It got to a point where we couldn't be compliant and so I decided I wanted to be able to sleep at night so we sold out." The franchisee who bought one of Mr. Crossey's stores is understood to have struggled and applied for financial assistance. On January 11 a large group of franchisees gathered in Sydney to discuss the audit and payroll compliance issues. It is understood that some franchisees openly admitted to paying $14 an hour for wages. They blamed it on a franchise model that left them with little option but to cut corners. Caltex has demonstrated it has a zero tolerance of wage fraud but unlike 7-Eleven, which has set up a compensation scheme and has so far paid $70 million to underpaid workers, Caltex is playing hardball, blaming it on the franchisees. The best Caltex can do is offer counselling to workers, a hotline to report misconduct and a guarantee they will be paid properly in the future. It is seizing stores and striking fear into the hearts of the franchise network. Some may applaud such a hardline approach and argue it is a powerful weapon against worker exploitation. It certainly is but in the US there have been examples were franchisors have been accused of deliberately churning franchisees to make money. It has prompted speculation that Caltex's end game is to use the audit to repossess most of the sites, turn them into corporate stores, then rack up the goodwill, which on the secondary market is valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. Time will tell, but after a series of scandals in the $170 billion franchise industry and allegations of unsustainable business models the clock is ticking for some tough government action to get to the bottom of the mess. CAJUN CONSTRUCTORS: Faces "Valderde" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Arturo Valderde, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Cajun Constructors, LLC and Cajun Industries LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00021 (S.D. Tex., January 20, 2017), seeks overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Defendants provide construction services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. Sosa-Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (281) 885-8844; (281) 885-8630 Fax: (281) 885-8813 Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Prisoners' Mental Health Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Crawford Garden City Group on Jan. 21 disclosed that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action alleging that the Government of Canada failed to provide mentally ill offenders incarcerated in the Federal penitentiary system with adequate medical care, improperly subjected them to solitary confinement, and failed to protect people who suffer from mental illness. The action was certified with the consent of Canada, the defendant, on December 12, 2016. The claim alleges breaches of sections 7, 9, and/or 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The allegations have not been proven in court. Now that a class action has been given the approval to go ahead by the Court, the next step will be for the parties to litigate the case on its merits. The class action covers all offenders in federal custody who were diagnosed by a medical doctor with an Axis I Disorder (excluding substance use disorders), or Borderline Personality Disorder, who suffered from their disorder, in a manner described in Appendix A, and reported such during their incarceration, where the diagnosis by a medical doctor occurred either before or during incarceration in a federal institution and the offenders were incarcerated between November 1, 1992 and the present, and were alive as of July 20, 2013. Appendix A: Significant impairment in judgment (including inability to make decisions; confusion; disorientation); Significant impairment in thinking (including constant preoccupation with thoughts, paranoia; delusions that make the offender a danger to self or others); Significant impairment in mood (including constant depressed mood plus helplessness and hopelessness; agitation; manic mood that interferes with ability to effectively interact with other offenders, staffs or follow correctional plan); Significant impairment in communications that interferes with ability to effectively interact with other offenders, staff or follow correctional plan; Significant impairment due to anxiety (panic attacks; overwhelming anxiety) that interferes with ability to effectively interact with other offenders, staff or follow correctional plan; Other symptoms: hallucinations; delusions; severe obsessional rituals that interferes with ability to effectively interact with other offenders, staff or follow correctional plan; Chronic and severe suicidal ideation resulting in increased risk for suicide attempts; Chronic and severe self-injury; or, A GAF score of 50 or less. The Toronto law firm of Koskie Minsky LLP has been appointed as class counsel. CANADA: City of Westmont Settles John Garland Sex Abuse Case ------------------------------------------------------------ CBC News reports that the City of Westmount says it has reached a tentative out-of-court settlement with those who were sexually abused by John Garland, a longtime hockey coach and employee in the parks and recreation department. Five victims have come forward so far but others may still join the class-action suit. The settlement is for $100,000 per person, for a maximum total of $2.5 million. The agreement still requires the approval of a Quebec Superior Court judge. "We hope that the settlement can in some small way help with the healing process," Mayor Peter Trent told a news conference on Jan. 24. The lead plaintiff, former Westmount resident Matthew Bissonnette, said he was satisfied with the settlement. "There are answers, there is hope and there is justice," he said, adding that he's hopeful the result encourages other victims of abuse to come forward. 3 decades with the city M.r Garland, who died in 2012, worked in the City of Westmount's parks and recreation department between 1953 and 1987, and was also peewee hockey coach. "Mr. Garland misused his position of power and trust to abuse sexually some of the children and teenagers in his care," the City of Westmount said in a statement released late on Jan. 23. "The City acknowledges that the effects of sexual abuse can last a lifetime and be devastating for victims, their families, and a community. This is particularly true when the abuse is directed at the most vulnerable among us, our children." Mr. Bissonnette, now a film director, filed the class-action lawsuit in 2015, prompting several others to come forward. In its statement, Westmount said that rather "than fighting a lengthy legal battle with the survivors, the city chose early on to conduct an investigation, to work with Mr. Bissonnette, to find a way to provide meaningful compensation to class members and to design a simple and discreet process for victims to come forward while maintaining strict confidentiality." CENTRELINK: Slater and Gordon Probing Debt Recovery System ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Knaus at The Guardian reports the law firm Slater and Gordon says it is investigating whether Centrelink's controversial debt recovery system is in breach of the law. But the firm has stopped short of committing to legal action, saying it is only in preliminary stages. "Slater and Gordon is currently reviewing Centrelink's conduct for the purpose of confirming whether it has engaged in any contraventions of applicable laws," Slater and Gordon's practice group leader, Tim Finney told Guardian Australia. "This investigation is still in its formative stages and it is too early to say what form any possible legal action against Centrelink would take." The Australian Lawyers Association has said it believes those wrongly targeted with debts could sue the government but said those billed for lesser amounts would need to mount a class action for a civil case to be viable. Maurice Blackburn, a firm known for high-profile class actions, previously said it has no plans to act on the Centrelink debt cases. The human services minister, Alan Tudge, continued to defend the automated debt recovery system on January 20. The system, which has been the subject of repeated complaints, relies on a messy data-matching process to identify discrepancies between Centrelink and Australian taxation office records. Where humans would previously have weeded out errors, the system now automatically sends letters demanding an explanation of years- old income discrepancies within 21 days. More than 170,000 letters have been sent since July. If the letter is not received, or a person is unable to respond with sufficient evidence, the debt is imposed and individuals are forced to begin paying the money back. Several whistleblowers have now come forward, alleging the system is generating inaccurate debts, that staff are being told to ignore errors and that customers are being put in an unfair position. Tudge on January 20 dismissed the most recent claims of a whistleblower, telling 2GB radio that they were simply not true. He said he was also "annoyed" at Labor's insinuation that the first letter generated by the automated system is a "debt letter." CONGREGATION YETEV: Faces "Abreu" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON ABREU, on behalf of himself, and the Class, v. CONGREGATION YETEV LEV D'SATMAR MEATS & POULTRY, INC. d/b/a SATMAR MEATS, SATMAR MEAT OF CONG. YETEV LEV, INC. d/b/a SATMAR MEATS, JOHN DOE CORP. 1 d/b/a SATMAR MEATS, JOHN DOE CORP. 2 d/b/a SATMAR MEATS, JOHN DOE CORP. 3 d/b/a SATMAR MEATS, MOSHE BROWN, BERL FRIEDMAN and MOSES RETEK, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00272 (E.D.N.Y., January 18, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime, and unpaid spread-of-hours premium under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendants operate five meat distributors under the common trade name "Satmar Meats." The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 CORIZON HEALTH: "Richardson" Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE RICHARDSON, for herself and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., a foreign profit corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00228- ELR (N.D. Ga., Jan. 19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff worked for Defendant, from June 5, 2012 to June 25, 2016, as a non-exempt hourly paid "Staff Nurse" working for Defendant's healthcare corporation at Fulton County Jail. The Plaintiff's duties included, but were not limited to, dispensing medication, performing routine mental health assessments, and patient education. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours within a workweek. From at least December 2012 to December 2015, Defendant allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated staff nurses at a rate of one and one-half times each staff nurse's regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in on or more workweeks. Corizon Health, formed by a 2011 merger of Correctional Medical Services, Inc. and Prison Health Services, Inc., is the largest privately held prison healthcare contractor in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200 Post Office Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Direct: (404) 496 7295 Main: (404) 965 8811 Facsimile: (404) 965 8812 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com D.B.A. DIANE'S: Rosenberg Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA ROSENBERG, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. D.B.A. DIANE'S, INCORPORATED, a California corporation; and DOES 1-250, the Defendant, Case No. BC647402 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 19, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, restitution, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members were not authorized or permitted lawful meal periods, and were not provided with one hour's wages in lieu. The Defendants allegedly failed to schedule or provide meal periods, and required Plaintiff and Class members to work through their meal periods to meet Defendants' demanding directives and schedules. The Defendants further failed to provide Plaintiff and Class members with accurate, itemized wage statements in accordance with Labor Code, because, among other things, Defendants did not keep accurate records of the hours Plaintiff and Class members worked and Plaintiff and Class Members were denied their rightful overtime and double time wages and commission payments, which were not reflected or that were incorrect on their wage statements. The Plaintiff and Class members' wage statements also failed to identify the name and address of the correct legal entity that is the employer in violation of Labor Code. D. B. A. Diane's is a miscellaneous apparel and accessories store located in Torrance, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian J. Petronelli, Esq. Julia Damron, Esq. Dean S. Ho, Esq. PETRONELLI & HO LLP 295 Redondo Avenue, Suite 201 Long Beach, CA 90803 Telephone: (888) 855 3670 Facsimile: (888) 449 9675 E-mail: christian@employees-lawyer.com dean@employees-lawyer.com julia@,employees-lawyer.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Workers Union Files Securities Lawsuit in Tenn. --------------------------------------------------------------- IRON WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 405 ANNUITY FUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION and TODD VASOS, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv- 00063 (M.D. Tenn., January 18, 2017), is a securities suit that alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding the Company's exposure to changes in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION is one of the largest discount retailers in the United States by number of stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald J. Berke, Esq. A. Emma Flynn, Esq. Charles A. Flynn, Esq. BERKE, BERKE & BERKE 420 Frazier Avenue P.O. Box 4747 Chattanooga, TN 37405 Phone: (423) 266-5171 Fax: (423) 265-5307 E-mail: ronnie@berkeattys.com emma@berkeattys.com chuck@berkeattys.com - and - Darren J. Check, Esq. Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Jonathan R. Davidson, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: dcheck@ktmc.com namjed@ktmc.com jrdavidson@ktmc.com DR. REDDY'S: Pension Fund Sues Over Divalproex ER Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Twin Cities Pipe Trades Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals inc., PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc., PAR Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00302-GEKP (E.D. Pa., January 20, 2017), seeks damages arises from Defendants' unlawful conduct by engaging in a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of divalproex ER and to allocate markets and customers for this product in the United States. The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company that manufactures, markets, and sells generic drug products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq. Chad A. Carder, Esq. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 963-0600 Fax: (215) 963-0838 Email: jgittleman@barrack.com ccarder@barrack.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Anna M. Horning Nygren, Esq. Kristen G. Marttila, Esq. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-339-6900 Fax: 612-339-0981 Email: khriebel@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com amhorningnygren@locklaw.com kgmarttila@licklaw.com DREAMWORKS: May 18 Non-Poaching Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Mercedes Milligan, writing for Animation Magazine, reports that US District Judge Lucy Koh has given her preliminary approval to the $50 million payment proposed by DreamWorks Animation back in October as settlement for the ongoing animators' class action suit against major studios. Judge Koh stated in her approval that the settlement was "fair and reasonable". Further, DWA has agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs in authenticating documents and in "not voluntarily producing any employee to testify at trial for any non-settling defendant," Judge Koh said. The first suit was filed in 2014 and contends that the named studios -- Sony Pictures Animation & Imageworks, Blue Sky Studios, Disney, Pixar, Lucasfilm, ImageMovers and DreamWorks -- violated antitrust laws by conspiring to set wages for animation artist and technical employees with non-poaching agreements. Separate suits by plaintiffs Robert Nitsch and David Wentworth and Georgia Cano were combined in December 2014 under Judge Koh. The $50 million cash settlement, which would go into a class- action fund, is just under 40% of the damages the plaintiffs' expert asserts DreamWorks Animation is responsible for. The plaintiffs' attorneys are allowed to ask for up to 25% of the settlement for their fees, and each named plaintiff would receive up to $10,000. Exact payments for each affected employee will be based on a formula (available on the suit's website). A final fairness hearing is set for May 18. Provided the DWA settlement is finalized, that will leave just the Disney-owned studios and ImageMovers still contending with the suit. Blue Sky was the first to settle in March 2016 for about $6 million, followed by Sony Pictures Animation and Imageworks in May with a $13 million proposal. ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Duany" Securities Class Action in Del. -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael G. Duany, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., Transfer Partners, L.L.C., Transfer Equity, L.P., Kelcy L. Warren, Ted Collins, Jr., Michael K. Grimm, Marshall S. McCrea, III, James R. Perry, Matthew S. Ramsey and David K. Skidmore, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00058 (D. Del., January 19, 2017), seeks damages for the proposed transaction in which Sunoco will acquire each outstanding share of ETP common stock through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. On Nov. 21, 2016, Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. (NYSE: SXL) and Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE: ETP) announced that they have entered into a merger agreement providing for the acquisition of ETP by SXL in a unit-for-unit transaction. The transaction was approved by the boards of directors and conflicts committees of both partnerships and is expected to close in the first quarter of 2017, subject to receipt of ETP unitholder approval and other customary closing conditions. Under the terms of the transaction, ETP unitholders will receive 1.5 common units of SXL for each common unit of ETP they own. This equates to a 10% premium to the volume weighted average pricing of ETP's common units for the last 30 trading days immediately prior to the announcement of the transaction. Energy Transfer Partners is a U.S. Fortune 500 natural gas and propane company, founded in 1995 and headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Sunoco is an American petroleum and petrochemical manufacturer headquartered in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, United States, formerly known as Sun Company Inc. and Sun Oil Co. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Fax: (302) 654-7530 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. Weisslaw LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS: Roberts Seeks Payment of Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Roberts, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Engineers and Constructors International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00148 (S.D. Tex., January 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Moore & Associates Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 ENTERTAINMENT ONE: Time for Three Files Class Suit Over Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- Time For Three, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability corporation, et al., Plaintiffs v. Entertainment One GP LLC, dba E1 Entertainment, a New York limited partnership, Entertainment One U.S. LP, dba E1 Entertainment and/or Koch Entertainment, a New York limited partnership, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00329 (S.D.N.Y., January 17, 2017), seeks damages for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have wrongfully refused to abide by the terms of the parties' contracts because they have unilaterally decide to keep a portion of DEMD revenue to which they are not entitled and failed to distribute any revenue to Plaintiffs and the Class Members. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. Reese LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Tel: (212) 643-0500 Fax: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Neville L. Johnson, Esq. Douglas L. Johnson, Esq. Jordanna G. Thigpen, Esq. Johnson & Johnson LLP 439 N. Canon Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: (310) 975-1080 Fax: (310) 975-1095 Email: njohnson@jjllplaw.com djohnson@jjllplaw.com jthigpen@jjllplaw.com - and - Clifford H. Pearson, Esq. Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Tel: (818) 788-8300 Fax: (818) 788-8104 Email: cpearson@pswlaw.com dwarshaw@pswlaw.com bpouya@pswlaw.com FACEBOOK INC: Quirky Sues Over Video Advertising ------------------------------------------------ Quirky, Inc. and Wink, Inc. n/k/a Wink Dissolution Corp., Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Facebook, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00233-EDL (N.D. Cal., January 17, 2017), seeks damages for misrepresentation and misleading statements pursuant to California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The Plaintiff claims that Defendant Facebook's misrepresentations thereby distorted the market price for its video advertising by artificially increasing the price of Facebook video advertising, causing video advertising purchasers, including Quirky, to pay more than they otherwise would have paid. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Dylan Hughes, Esq. Aaron Blumenthal, Esq. 504 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 350-9700 Fax: (510) 350-9701 Email: ehg@classlaw.group.com dsh@classlawgroup.com ab@classlawgroup.com - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. Eric Kafka, Esq. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com ggraber@cohenmilstein.com ekafka@cohenmilstein.com - and - Michael Eisenkraft, Esq. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 838-7797 Fax: (212) 838-7745 Email: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com - and - Aisha Christian, Esq. 129 West 27th Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10001 Tel: (646) 285-2029 - and - Charles Reichmann, Esq. Law Offices of Charles Reichmann 16 Yale Circle Kensington, CA 94708-1015 Tel: (415) 373-8849 Email: charles.reichmann@gmail.com FAJAS DEPOT: Faces "Bravo" Suit Seeking to Recoup "Unpaid" OT ------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA MORINA BRAVO, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FAJAS DEPOT, LLC a Florida for Profit Limited Liability Corporation, and MARGARITA ECHEMENDIA, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20210-FAM (S.D. Fla., January 18, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. FAJAS DEPOT, LLC owns and operates several "Faja Depot" stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN, LLC 17 East Flagler St., Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305.358.6800 Fax: 305.358.6808 E-mail: lowell@kuvinlaw.com FCA US: Faces "Sebastian" Suit Over RICO Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Albert Sebastian, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a corporation organized under the laws of the Netherlands, Robert Bosch GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany and Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00085-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal., January 17, 2017), is brought against Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). The Plaintiff is represented by: Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101-1406 Tel: (619) 238-1811 Fax: (619) 544-5932 Email: gmb@cglaw.com FENIX PARTS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against Fenix Parts, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Fenix securities between May 14, 2015 and October 12, 2016, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Fenix's officers and directors. FIAT CHRYSLER: Investors Sue Over Emissions Recall Missteps ----------------------------------------------------------- Sheila Ross, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Sergio Marchionne, Richard K. Palmer and Scott Kunselman, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00418 (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2017), seeks damages for misleading and materially false statement pursuant to Securities Laws. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were personally motivated to make false statements and omit material information necessary to make the statements not misleading in order to personally benefit from the sale of Chrysler securities from their personal portfolios. Defendant Chrysler is an automotive group that designs, engineers, manufactures, distributes and sells vehicles and components. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd H. Henderson, Esq. J. Brandon Walker, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Tel: 212-308-5858 Fax: 212-214-0506 * * * Matthew Guarnaccia, writing for Law360, reported that Fiat Chrysler investors on January 19 launched a proposed class action lawsuit in New York federal court accusing the automaker of inflating its stock price by making false statements related to the use of emissions software and failing to implement recalls and mandated safety compliance protocols. Investors in Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and FCA US LLC said recent regulatory actions taken against the company have led to significant drops in the value of its stock, including an announcement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that it installed software in 100,000 U.S. vehicles that produced excessive levels of nitrogen oxide. The investors also pointed to more than $175 million in fines handed out by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2015 related to subpar recall responses and the under-reporting of key safety information, including deaths and injuries related to its vehicles. "As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages," the complaint said. According to the complaint, brought by investor Sheila Ross, at the outset of Fiat's merger with Chrysler in late 2014 and beyond, the newly formed company maintained in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its vehicles and their engines complied with state and federal laws and regulations, including emissions standards. These assertions continued with SEC filings in 2015, the investors said, but in July of that year, NHTSA imposed a record-setting $105 million fine on the automaker for its failure to complete 23 recalls covering more than 11 million vehicles. The day after the announcement, FCA's stock closed at $14.41 after falling 74 cents, or approximately 4.9 percent, the complaint said. As a result, the company announced in its third-quarter earnings report from October 2015 that it recorded a EUR761 million charge for recall-related activities, causing its stock to drop once more. While it had recovered slightly from the post-NHTSA announcement loss, the price per share went down 69 cents to $14.72, according to the complaint. The investors also pointed to an additional $70 million fine in December 2015 by NHTSA against FCA for failing to report vehicle deaths and injuries to the agency. The complaint did not specify if this led to any stock losses. The investors said the most significant drop took place after the EPA's Jan 11. announcement that FCA used engine software in more than 100,000 model year 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0-liter diesel engines sold in the U.S. that helped produce excessive emissions levels. The complaint said FCA failed to disclose these devices and violated the Clean Air Act in the process. The investors said FCA's stock price fell $1.35 to close at $9.95 on Jan. 12, a loss in value of more than 10 percent per share. Ross seeks to certify a class of investors who purchased stock at any point between the creation of the company on Oct. 13, 2014, and the EPA's latest announcement, on Jan. 11. The complaint brings two counts for violating the Securities Exchange Act, saying the investors believed the stock to be worth more than it is based on FCA's assertions. The investors contend they would not have purchased the stock had FCA's missteps been disclosed previously. Representatives for FCA declined to comment on January 20. Counsel for the investors did not respond on January 20 to a request for comment. The investors are represented by J. Brandon Walker and Todd H. Henderson of Bragar Eagel & Squire PC. Counsel information for FCA was not immediately available. The case is Ross v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV et. al., case number 1:17-cv-00418, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Union Sues Over Overpriced Econazole ------------------------------------------------------------- International Union of Operating Engineers, et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz, Inc. Perrigo New York Inc., Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Teligent, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00292-CMR (E.D. Pa., January 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for unlawfully raise the prices of more than a dozen generic drugs including Econazole. Defendants are engaged in pharmaceutical industry. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. Adam J. Pessin, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: (215) 567-6565 Fax: (215) 568-5872 Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Lara Goldstone, Esq. Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. Rudi Julius, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW 140 Broadway Tel: (212) 907-0700 Fax: (212) 818-0477 Email: jhimes@labaton.com lgoldstone@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com rjulius@labaton.com FOURTH STREET: 6th Cir. Declines to Dissolve Wage Case Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erianne Leatherman, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has declined to dissolve a class action settlement regarding alleged violations of the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. Plaintiffs William Whitlock, David Skyrm, James Middleton and Kristin Moore, who were former employees of Fourth Street Live, an entertainment area located in downtown Louisville, filed a suit in Kentucky state court in 2010 against the defendants FSL Management LLC, Entertainment Concepts Investors LLC and Cordish Operating Ventures, LLC alleging "violations of the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act, KRS Sec. 337.385 for their policies regarding off-the-clock work and mandatory tip-pooling," court documents said. The plaintiffs' class certification motion was granted by the court, then the defendants requested interlocutory appellate review. This review was denied, along with their motion to reconsider. After that, settlement discussions took place and the parties eventually reached agreement on the financial terms. About a year later, the parties finally agreed on the non-monetary terms and the parties filed a joint status report informing the court that they settled and that formal settlement documents would soon follow, Jeremy Gilman -- jgilman@beneschlaw.com -- partner at Benesch Law, said in a blog post. Mr. Gilman said the defendants then moved the district court to decertify the class centered on the intervening Kentucky appellate decision, which was then subject to a request for discretionary review at the Kentucky Supreme Court. The district court then ruled to not decertify the lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit said in court documents that the lower court found that "regardless of the present meaning of" the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act, it was "bound to maintain class certification and enforce the settlement agreement as a binding contract under Kentucky law." The defendants then appealed to the Sixth Circuit. "The appellants have failed to make any argument explaining why the prohibition against class-action litigation in KRS Sec. 337.385(2) disturbs any of the class-certification requirements set forth in Rule 23(a) or (b)," court documents said. "In fact, the appellants seem to hope that this court will fill in the gaps on their behalf." "Essentially, the court declined to undo a settlement to which defendants had voluntarily agreed," Mr. Gilman told Legal Newsline. The court of appeals affirmed and "conclude[d] that a post- settlement change in the law does not alter the binding nature of the parties' settlement agreement, nor does it violate Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Rules Enabling Act," court documents said. "Defendants may [now] seek panel hearing and en banc review of the decision at the 6th Circuit and, if unsuccessful, review by the United States Supreme Court," Mr. Gilman said. "The Sixth Circuit's decision seems to have been impacted by timing factors: the intervening Kentucky appellate decision upon which defendants based their decertification motion was rendered three weeks before the parties informed the trial court that they had agreed to settle the case," Mr. Gilman said. "It remains for speculation whether the outcome would have differed had the Kentucky court issued its ruling three weeks after they had agreed to settle." FRATELLI MANAGEMENT: Faces "Ponce" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FRATELLI MANAGEMENT, LLC. The case is captioned as Paula Ponce, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FRATELLI MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; FINTETRA, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; P16, LLC, doing business as Piola Restaurants Famosi per la Pizza, a Florida limited liability company; GLOBAL ITALIAN FOOD, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Marco Galvan, individually; and Stefano Carniato, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60140-DPG (S.D. Fla., Jan. 19, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles. Fratelli Management is a management service located in Ridgewood, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Thompson, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FTS International Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00043 (E.D. Tex., January 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Defendant had failed to maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Moore & Associates Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 GEICO INDEMNITY: Starks Seeks to Certify EFTA and UCL Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GEOFFREY STARKS AND TEELA STARKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 2:15-cv-05771-MWF-PJW (C.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify two classes pursuant to Rules 23(B)(2) and (B)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning alleged violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the California Business and Professions Code. The Classes are defined as: (1) EFTA Class: All persons in the United States whose bank accounts, between July 30, 2014 and present, were debited on a reoccurring basis by Defendant, after their automobile insurance policy was subject to an unauthorized addition, or "Force Add" of a Resident Relative Age 15-19 to their policy, resulting in an increase to the person's policy premiums, and automatic withdrawals of these additional sums from their bank accounts, without Defendant obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for these additional electronic fund transfers. (2) UCL Class: All persons in the state of California whose bank accounts, between July 30, 2011 and present, were debited on a reoccurring basis by Defendant, after their automobile insurance policy was subject to an unauthorized addition, or "Force Add" of a Resident Relative Age 15-19 to their policy, resulting in an increase to the person's policy premiums, and automatic withdrawals of these additional sums from their bank accounts, without Defendant obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for these additional electronic fund transfers. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class Representatives, and to appoint their attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u2F5ZLez The Court will commence a hearing on March 27, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian M. Jazaeri, Esq. Esther K. Ro, Esq. Emily L. Calmeyer, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: bjazaeri@morganlewis.com ero@morganlewis.com emily.calmeyer@morganlewis.com GENERAL CABLE: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against General Cable Corporation and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-00092, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired General Cable securities between February 23, 2012 and February 10, 2016, both dates inclusive (the Class Period), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased General Cable securities during the Class Period, you have until March 6, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. General Cable is a global leader in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets. The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and installation on a turn-key basis for products such as high and extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Companys business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants 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 of 1997 (the FCPA); (iii) General Cables revenues were therefore in part the product of illegal conduct, and, as such, subject to disgorgement and unlikely to be sustainable; (iv) the foregoing conduct, when it became known, would subject the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny and financial penalties; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, the Companys statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 22, 2014, General Cable disclosed that the Company 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 General Cables operations in Portugal, Angola, Thailand, and India. General Cable advised investors that these issues may have implications under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. On this news, General Cable stock fell $0.93, or 4.68%, to close at $18.96 on September 22, 2014. On February 26, 2015, General Cable announced that in connection with a possible settlement of FCPA offenses, the Company expected to disgorge $24 million in profits from bribe-tainted sales in Angola. On February 10, 2016, post-market, General Cable reported that the Company had increased its disgorgement accrual for the potential FCPA settlement by $9 million to $33 million, after identifying certain other transactions that may raise concerns. On this news, General Cables share price fell $3.05, or 31.61%, to close at $6.60 on February 11, 2016. 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, in which the Company 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 stated that the Companys 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. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces "Schriver" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Schriver, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Golden Corral Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:14-cv-00136 (N.D. Ohio, January 18, 2017), seeks overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendant Golden Corral is a buffet-style restaurant chain. The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West Ninth Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44107 Tel: (216) 522-9000 Fax: (216) 522-9007 Email: drew@lgmlegal.com jack@lgmlegal.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. Christopher M. McNerney, Esq. Outten & Golden LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 245-1000 - and - Gregg I Shavitz, Esq. Shavitz Law Group, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway Boca Raton, FL 33432 Tel: (561) 447-8888 - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (800) 616-4000 GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces "Hinterleiter" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Hinterleiter and Shawn Click, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Golden Corral Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00014-BR (W.D. Pa., January 18, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Kentucky Wage Laws. Golden Corral Corp. is a buffet-style restaurant chain. Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twinning Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. Christopher M. McNerney, Esq. 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 245-1000 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447 8888 - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (800) 616 4000 INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson & Weaver Probing Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws by Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corp. (ITEK). A class action lawsuit against the Company has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased Inotek stock between July 23, 2015 and December 30, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Inotek misrepresented the efficacy of its drug candidate trabodenoson - the only drug Inotek currently has in its clinical development pipeline and its attendant capacity to receive New Drug Approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In particular, it is alleged that the Company made positive statements about the drug despite knowledge that the MATrX-1 phase 3 clinical trial of trabodenoson would fail to meet its primary endpoint of statistical relevance in the reduction of intraocular pressure compared with placebo. On January 3, 2017, Inotek announced that the Phase 3 trial of trabodenoson had failed to achieve this primary endpoint. Following this news, shares of Inotek fell from a closing price of $6.10 on December 30, 2016, to a $1.75 closing price per share on January 3, 2017. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 7, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights or interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- by email or by phone at 619-814-4471. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. JIMMY CHOO: Agreed to Pay $2.5MM to Settle Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Allison Grande at Law360 reports luxury shoe brand Jimmy Choo has agreed to fork over $2.5 million to settle a proposed class action accusing it of putting consumers at risk of identity theft by printing sensitive data on credit card receipts, according to documents filed in Florida federal court Friday. Plaintiff Kerri C. Wood detailed the terms of the pact in an unopposed motion asking the court for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement, which comes fewer than six months after the district court found that Wood had Article III standing to continue to press her claims under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The proposed settlement would require Jimmy Choo to establish a $2.5 million fund to compensate shoppers who received point-of- sale credit or debit card receipts from a Jimmy Choo store containing a card expiration date between Oct. 27, 2013, and Nov. 2, 2013. The members of the opt-in settlement class -- which the parties estimate includes 135,588 Jimmy Choo customers -- will receive a pro rata share of the fund, with the parties anticipating that individuals who submit timely claims will receive between $75 and $175. "The proposed settlement is a significant FACTA class action settlement," Wood wrote in her preliminary approval motion. "The total recovery compares favorably to recent common fund FACTA settlements." In a footnote, Wood in support of her contention pointed to several other recent FACTA settlements that handed plaintiffs awards ranging from a $15 credit on their next purchase of $125 or more at Retail Concepts Inc., and to a choice between $9.60 in cash or a coupon for $15 off of future purchases at ABP Corp. Jimmy Choo's ability to survive a judgment in favor of the settlement class is also a relevant consideration that should factor into the court's determination of whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, according to the plaintiff's motion. "Absent a settlement, the final resolution of this action through the trial process may require several more months or years of protracted adversary litigation and appeals, which may delay relief or entirely eliminate any obtainable relief to settlement class members," the plaintiff wrote. "The settlement imposes a significant financial burden on defendant for the benefit of settlement class members but does not annihilate defendant." Besides compensating proposed class members who submit a timely claim, the settlement fund will also be used to pay the costs of notice and settlement administration, any awards of attorneys' fees and costs awarded by the court, and any incentive awards to the plaintiffs approved by the court, according to the motion. The settlement proposes an attorneys' fee award of just over $833,000 and an incentive award of $5,000 to the plaintiff. Any unclaimed funds will be paid to the Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Coast to Coast Legal Aid of South Florida and the National Consumer Law Center as cy pres awards and will not revert to Jimmy Choo, the plaintiff added. Wood filed her complaint against Jimmy Choo in October 2015, alleging that the retailer had ran afoul of FACTA by printing credit and debit card expiration dates and other sensitive information such as home addresses, phone numbers and cashiers' names on its store receipts. The plaintiff claimed that the company had years to comply with the FACTA amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act but willfully or knowingly chose not to do so despite being hit with similar allegations in 2008. Jimmy Choo then moved to dismiss the suit for lack of standing, but U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom ruled in August that the suit had met the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court's May ruling in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, which held that a consumer must assert a concrete and particularized injury in order to satisfy Article III standing. "Spokeo recognized that 'Congress may "elevate to the status of legally cognizable injuries," concrete, de facto injuries that were previously inadequate in law,'" the judge wrote in her 12- page ruling at the time. "In some circumstances, therefore, 'the violation of a procedural right granted by statute can be sufficient . . . . to constitute injury in fact.' This is one such case." Shortly after that ruling, the court referred the case to mediation, where the parties reached the settlement disclosed Friday. Despite their "significant differences," the parties agreed to the resolution for several reasons, including the time and expense of resolving the "rigorously contested issue" of whether Jimmy Choo willfully violated FACTA, according to the plaintiff's motion. While Wood contended that the violation was intentional, Jimmy Choo countered that if there were any violation of the statute, it would have been negligent, not willful, because the retailer had previously complied with FACTA and had only allegedly fallen out of compliance after it implemented a new point-of-sale system. "Although plaintiff was confident that there was a substantial basis to prove willfulness, there was a substantial risk that at trial a jury could find that defendant's alleged violations were not willful," the plaintiff wrote in her preliminary approval motion. "The proposed settlement agreement is the most realistic and the best current outcome as could be expected in the particular circumstances of this action." Wood is represented by Steven R. Jaffe -- steve@pathtojustice.com -- Seth M. Lehrman -- seth@pathtojustice.com -- and Mark S. Fistos --mark@pathtojustice.com -- of Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman PL, Scott D. Owens of Scott D. Owens PA and Bret L. Lusskin Jr. of Bret Lusskin PA. Jimmy Choo is represented by Mark R. Cheskin -- mark.cheskin@hoganlovells.com -- Carol A. Licko -- carol.licko@hoganlovells.com -- and James L. VanLandingham -- james.vanlandingham@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells US LLP. The case is Kerri C. Wood v. J Choo USA Inc., case number 9:15-cv- 81487, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. JOHNSON & BELL: Files Motion to Dismiss Security Breach Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel A. Cotter, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that law firms are rich targets for cybersecurity breaches and attacks from hackers. In April 2016, Chicago-based law firm Edelson P.C. filed a putative class-action lawsuit against Johnson & Bell Ltd. alleging the firm implemented inadequate information security measures. In late November, reports emerged identifying a large number of law firm e-mails that were found on the dark web. Earlier this year, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP and Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP were announced to have been breached by Chinese hackers. This column addresses some of the considerations law firms should make and steps they should take to assess their vulnerabilities and address them. The complaint filed by Edelson alleges the existence of a "number of significant data security vulnerabilities" that would permit hackers to gain access to Johnson & Bell's clients' data, although it does not allege the existence of any actual data breach. In particular, Edelson alleges Johnson & Bell had vulnerabilities in its e-mail system, time-entry system and virtual private network. According to the Dec. 13 report in InsideCounsel, Edelson managing partner Jay Edelson claimed it was "the first class-action against a law firm alleging inadequate data security measures," but makes it clear that this suit will not be the last. Johnson & Bell filed a motion to dismiss in which it stated all of the alleged vulnerabilities identified in the complaint had been addressed. The motion further stated that the complaint should be dismissed because it failed to identify an actual judiciable controversy since it did "not allege that confidential information was ever compromised." The matter is now in arbitration. The dark web and law firm e-mails A Nov. 30 report from InsideCounsel analyzed the potential exposure that lawyers and other employees at law firms create every time they use their law firm e-mails to sign up for activities such as fantasy football leagues or services such as Dropbox. Those e-mails are used by hackers to attempt to penetrate the law firm's systems through phishing attacks and other methods. The article raises the question of whether law firms' policies on data security and privacy adequately address the risks of these behaviors. Protorion Systems used its software and searched the dark web for law firms' e-mail addresses and found that, as of Oct. 27 of last year for the top 10 law firms by number of compromises, more than 27,000 hits were found where a law firm e-mail and password were located on the dark web. The firm with the largest number of compromises, more than 5,000, was DLA Piper. These results do not reflect actual breaches and may be overstated because it includes data relating to individuals no longer employed at those firms, but it nonetheless demonstrates the vulnerabilities in the law firms' systems and their policies and procedures. Last March, the Wall Street Journal reported on a number of New York law firms, including Cravath and Weil Gotshal who had been hacked. It was later reported China was behind the attacks. One possible motive behind the breaches was to obtain insider information on pending deals that the law firms were handling. The March report stated: "Law firms are attractive targets because they hold trade secrets and other sensitive information about corporate clients, including details about undisclosed mergers and acquisitions that could be stolen for insider trading." In late December, the Justice Department announced the unsealing of an indictment against three individuals in Macau for trading on insider information gathered from the earlier breaches of the Wall Street law firms. As noted in previous columns, lawyers have obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct to take steps to guard against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure, with Rule 1.6(e) providing: "(e) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client." Comment 18 to the same rule now provides in pertinent part (the changes made to the comment in 2015 are underlined): "[186] Paragraph (e) requires a lawyer must to act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against unauthorized access by third parties and against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure by the lawyer or other persons who are participating in the representation of the client or who are subject to the lawyer's supervision. See Rules 1.1, 5.1 and 5.3. "The unauthorized access to, or the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, information relating to the representation of a client does not constitute a violation of [P]aragraph (e) if the lawyer has made reasonable efforts to prevent the access or disclosure. Factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer's efforts include, but are not limited to, the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer's ability to represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use). "A client may require the lawyer to implement special security measures not required by this [r]ule or may give informed consent to forgo security measures that would otherwise be required by this [r]ule. Whether a lawyer may be required to take additional steps to safeguard a client's information in order to comply with other law, such as state and federal laws that govern data privacy or that impose notification requirements upon the loss of, or unauthorized access to, electronic information, is beyond the scope of these [r]ules." What is reasonable will depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular lawyer or law firm, including the types of information collected and the cost of employing such additional safeguards. Nonetheless, every law firm should take affirmative steps to address its privacy and security policies and procedures. Some of these steps include: Reviewing IT infrastructure and systems How old is the firewall (and its virtual private network), e-mail exchange server and time entry systems you are using? Who within the firm and outside it has access to those systems? Have you updated those systems to include the latest versions and installed any vendor patches that have been delivered? What version of exchange server are you using? How are you monitoring those systems? Are you using a hosted or internal system monitoring procedure (such as Solarwinds)? Are you working with a third party to do security event and incident management for your firewall and other outward facing devices? Reviewing your firm's privacy and data security policies and procedures Do you have a formal password protocol? How often must lawyers and employees change system passwords? Have you considered multi-factor authentication? Do you do periodic internal and external penetration testing? Lawyers should understand the technologies they use and the risks presented by practices such as cloud computing, credit card acceptance and Payment Card Industry compliance, and "bring your own device" policies. A lawyer must also comply with other rules of professional conduct in connection with client sensitive or confidential information. For example, an attorney has an obligation to supervise third- party vendors providing technology services. In addition, a lawyer has an obligation to warn clients about the risk of using electronic communications where there is a significant risk that a third party may gain access. As technology changes, lawyers' obligations to protect client information continue to evolve. Lawyers must review their firm's policies, procedures and practices and stay abreast of evolving technology to ensure that they are making reasonable efforts in their information security practices. Illinois' and other states' rules of professional conduct impose affirmative duties on lawyers to do so. Daniel A. Cotter is a partner at Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP and an adjunct professor at The John Marshall Law School, where he teaches SCOTUS Judicial Biographies. JP MORGAN CHASE: Turner Alleges Violation of Consumer Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul Turner, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00474 (N.D. Ill., January 20, 2017), seeks damages for violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Complaint says that Defendant has improperly assessing customers' overdraft charges for insufficient funds on debt/check card purchases and ATM withdrawals through the re-sequencing of transactions in order to maximize the overdraft charges Chase could collect. JP Morgan Chase & Co. provides a range of banking and other financial services to the corporate, institutional, and governmental clients in the United States and internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq. Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C. 221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: 312-789-9700 - and - Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq. Glen J. Dunn & Associates, Ltd. 221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: 312-546-5056 KALVISTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson & Weaver Probing Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws by KalVista Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (KALV), formerly named Carbylan Therapeutics, Inc. On February 1, 2016, KalVista stock plunged nearly 50 percent after the company disclosed top-line results from a Phase 3 trial, COR1.1. Then, in April 2016, KalVista announced that it was suspending further clinical development of its pain relief product, Hydros-TA, and it is actively pursuing a merger or acquisition of the company. In concurrence, KalVista also announced an immediate reduction in its workforce of 14 of its current 17 employees to preserve capital. Specifically, Johnson & Weaver's investigation seeks to determine whether certain statements regarding the Company's business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as represented in the Company's offering documents filed in connection with its April 9, 2015 initial public offering. If you have information that could assist in this investigation, including past employees and others, or if you are a KalVista shareholder and are interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) by email or phone at 619- 814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number where you can be reached. KAUFMAN ENGLETT: Suit Over Bankruptcy Retainer Fees Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Wolf, writing for Bankruptcy Law360, reported that U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul G. Byron dismissed a putative class action accusing Florida-based Kaufman Englett & Lynd PLLC of violating federal law by causing a cash-strapped client to incur more debt while he explored filing for bankruptcy, saying the case can't survive without an alleged improper motive for the firm's billing. Judge Byron, who oversees Loyd P. Cadwell's suit in Florida federal court, said Mr. Cadwell's claims that KEL violated the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act by billing him $1,700 in retainer fees while he explored filing for bankruptcy could not survive the firm's motion to dismiss. As reported by the Class Action Reporter on July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled LOYD P. CADWELL, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. KAUFMAN, ENGLETT & LYND, PLLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-00662-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.), sought certification of these class of consumers: (a) The Class Member retained KEL using the "Bankruptcy Chapter 7 Retainer Agreement" or a substantially similar document with the intent of filing of a Chapter 7 case in the Middle District of Florida; (b) KEL collected Chapter 7 retainer fees from the prospective assisted person or assisted person through the charging of a credit/charge card which caused the prospective assisted person or assisted person to incur more debt prior to the potential filing of the Chapter 7; and (c) The Class would include any prospective assisted person or assisted person who signed a "Bankruptcy Chapter 7 Retainer Agreement" within four (4) years preceding the filing of the original Complaint in this proceeding through the date this Court issues an Order Approving Class Notice. According to the Law360 report, Mr. Cadwell had consulted with KEL on filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in early January 2016 and entered into a retainer agreement with the firm that contained a provision requiring $1,700 in attorneys' fees, due prior to the bankruptcy filing. As part of the payment schedule, KEL demanded an initial retainer of $250, a subsequent $250 payment 10 days later, then four monthly payments of $300 due in the months that followed, according to the complaint. Mr. Cadwell alleges that he made the payments to KEL using two credit cards, and that the firm violated the applicable U.S. Code provision by causing him to pay attorneys' fees by incurring more debt. In its motion to dismiss, KEL said Cadwell had failed to show the firm advised him to rack up debt to discharge it as part of a Chapter 7 petition, and that the firm did not violate the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan K. Mickler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICKLER & MICKLER, LLP 5452 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, FL 32211 Telephone: (904) 725-0822 Facsimile: (904) 725-0855 E-mail: bkmickler@planlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam C. Herman, Esq. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.A. Landmark Center One 315 E. Robinson Street, Suite 550 Orlando, FL 32801-2719 E-mail: acherman@mdwcg.com KENT COUNTY: Faces Potential Lawsuit Over Fire Hydrants ------------------------------------------------------- Kendra Lolio at The Coventry Courier reports that the West Warwick Town Council discussed several matters involving the Kent County Water Authority on January 17 evening, including a potential class-action lawsuit against the company by local municipalities and fire districts regarding ownership of fire hydrants as well as the 2017 rate increase from the KCWA. Councilman Angelo Padula sponsored the item on the evening's agenda indicating that he heard rumors of a possible class action suit and wanted to find out more information about how it would affect West Warwick. Town Solicitor Timothy Williamson said that he had spoken with Frank Palin, heading the Board of Directors for the Coventry Fire District, who indicated that a group of municipalities and fire districts were exploring the possibility of some type of class action matter against the KCWA for ownership of the hydrants. Williamson said he had reached out to KCWA attorney Patrick Sullivan, Esq. -- fett@adamsandsullivan.com -- with Adams and Sullivan who informed him that a similar issue was brought before the Superior Court in 2015 in a collection matter where it was determined that there was nothing memorializing ownership of the hydrants to any of the parties. Williamson said he would look over the previous case and determine whether there was anything to be gained for West Warwick. "I don't know if there is any money to be had or gained," said Williamson. "It could be a wild goose chase, but it's worth looking at." Sullivan said that he could not comment specifically on the matter until he is able to review the actual litigation which has yet to be filed. He also said that it is within the purview of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to regulate hydrant rentals and to set the charges for private and public hydrants. Town Manager Fred Presley said that the town currently pays over $400,000 a year to the KCWA for the hydrants. Councilman Padula took issue with the payment, particularly noting that the West Warwick Fire Department handles shoveling the hydrants out in snow storms and generally maintains them with the exception of re- painting. President David Gosselin Jr. said that the KCWA had recently come to the council requesting control of the hydrants but the council denied the request. "At least right now if they come to us we have some say in what they charge us because we can resist a little more," Gosselin said. "If they say we want $1 million for these fire hydrants they'll just put it on another bill and that's why we resisted the last time. It's one of those things where you're dammed if you do and damned if you don't because if we push it off they'll get the money from somewhere else." Coventry Town Solicitor Nick Gorham said on January 18 that he did not know anything about the plan. The PUC recently approved an 11 percent rate increase for the KCWA who was originally seeking just under a 17 percent increase as part of a method to collect additional revenues. The KCWA filed the rate change paperwork for the case with the PUC in April of 2016. The rate increase affects the 26,600 customers being serviced in the West Warwick, Warwick, Coventry, Cranston, Scituate, East Greenwich, West Greenwich, and North Kingstown areas as well as three fire districts in Coventry. The towns of Coventry and Warwick as well as the Central Coventry Fire District filed motions to intervene during public hearings with the PUC. The average water bill prior to the increase according to the KCWA was $519.80, with the 11 percent increase the bill would rise by about $37.81. LAND SOURCE: Waterford Estate Residents Mull Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Sumeyya Ilanbey, writing for Star Weekly, reports that when Rick bought land in the "exclusive" Waterford Estate six years ago, he was promised schools, parks, shopping centres and sports ovals would be built. Of all the promises, only a park has been built, Rick (not his real name) says. To make matters worse, developers Land Source Australia was declared bankrupt in November last year. Waterford Estate residents are now in limbo, unsure whether promises will be delivered -- they're now considering class action to have those promised amenities built. "When we bought this land here, we knew Melton South wasn't a poshy area," Rick says. "But the way it was represented to us at the time of the sale, it would become a prime residential area, reason being, there was meant to be a swimming pool, tennis courts, gymnasium, and so on. "But none of that has been delivered." Rick says he bought his block of land in 2011 for $175,000, but he would be lucky to sell it at a profit, taking into account consumer price index levels, depreciation and house prices. "Six months ago, I bought a block of land in Thornhill Park for $150,000. I recently asked again, and was told 'you're lucky to get anything under $200,000'. "So within six months, my Thornhill Park land has gone up $50,000. In six years, my Waterford house price hasn't gone up. People are selling their houses for $50,000 less than what the value should be." He says residents are frustrated, and many have taken to social media to vent their anger and concerns. The resident commented on Facebook that she built her house two years ago under the impression the estate was going to be "great". "Still waiting for schools, shopping centres, parklands, residents centres and much, much more to be built," the resident said. A community meeting has been organised for 2pm, Saturday, January 28, at Waterford Park, Melton South. Rick says Waterford Estate residents will have a chance to talk about their options, including the possibility of finding another developer willing to deliver those promised amenities. Star Weekly tried to contact Korda Mentha, an advisory and investment firm appointed as receiver by the courts to sell Land Source Australia's assets, several times. The company did not return repeated requests to call. LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fails to Pay Employee's OT Work, "Rego" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carol Rego, individually and on behalf all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Liberty Mutual Managed Care LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00066 (E.D. Wis., January 17, 2017), seeks payment of minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendant Liberty Mutual Managed Care LLC is in the insurance industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachhanna Srey, Esq. Alexander M. Baggio, Esq. Nichols Kaster, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 338-4878 Email: srey@nka.com abaggio@nka.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: Face US Life Suit Over Insurance Rate Hike ------------------------------------------------------------ US Life 1 Renditefonds GMBH & Co. KG, et al, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00307-MAK (E.D. Pa., January 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for unlawful cost of insurance (COI) increases. Lincoln National provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The Company serves customers in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas E. Roberts, Esq. Gaetan J. Alfano, Esq. Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP 1818 Market Street, Suite 3402 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-998-1441 Fax: 215-754-5181 Email: gja@pietraallo.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Tel: 310-789-3100 Fax: 310-789-3150 Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com - and - Seth Ard, Esq. Lucas Issacharoff, Esq. Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: 212-336-8330 Fax: 212-336-8340 Email: sard@susmangodfrey.com lissacharoff@susmangodfrey.com LOUISVILLE SLUGGER: Faces Class Action Over Baseball Bats --------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Louisville Slugger and Wilson Sporting Goods are defendants in a federal class action complaint over the quality of $400 baseball bats. George Alea, of Miami, filed his complaint Jan. 23 in Chicago, alleging an inherent flaw in Lousiville Slugger's Prime BBCOR bats that causes the handle to rotate independent of the barrel. He said the companies are aware of the design flaw, but rather than honor warranty terms and issue replacements, opted instead to pursue "the unorthodox approach of creating a post-hoc marketing regime focusing on (and, indeed, promoting) the defect, as if it were deliberate." Mr. Alea said he bought a 2016 Louisville Slugger Prime 916 BBP9163 BBCOR on Feb. 17 for $425, for his son, Rod, to use during high school games. They noticed the flaw soon after, and in the complaint stated, "There is no benefit or increased performance as a result of this movement. Rather, the independent rotation of the handle and the barrel decrease the power and detract from the performance of the bats." As part of his complaint, Mr. Alea cited promotional material Louisville Slugger used from June 2015 through April 2016, noting no mention of the independent barrel rotation. He also cited more than two dozen online customer reviews containing complaints about how quickly the bats break, as well as concerns about corporate return and replacement policies. "The bats . . . are not fit for the ordinary purpose of hitting baseballs and do not conform to the promises and affirmations made on their labels and packaging," the complaint alleged. Mr. Alea said new marketing material appeared by May 3, 2016, touting a "Dynamic Socket Connection" that "allows for slight movement between the . . . barrel and handle to further maximize barrel trampoline effect and eliminate negative vibration." However, he alleged there had been "no changes to the design or manufacturing process" from what was originally advertised. That change in marketing language, he argued, is evidence the manufacturer "hatched a scheme to deny warranty claims and act as if the defect was instead a noteworthy feature of the bats." The complaint includes one count of violating consumer protection statutes in Florida, California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and New York, and the class would include anyone who bought a bat after April 1, 2015, while living in those states. Class membership would be open nationwide for the alleged violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Mr. Alea argued Lousiville Slugger's "marketing and advertising constitute express warranties," and failure to deliver a bat meeting those claims qualifies as a break of those warranties. He further detailed the company's failure to replace the bats, and also included a count of unjust enrichment. In addition to class certification and a jury trial, Mr. Alea seeks damages and restitution, as well as a court order forcing Louisville Slugger to remove misleading claims on its products. Wilson, based in Chicago, bought Louisville Slugger from Hillerich & Bradsby in March 2015 for $70 million. As part of that transaction, Hillerich & Bradsby retained rights to wooden bats and the Louisville Slugger museum. Representing Mr. Alea in the matter, and seeking to serve as class counsel, are attorneys from the St. Louis and Washington, D.C., offices of Cueno Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, as well as the firm of Baron & Herkowitz, of Miami. MALLINCKRODT PLC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Jan. 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Mallinckrodt plc ("Mallinckrodt" or the "Company") (MNK) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Mallinckrodt between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017 (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Acthar's monopoly status as the only FDA-approved ACTH preparation was the product of unlawful anticompetitive practices and failed to disclose that its increasing reliance on Medicare and Medicaid meant that the Company's monopolistic Acthar revenue would be threatened if the government took action to limit the price paid for this drug by taxpayers. The truth about the Company's dependence on Medicare and Medicaid for Acthar revenue began to surface on November 9, 2015, when Citron Research ("Citron") issued a statement on Twitter comparing Mallinckrodt to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. In the wake of the Citron comment, Mallinckrodt's stock price fell 17% from a close of $69.89 per share on November 6, 2015, to close at $58.01 per share on November 9, 2015. On November 16, 2016, Citron published a report (the "Citron Report") accusing the Company of securities fraud in connection with the Company's statements downplaying its reliance on Medicare and Medicaid for Acthar revenue. Among other things, the Citron Report reported that payments from Medicare and Medicaid comprised a substantially larger percentage of Acthar sales than the Company previously represented. In the wake of the Citron Report, Mallinckrodt's stock price fell 18.4% from a close of $67.80 per share on November 15, 2016, to close at $55.32 per share on November 17, 2016. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 27, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. MICHAELS STORES: Newark Judge Dismisses FCRA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a federal judge in Newark has dismissed a proposed class action in multidistrict litigation against Michaels Stores Inc. for failure to plead subject matter jurisdiction under the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Spokeo v. Robins. The plaintiffs are job applicants who say Michaels violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act because the company's disclosure of its intent to conduct background checks on them was insufficient. But U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty said the plaintiffs, who were all hired by Michaels, lacked standing because they did not make the required showing that they suffered an injury-in-fact. But because the complaints in the consolidated suit in In Re: Michaels Stores Inc. Fair Credit Reporting Act Litigation was filed before the decision in Spokeo, McNulty dismissed the case without prejudice and gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file a new complaint. The injury-in-fact component of standing was at issue in Spokeo, as it is in the present case, Judge McNulty said. In Spokeo, Thomas Robins claimed an online "people search engine" violated the FCRA when it inaccurately reported his personal information. The Ninth Circuit found that Robins had adequately alleged an injury-in-fact, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding the plaintiff suffered no concrete harm in a "bare procedural violation." In the Michaels case, the plaintiffs claim the company violated the requirement that disclosure of an employer's intent to obtain a background check be disclosed conspicuously, in a stand-alone document. The disclosure was made in the middle of the Michaels' application, not in a stand-alone document, and it contains extraneous language. Judge McNulty found, in light of Spokeo, that bare procedural violations of the FCRA, such as the one alleged here, do not constitute an injury-in-fact. "Plaintiffs allege a violation of what I have called the purely formal requirements of FCRA. They do not factually allege any harm aside from the statutory violation itself. A decision in Spokeo that a bare violation of a federal statute fails to confer standing would therefore dispose of the pending motions, because this court would lack jurisdiction to continue," Judge McNulty said. The case was stayed pending outcome of the Supreme Court ruling in Spokeo, which was decided on May 16, 2016. On the following day, Judge McNulty ordered the parties to resubmit their papers in light of the ruling. Plaintiffs claimed they suffered two types of concrete harm -- informational injury and invasion of privacy - - in what Judge McNulty described as "an attempt to salvage standing post-Spokeo," but the judge said he disagreed with the reasoning of the cases that were cited to support that position. Courts have recognized information injuries in cases where plaintiffs did not receive the information at issue, but in the present case, the plaintiffs concede that they received the disclosure but merely object to the form, according to Judge McNulty. The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' invasion of privacy count, which he said amounts to a contention that a violation of the stand-alone requirement "automatically implies that the credit report is unauthorized." Such a notion would "raise every technical violation of [the FCRA] to the realm of a major substantive harm. This is a leap too far, and is directly contradicted by Spokeo, which made clear some subset of violations are too small to implicate," Judge McNulty said. The first complaint in the MDL was filed in the District of New Jersey in December 2014. A similar complaint was filed in the Northern District of Texas in January 2015. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated those cases in New Jersey in April 2015. Another case was filed in the Superior Court of California in June 2015, then removed by Michaels to the Northern District of California before being consolidated with the MDL. The three cases were dismissed without prejudice. The California case was remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma. Patricia Barasch of Schall & Barasch in Moorestown, representing the plaintiffs, did not return a call. Robert Szyba of Seyfarth Shaw in New York, representing Michaels, declined to comment. MIDLAND FUNDING: Dunbar Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Amy Dunbar, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kohn Law Firm S.C., Midland Funding, LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00088-PP (E.D. Wis., January 19, 2017), seeks compensation from unlawful debt collection practices committed by Defendants in violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' misrepresentation of a debtor's rights or liabilities under the Internal Revenue Code in connection with the collection of a debt in an FDCPA violation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-1824 Tel: (312) 739-4200 Fax: (312) 419-0379 Email: courtecl@edcombs.com - and - Heather B. Jones, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. Stern Thomasson LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1329 Tel: (973) 379-7500 Fax: (973) 532-5868 Email: heather@sternthomasson.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Fuchs" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1. The case is captioned as Christopher R Fuchs, a/k/a Christophe Fuchs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1; The National Collegiate Funding, LLC; Transworld Systems Inc.; EGS Financial Care, Inc. f/k/a NCO Financial Systems, Inc.; Turnstile Capital Management, LLC; Forster & Garbus, LLP; Mark A. Garbus; Ronald Forster; and John Doe 1-10, Being The Servicer(S) Of The Loans, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00304 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2017). The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Aaron R Easley, Esq. SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC 3 Cross Creek Drive Flemington, NJ 08822 Telephone: (908) 237 1660 Facsimile: (908) 237 1663 E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal NATIONAL DEBT: Fuggetta Seeks Payment of Wages and OT Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Frank Fuggetta, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. National Debt Relief LLC, Daniel Tilipman and Alex Kleyner, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00378 (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for nonpayment of minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyson C. Bruns, Esq. Law Office of Andrea Paparella, P.L.L.C. 150 W. 28th Street, Suite 1603 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 675-2523 Email: alysonbruns@gmail.com NCAA: Faces Lawsuit for Sacrificing Player Safety ------------------------------------------------- Max B. Baker and Jeff Caplan at Start Telegram report five former football players including one from TCU are accusing the NCAA and the Big 12 conference of not protecting and informing thousands of football players about the debilitating health risks stemming from concussions and head injuries they suffered while playing the sport. In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Indiana this month, the players, including Jarrod Blake Roberts, who played linebacker and defensive end at TCU from 2010 to 2014, say they suffer from symptoms indicative of long-term brain and neurocognitive injuries. Painting college football as a billion-dollar enterprise that continues to grow in popularity and riches, the lawsuit accuses the NCAA and Big 12 of sacrificing player safety -- and the long- term health and well-being of the individual players -- in favor of profits and self-promotion. "I think the incentives are misplaced for the NCAA and some of the conferences to put big hits, big-money games over player safety," said Vincent Circelli, a Fort Worth attorney who filed the lawsuit, the latest in a rash of litigation attacking concussion dangers faced by football players from Pop Warner to the NFL. "These kids relied on the NCAA to supervise, to make rules to protect these players." The NCAA, which has settled one lawsuit involving concussions and players for $75 million that allows for medical monitoring, said the suit filed by Circelli, Walter & Young offers "nothing new or unique" from similar cases pending in an Illinois federal court. "The theories in this case, like the others, simply are not supported by the law," Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer, said in a prepared statement. A Big 12 spokesman said the conference had no comment about the lawsuit. The other players named in the suit are two University of Oklahoma players, tackle Cory Brandon, who played from 2006 to 2011; and offensive lineman Kelvin Chaisson, who was on the roster from 2001 too 2005; Derrick Cherry, a tailback at Texas Tech University from 1994 to 1996; and Joseph Walker, who played cornerback and safety at the University of Texas from 1997 to 2000. The attorneys are seeking class action status. "We love football. We want football to stick around. We're not advocating the end of football," Circelli said. "All we are advocating for is taking care of the players who are now suffering the results of some bad acts by the NCAA and others. "We want to help make it safer. We want to help former athletes be taken care of if they've got these traumatic brain injuries." Circelli's law firm is expected to file another class action lawsuit in California against the Riddell helmet company. Circelli's firm is teaming up with the Edelson law firm out of Chicago, which is representing other athletes suing over concussion-related injuries. NCAA Making Changes The suit against the NCAA seeks compensation for injuries suffered and for ongoing medical care. It accuses the NCAA and the Big 12 of repeatedly failing to warn and educate players about the long- term risks associated with repeated concussive and subconcussive hits despite the availability of mounting evidence from multiple studies that were published, particularly in the last two decades. It also alleges that the NCAA, until recently, failed to implement rules of play that would limit head injuries and also failed to cover the cost of postcollegiate medical care. Players who suffered concussions while playing an NCAA sport, the lawsuit alleges, "are then left to cope with the necessary costs and care resulting from their injuries." While the players were being injured, both the NCAA and the Big 12 were raking in big money. The Big 12 has collected and distributed over $2.6 billion in revenues since it was formed in 1994, and the NCAA brings in $1 billion a year, the lawsuit alleges. Within the past few years, the NCAA and the Big 12 have been openly addressing the dangers related to concussions. On January 17, the NCAA, out of concern over concussions, announced updated football practice guidelines that recommend only one live contact tackling practice a week, one live contact "thud" practice (in which a player is hit but not brought to the ground) and three or more noncontact or minimal practices per week. Two years ago, the NCAA also joined forces with the Defense Department to fund a $30 million clinical study of concussion and head impact exposure. As of December 2016, about 28,000 athletes and 1,600 military academy cadets had been enrolled in the study, which will perform baseline assessments on individuals who have suffered a concussion. Firm Has About 150 Clients In 2015, the Big 12 announced a policy for concussion diagnosis and management for all student-athletes. The protocol states that schools should have a doctor-led team to handle concussion incidents, report them to the league, and develop an educational program. It also says a student-athlete exhibiting symptoms consistent with suffering a concussion should be removed from practice and competition until cleared medically. After collecting data from the medical staffs of all 10 Big 12 schools in the 2013-15 football seasons, the conference enacted a policy limiting contact to two live opportunities per week, including games, according to an email from John Bianco, an athletics department spokesman for the University of Texas at Austin. Circelli said his firm has acquired roughly 150 clients -- about 100 former college players and the remainder former high school players -- through ads that have aired on local TV and radio stations. Circelli said about 250 former players have filled out a survey that can be accessed on his law firm's website. The survey is designed to determine the symptoms of former players and their eligibility to join the class action. Circelli said only former players who are manifesting symptoms are included in the lawsuit. "The NCAA promised this is what you get for your sweat and hard work: You get an education and you get to come to one of these great schools," Circelli said. "The sad thing is that these football concussion injuries rob some of these athletes of that very thing. "You are going to get this education, but for certain athletes, they're not able to finish school, or they are not able to keep a job. That kind of trade-off is particularly sad." NELNET INC: Faces "Metallo" TCPA Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------- Michelle Metallo, for herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Nelnet, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-06038 (W.D. NY, January 17, 2017), seeks damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant used, controlled and/or operated an "automatic telephone dialing system". The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Douglas, Esq. Gesund & Pailet, LLC 2510 Chili Ave. Rochester, NY 14624 Tel: (585) 703-9783 Fax: (504) 265-9492 Email: alex@gp-nola.com NIGERIA: Retired Military Officers Sue Over Debarment Allowance --------------------------------------------------------------- Mustapha Suleiman, writing for Daily Trust, reports that retired military officers on Jan. 17 dragged the Army, Navy and Air Force to court over non-payment of debarment allowance instituted in 2012. The retirees instituted a class action against the forces at the National Industrial Court Abuja, claiming they were yet to access the funds since 2012. The debarment allowance is a lump sum to be paid to all retirees, made up of 10 per cent of their total emolument per annum, multiplied by the number of years served. The essence of the allowance is to equip the retired officers for other endeavours to foreclose them from taking on their wealth of military training on the society. Joined as co-defendants in the suit are the Chief of Defence Staff; Director, Military Pension Board; Attorney-General; and Accountant-General of the Federation. The retirees, among other reliefs sought, want the Harmonised Armed Forces Terms of Conditions of Service and Financial Regulation of the Armed Forces effected as instituted by law. They claimed that effecting these two programmes was ample to the payment of debarment allowance to all retirees of the armed forces, dead or alive; irrespective of rank. However the defendants and their counsels were conspicuously absent in court but letters from the Chief of Defence Staff and Director, Military Pension Board explaining their absence were admitted in court. NOVOCURE LIMITED: Johnson & Weaver Probing Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws by NovoCure Limited (NVCR). On July 28, 2016, NovoCure made known that its new Optune prescriptions fell to 657 in 2Q from 755 in 1Q. Asaf Danziger, Chief Executive Officer of NovoCure stated that "[w]hile barriers to full adoption remain, I am optimistic we will overcome the challenges inherent in bringing a completely new therapy into widespread clinical use." On this news, NovoCure's stock fell nearly 30% on July 28, 2016. Specifically, Johnson & Weaver's investigation seeks to determine whether certain statements regarding the Company's business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as represented in the Company's offering documents filed in connection with its October 2, 2015 initial public offering. If you are a NovoCure shareholder and are interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. O.C. COMMUNICATIONS: Soto Alleges Calif. Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Desidero Soto and Steven Stricklen, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. O.C. Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00251-KAW (N.D. Cal., January 18, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay all hours worked and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest period meal and rest period in violation of Fair Labor Standard Act and California Labor Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole N. Coon, Esq. Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Tel: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com ncoon@schneiderwallace.com ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Paddock Alleges Securities Laws Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Paddock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Onemain Holdings, Inc., Jay N. Levine, Scott T. Parker, Fortress Investment Group LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00007-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for damages on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased the common stock of OneMain ("Class") between March 3, 2015 and November 7, 2016 (the "Class Period") for violation of the Federal Securities Law. The Complaint claims that the Defendants issue materially misleading financial statements and/or omit material information. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Schultz, Esq. Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP 251 N. Illinois Street, Suite 1800 Indianapolis, IN 46204-1904 Tel: (317) 269-2500 Fax: (317) 269-2514 Email mschultz@parrlaw.com - and - Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Edward W. Miller, Esq. Lifshitz & Miller 821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 493-9780 Fax: (516) 280-7376 PENSKE LOGISTICS: Settles Truckers' Wage-and-Hour Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Chiem, Cara Salvatore and Bryan Koenig, writing for Law360, report that a long-running California wage-and-hour class action alleging Penske Logistics LLC failed to provide truck drivers with meal breaks will be settled for $750,000, a deal that will cancel a scheduled February trial and distribute $332,500 to drivers after attorneys' fees and other costs are deducted, according to a court filing on Jan. 23. The plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, which seeks to end nearly nine years of litigation. The lawsuit alleged the company didn't offer required breaks and then deducted pay for rest periods that were never taken by delivery drivers and Whirlpool appliances installers who worked long shifts in the field. The case was slated to go to trial Feb. 6. The request comes nearly six months after the drivers' case was slashed when Judge Bencivengo decertified three out of five subclasses that Penske took issue with, ruling in July 2016 that there wasn't proof that Penske had a blanket policy of denying workers their rest breaks. "While plaintiffs believe in the merits of their case, they also recognize the inherent risks and uncertainty of litigation and understand the benefit of providing a significant settlement sum now as opposed to risking decertification of their remaining certified claims; and/or an unfavorable result on the merits and/or on an appeal, a process that can take several more years to litigate," they said in their motion. "Plaintiffs' claims involve complex and disputed legal issues and fact-specific arguments which the parties have litigated fiercely since inception of the action," they added. "Plaintiffs firmly believe in the strength of their claims, but Penske also has strong defenses to class liability and damage determinations, some of which may have had a bearing on potential decertification hearings." The remaining drivers in the class action asked the judge on Jan. 24 to sign off on a non-reversionary $750,000 settlement to resolve their claims for meal periods under the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law and derivative claims for wage statement and waiting time penalties, according to the motion. But that $750,000 will be trimmed after deducting $225,000, or 30 percent, in requested attorneys' fees, $135,000 in costs, $15,000 each in incentive awards for the three class representatives and approximately $12,500 in settlement administration costs, the motion says. That would leave $332,500 to be distributed to the 344 class members based proportionately on the number of weeks worked during the class period -- coming out to an average payment of $965.11 per class member, the plaintiffs said in the motion. Penske said in a statement to Law360 on Jan. 24 that the company was pleased to have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs' counsel to settle the dispute. "We did not admit any wrongdoing and believe that Penske would have prevailed on the merits of the claims, but we look forward to the court approving the settlement and putting an end to this protracted litigation," Penske said. Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Jan. 24. Judge Bencivengo said last July that many of the issues surrounding whether employees actually took a timely first meal break and whether Penske managers actually discouraged their workers from taking breaks were not subject to classwide resolution. The judge said many of the alleged violations were on an individualized basis and there was no evidence of a uniform company policy barring workers from taking meal breaks afforded them by law. "That some supervisors at some locations on some shifts may not have complied with the law regarding provision of meal breaks does not constitute a uniform policy for all class members," the judge said in the ruling. "That defendants did not schedule the employees' meal breaks into their delivery schedules does not establish that defendants did not provide the opportunity to take a timely meal break. Leaving the decision of when to break to the employee in the field is not the same as prohibiting or discouraging timely meal breaks." The plaintiffs haven't demonstrated that Penske had uniform policies and practices that denied employees a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute duty-free meal break at the end of five hours of work, or that Penske on a classwide basis impeded or discouraged them from doing so, Judge Bencivengo concluded. However, the judge kept in place the certification for two subclasses of workers who claimed they were denied a second meal break as required by law, saying there was enough evidence to support a uniform company policy not to provide that second break at the end of the 10th hour of work. Penske didn't offer any evidence showing that it obtained waivers for second meal breaks. "Plaintiffs contend there was no provision on the driver's log to record a second meal period and the records do not reflect any drivers working in excess of 10 hours claiming a second meal break," the judge said. "This evidence corroborates that defendants had a uniform policy not to provide a second 30-minute duty-free meal break, as required by California law, at least from the start of the class period, January 2004, until the first quarter of 2006." That decertification order came a couple of months after Judge Bencivengo denied the truck drivers' partial motion for summary judgment on their claim that Penske did not have a meal break policy that was compliant with California law and was liable for untimely meal breaks for delivery drivers and Whirlpool appliances installers who worked long shifts. The drivers didn't prove that Penske had or uniformly enforced a break policy that violated California law, so they were not entitled to a quick summary judgment win on that claim, the judge said. There still was a question of fact as to whether Penske violated the labor laws with its meal break practices, the judge said then, so that was to be fleshed out further in litigation. The case was initially headed toward a trial that the plaintiffs were hoping to split into two parts, one for liability and one for damages. The wage-and-hour battle involving a 350-strong class of workers led by named plaintiffs Ray Rios, Donny Dushaj and Mickey Lee Dilts has been winding through the courts since 2008. Penske and the trucking industry as a whole were dealt a particularly damaging blow by the Ninth Circuit in 2014 when it held that federal law, specifically the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, does not preempt California's meal and rest break requirements for truck drivers because the requirements don't have a significant enough effect on prices or services offered by the motor carrier industry. That precedential appellate decision revived the drivers' claims after they had been previously dismissed in 2011 by a California federal judge on preemption grounds. Penske petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2015 to review the case, arguing that the Ninth Circuit's refusal to find that federal preemption barred California's meal and rest break mandates for truckers ignored high court precedent by rendering a "rogue" ruling that was "out of whack" with other circuits. But the high court denied Penske's petition in May 2015, leaving the Ninth Circuit's holding intact. The plaintiffs are represented by James Jason Hill -- jhill@ckslaw.com -- and Michael Singer of Cohelan Khoury & Singer. Penske Logistics LLC and Penske Truck Leasing Co. LP are represented by Robert Browning, Adam Smedstad -- asmedstad@scopelitis.com -- James Hanson -- jhanson@scopelitis.com -- Christopher McNatt Jr. -- cmcnatt@scopelitis.com -- and R. Jay Taylor Jr. -- jtaylor@scopelitis.com -- of Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC. The case is Dilts et al. v. Penske Logistics LLC. et al., case number 3:08-cv-00318, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. PPI INC: Faces "Slack" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Paul Slack, Plaintiff v. PPI, Inc., a Florida Corporation d/b/a Isle Casino Racing Pompano Park, Fictitiously a/k/a The Isle Casino and Racing at Pompano Park, Fictitiously, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60143-WJZ (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2017), seeks wages compensation for all hours pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants had failed to comply with the tip-credit requirements. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq. Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Tel: (954) 463-2001 Fax: (954) 463-0410 PRESIDIO BRANDS: Shank Sues over All-Natural Label in Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Garret Shank, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Presidio Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00232 (N.D. Cal., January 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for violation of Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff's claim that Defendant's representation that its EMJ Products contain only natural and naturally derived ingredients are false, misleading and deceptive because the EMJ Products contain multiple ingredients that are synthetic and artificial. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Cirsch, Esq. Robert K. Friedl, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 556-4811 Fax: (310) 943-0396 Email: Lee.Cirsch@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com QUALCOMM INC: Stromberg Sues Over Modem Chipset Prices ------------------------------------------------------ Karen Stromberg and Samuel Roecker, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv- 00304 (N.D. Cal., January 20, 2017), seeks damages for Violations of Federal and State Antitrust Laws, Unfair Competition Laws and Unjust Enrichment. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant has a monopoly on modem chipset technology that resulted in inflated retail prices for cell phones and Tablets. Defendant Qualcomm develops, designs, licenses and markets worldwide its digital communications products and services, primarily through its two main business segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT) and Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL). The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Lewis, Esq. Keller Rohrback L.L.P. 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 463-3900 Fax: (510) 463-3901 Email: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com * * * Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that Qualcomm Inc. was hit with a proposed class action in California federal court on Jan. 23 alleging the company and its top officials misled investors and inflated share prices in the wake of Federal Trade Commission and Apple lawsuits alleging the company engaged in anti-competitive behavior with cellphone makers over its baseband processors. The FTC said Qualcomm used its dominance over the sale of semiconductor chips used in cellular handsets -- so-called baseband processors -- to wrangle higher royalties and anti- competitive licensing terms from cellphone makers. RENT-A-CENTER: Johnson & Weaver Investigates Potential Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP, is investigating potential claims against Rent-A-Center, Inc., KalVista Pharmaceuticals, Inc., NovoCure Limited, and Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corp., as detailed below: Rent-A-Center, Inc. Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating potential violations of federal and state laws by Rent-A-Center, Inc. (RCII). A class action lawsuit against the Company has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased Rent-A-Center stock between July 27, 2015, through October 10, 2016, (the "Class Period"). According to the complaint, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Rent-A-Center could not properly implement its new point of sale system ("POS"); (2) the POS was performing extremely poorly, including several complete outages; (3) as a result, Rent-A-Center's Acceptance Now credit system could not be implemented properly; (4) Rent-A-Center could not meet revenue and profitability guidance provided to investors; (5) as such, Rent-A-Center would need to revise its prior guidance; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about Rent-A-Center's business, operations and prospects, were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. If you have held Rent-A-Center shares continuously prior to July 27, 2015, you may have standing to hold Rent-A-Center harmless from the damage the officers and directors caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are a Rent-A-Center shareholder and are interested in learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker --jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. REWALK ROBOTICS: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lifshitz & Miller, a securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on Jan. 24 disclosed that on January 24, 2017, Lifshitz & Miller filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of ReWalk Robotics Ltd. (RWLK) ("ReWalk" or the "Company") in connection with ReWalk's initial public offering conducted on or about September 12, 2014 (the "IPO"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933. A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Lifshitz & Miller. If you are a ReWalk investor, and would like additional information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. 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. The Complaint alleges that defendants caused ReWalk to issue its Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the IPO that contained materially misleading statements and/or omitted material information in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose that ReWalk was unprepared and/or unable to comply with applicable "special controls" requirements or to provide the FDA with a postmarket surveillance study as required by the FDA for the Company to maintain ongoing sales of its products. The Complaint also names as defendants certain of the Company's officers and directors, the underwriters of the IPO and certain venture capital firms with significant holdings in the Company for violations of Sections 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Investors have 60 days from January 24, 2017, to file a motion, with the court, for appointment as a lead plaintiff in this lawsuit. Lifshitz & Miller has extensive experience representing investors in the prosecution of securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation in state and federal courts across the country. RITE OF PASSAGE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Jo Thomas, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Rite of Passage, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00251-KAW (N.D. Cal., January 18, 2017), seeks payment of overtime wage. The Defendant Rite of Passage has intentionally failed to properly classify and pay Group Leaders any overtime wages in direct violation of the FLSA, the Complaint says. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua W. Carden, Esq. JOSHUA CARDEN LAW FIRM, P.C. 16427 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 410 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Tel: (480) 454-1100 Fax: (480) 454-1101 Email: Joshua@cardenlawfirm.com SA FAMILY HELP: "Elizondo" Suit To Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Lupe Elizondo, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SA Family Help and Hope LLC, and Shawn Sullivan, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00113, (W.D. Tex., January 9, 2017), seeks overtime compensation for all unpaid hours worked in excess of forty hours in any workweek, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees, costs and expenses of this action, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act. SA Family Help is a home care agency with Sullivan as founder and owner. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a caregiver, providing caretaking services for Defendants' elderly and infirm clients. Elizondo regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week but was not paid at an overtime rate for any of the hours. 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 SAMSUNG: Warranty Book Won't Avert Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Menahem Zen, writing for Lawyer Herald, reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the warranty booklet in the box of Samsung smartphone will not be used to stop the class action lawsuit. The court decided that two class action lawsuits from the Samsung customer to proceed. The Court of Appeals has rejected Samsung request to settle lawsuits in the private arbitration. Instead, the court decided that the two lawsuits may proceed as reported by San Fransisco Examiner. The lawsuits were filed separately by two customer of the Korean electronic giant Daniel Norcia from San Fransisco and Hoai Dang from San Jose. Mr. Norcia sued Samsung for false advertising in the Galaxy S4 which he bought. The false advertising covered speed, performance, and memory capacity of the Galaxy S4. Such false advertising is obtained by altering the benchmark test. Samsung is accused to rig the testing which resulting the benchmark result to be higher that it actually was. While Dang filed the lawsuits against the company over the value of its Galaxy S3 which dramatically dropped after Samsung was sued by Apple for copyright infringement. Samsung argued that its customers are bound by forced arbitration clause included in the warranty booklet upon purchasing the company's products according to report from Engadget. However the panel of three judges disagreed with the company. Timothy J. Seppala at Engadget reports the appeals board basically pointed and laughed at the Korean tech juggernaut saying that customers don't need to opt-in to a warranty because they aren't the ones selling the device. For every possible defense Samsung had, the court hit back with a counter-argument. The judges led by Chief Judge Sydney Thomas and Circuit Judge Carlos Bea and Sandra Ikuta decided unanimously to allow class action lawsuit against Samsung to proceed. The court ruled said that written warranty argument is contractual, but it does not bind obligations to buyers. "Language in a written warranty agreement is 'contractual' in the sense that it creates binding, legal obligations on the seller, but a warranty does not impose binding obligations on the buyer," the court ruling stated. Prior to the ruling, the court heard the two cases in back-to-back oral arguments in October last year. SAMSUNG: Irregularly-Sized Batteries Cause of Note 7 Overheating --------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Lam, writing for The Straits Times, reports that Samsung Electronics on Jan. 23 said irregularly-sized batteries in its premium Galaxy Note7 phones caused the devices to catch fire. This came more than three months after the leading smartphone maker lost about US$5.3 billion (S$7.53 billion) from the recall of the phones. Reports of the phones exploding in countries including South Korea, China and the United States had marred the electronics giant's image as it struggled to retain customers. Here is a look at what happened. AUG 2, 2016 The Note7 is unveiled in the United States to rave reviews, with a host of features including iris-scanning technology, a 64-bit octa-core (2.3GHz quad-core and 1.6GHz quad-core) processor and 4GB of system memory. AUG 20, 2016 Samsung launches the S$1,168 Note7 in Singapore. SEPT 1, 2016 Samsung said shipments of Note7 smartphones are being delayed as the firm conducts additional quality control tests for the device. South Korean media reports had quoted users saying that the batteries exploded. SEPT 2, 2016 Samsung announces a global recall of the Note7 and said it will replace the 2.5 million units of the 5.7-inch handsets sold so far. All three Singapore telcos -- M1, Singtel and StarHub -- suspended sales of the Note7 following the announcement. SEPT 9, 2016 Singapore Airlines banned the use of Note7 phones during flights, after the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said a day earlier that airline passengers should not turn on or charge their Note7 smartphones during flights or stow them in checked baggage, due to concerns over the phone's fire-prone batteries. SEPT 12, 2016 Samsung shares plunged after it urged global customers to stop using its Note7 smartphone following a spate of exploding batteries. Shares in the firm -- South Korea's largest by value -- dived 7.3 per cent on the Seoul stock market by early afternoon to 1.46 million won (S$1,800). SEPT 16, 2016 A man from Florida sued Samsung, saying his Note7 exploded in his front pants pocket, giving him second-degree burns. By then, US safety regulators said Samsung had received 92 reports of batteries overheating in the US, including 26 reports of burns and 55 reports of property damage. SEPT 29, 2016 Samsung said it would resume sales of new Galaxy Note7 smartphones in South Korea. OCT 11, 2016 Samsung reportedly stops production of its Note7 smartphones. OCT 15, 2016 Japan's Transport Ministry announced that it was barring all Note7 smartphones from airplanes. By then, Korean Air had banned the phones on flights to and from the US, Canada and Hong Kong. Australian and New Zealand airlines had also banned the device on all planes, while almost all mainland Chinese airlines had followed suit, along with a handful of carriers from other countries including Malaysia and the Philippines. OCT 20, 2016 Owners of the discontinued Note7 smartphones in South Korea and the United States on Oct 20 were reportedly preparing to file a class-action suit against Samsung, according to the Seoul-based Harvest Law Office which represented the plaintiffs. "Galaxy Note7 users had to visit the phone store four times - purchasing the device, having the battery checked, replacing old models with new models and again replacing the new model with a different smartphone," said the complaint. OCT 24, 2016 Samsung announced that it was offering an upgrade programme to Galaxy Note7 customers in South Korea. Customers could trade their Note7 devices for a Galaxy S7, and later trade up for a Galaxy S8 or Note 8 at half the price of a Galaxy S7 device. JAN 23, 2017 Samsung said battery defects were the cause of fires in the phones, not the device's software or hardware. The initial batch of batteries were made by an affiliate, Samsung SDI Co, Samsung said, but replacements after a recall were also faulty. Samsung acknowledged that it had provided the specifications for the batteries, saying it was "taking responsibility for our failure to ultimately identify and verify the issues arising out of battery design and manufacturing" and had "taken several corrective actions to ensure this never happens again". SCOTT MELLINGER: Faces Suit for Illegally Detaining Arrestees ------------------------------------------------------------- Stuart Hirsch at The Heral Bulletin reports Madison County Sheriff Scott Mellinger has been named the defendant in a federal lawsuit alleging he's detained arrestees without warrants or probable cause affidavits for longer than 48-hours in violation of the U.S. Constitution. An attorney for Summitville resident Mark A. Long filed the complaint in United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division on Jan. 13; Mellinger was notified of the filing. According to the compliant filed by Fort Wayne attorney Christopher C. Myers, Esq. -- info@employmentlawindiana.net -- with Christopher C. Myers &Associates, Long was arrested without a warrant on July 2, 2016, and detained at the Madison County Jail through July 5, which was the Fourth of July holiday weekend. Myers argued that because Long was not give a judicial determination of probable cause within the required time, or released after 48-hours, Long and other members of the class were "over-detained" in violation of "their rights to be free from unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution." Long was arrested by Summitville police for alleged false informing and criminal recklessness and booked into the jail at 2:09 a.m. July 3. He was released after posting $5,000 bond at 7:30 p.m. July 5, according to jail records. The lawsuit contends Long and other unnamed members of the class suffered "damages, harm and injuries, including, but not limited to, loss of liberty, loss of freedom, inconvenience, mental anguish, emotional distress, and other damages and injuries, including loss of employment/income, psychological injuries, and other injuries." In an interview last week, Mellinger acknowledged he is responsible for establishing jail procedures and training correctional officers. He also said detaining pretrial detainees for longer than 48-hours has been a problem in the past. The Madison County judiciary established a procedure to address that problem about 10 years ago, however. "The practice in this county precludes our staff from having the responsibility to schedule or arrange initial court hearings because the courts take care of that," Mellinger said. On weekends and holidays, magistrate judges go to the jail and review arrests to make sure the law is followed, he added. Myers is seeking compensatory damages and attorney fees. No hearing dates have been set in the case. SEATTLE, WA: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Homeless Camp Sweeps ---------------------------------------------------------- Kitsap Sun reports two homeless people in Seattle filed a federal lawsuit on January 20 alleging the city and the state's cleanups of unauthorized homeless camps are unlawful. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, says the homeless camp sweeps are "unnecessarily cruel" and violate the rights of people living in them, The Seattle Times reported. Brandie Osborne and Lisa Hooper are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington. They claim homeless residents have their property seized during the sweeps without adequate and effective notice and their belongings get destroyed. "Imagine if government agents came to your home and carted away everything you own, without any warning and without telling you how to get back whatever they didn't throw out," Emily Chiang, the ACLU of Washington's legal director, said in a statement. "For people living outdoors in Seattle, this horrifying scenario is too often a reality -- and has been so for years." Hooper has lost family photos, legal paperwork, a mattress, clothing and shoes in the camp sweeps, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to stop the cleanups that take place along Seattle streets and alongside state roads and highways until officials implement different procedures for conducting them. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray has said city intervention at the camp sites is sometimes necessary to address matters regarding trash and public safety. A spokeswoman for City Attorney Pete Holmes declined to comment and said Holmes has yet to review the complaint. Washington State Department of Transportation spokesman Travis Phelps declined to comment on the lawsuit, but said safety is the agency's top priority. "We understand that homelessness is a major issue affecting many across the state," Phelps said. "However, those camping on WSDOT property are putting both themselves and others at risk. In addition, many of these areas are typically inaccessible to service providers." If a judge grants the lawsuit class-action status, an estimated 2,000 homeless people who keep belongings on public property in Seattle could potentially be added as plaintiffs, said Breanne Schuster, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Washington. The lawsuit comes months after a federal judge in Tacoma ruled that Clark County violated the constitutional rights of homeless people by throwing out their belongings. The case is captioned as Lisa Hooper, The Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, Real Change, and Brandie Osborne, the Plaintiffs, v. City of Seattle, Washington, Washington State Department of Transportation, and Roger Millar, Secretary of Transportation for WSDOT, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00077 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 19, 2017). The Plaintiffs are represented by: Breanne Mary Schuster, Esq. Emily Chiang, Esq. Nancy Lynn Talner, Esq. ACLU OF WASHINGTON 901 5th Avenue, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone: (206) 624 2184 E-mail: bschuster@aclu-wa.org echiang@aclu-wa.org - and - Todd T Williams CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP 1001 4th Ave., Ste 3900 Seattle, WA 98154-1051 Telephone: (206) 625 8600 E-mail: twilliams@corrcronin.com SEATTLE GENETICS: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Weaver, LLP disclosed that a class action complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of Seattle Genetics, Inc., (NASDAQ: SGEN) securities during the period between October 27, 2016, and December 23, 2016, inclusive. Seattle Genetics, a biotechnology company, develops and commercializes targeted therapies for the treatment of cancer worldwide. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) vadastuximab talirine, one of Seattle Genetics' products in development, presents a significant risk of fatal hepatotoxicity; (2) as such, Seattle Genetics had overstated the viability of vadastuximab talirine as a treatment for acute myeloid leukemia; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements about Seattle Genetics' business, operations and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On December 27, 2016, Seattle Genetics issued a 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 the Company's experimental cancer drug, vadastuximab talirine, to evaluate the potential risk of hepatotoxicity. On this news, Seattle Genetics' share price fell $9.50, or 15% on December 27, 2016. If you purchased Seattle Genetics securities during the Class Period, you have until March 13, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you have suffered a loss, or if you have any questions concerning this notice, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. About Johnson & Weaver Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonandweaver.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. SPIN MASTER: Faces "Hejduk" Suit Over Defective Products -------------------------------------------------------- Jodie Hejduk, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spin Master Corp. and Spin Master Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-at-00052 (E.D. Cal., January 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for defective toy hatchimals. The Complaint says that the Defendants have failed to take proper action to address its malfunctioning product. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Geragos, Esq. Ben J. Meiselas, Esq. Eric Y. Hahn, Esq. Geragos & Geragos 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 625-3900 Fax: (213) 232-3255 Email: mark@geragos.com meiselas@geragos.com eric@geragos.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Andrea Clisura, Esq. Courtney E. MacCarone,Esq. Justin G. Sherman, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: lfeldman@zlk.com aclisura@zkl.com jsherman@zkl.com SPOKEO INC: Sued in Illinois Over Displays Paid Advertisements -------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE VINCI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPOKEO, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-00845 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Jan. 19, 2017), seeks relief for Spokeo's violation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), including (1) an injunction requiring Spokeo to cease using Illinois residents' names in advertisements, (2) the greater of an award of actual damages, including profits derived from an unauthorized use of individuals' names, or statutory damages to Plaintiff and the Class members, (3) award of putative damages, and (4) award of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. According to the complaint, to sell more reports, Spokeo displays paid advertisements to every consumer that searches a person's name on Google or Bing. These advertisements all feature the same alluring headline "We Found [the person's name]" -- and are designed to give the appearance that the reports contain valuable information about the person including, his or her address, phone number and pictures. In reality, however, these advertisements are auto-generated using a tactic called Dynamic Keyword Insertion, which Spokeo uses to automatically trigger the display of the "We Found [ ]" ads and to replace the "[ ]" with the first and last name that was typed into the search bar. Thus, although Spokeo creates the impression that it "Found" somebody, all it did was plug the name of the person searched on Google or Bing into its otherwise generic advertisement. Most importantly, Spokeo never obtained written consent from Plaintiff and Class members to use their names for any reason, let alone for commercial purposes. Defendant never notified Plaintiff and Class members that their names would appear in its paid search engine advertisements. Moreover, Plaintiff and the Class members have no relationship with Spokeo. Spokeo is an online service that sells profile reports about people to anybody willing to pay for them. These reports are based upon information compiled from databases and public repositories, as well as other data points gathered through Spokeo's proprietary deep web technology. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Ari J. Scharg, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 N. LaSalle St. 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589 6370 Facsimile: (312) 589 6378 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com ascharg@edelson.com STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Sobrinho Seeks Payment of Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Sobrinho, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. and CRC-Evans Pipeline International, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17- cv-00196 (S.D. Tex., January 20, 2017), seeks overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. Sosa-Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (281) 885-884 (281) 885-8630 Fax: (281) 885-8813 Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com STARKIST: Settlement Vouchers Delayed Due to Appeals ---------------------------------------------------- David P. Willis at App.com reports it's unlikely that Manchester resident John Lagrosa will get his free StarKist tuna anytime soon. In mid-2015, Lagrosa sent in a claim as part of a big settlement in a class-action lawsuit involving StarKist, which gave consumers who purchased cans of StarKist from early 2009 through late 2014 the option to get $50 vouchers for free tuna or $25 cash. He opted for the tuna. "I buy StarKist all the time," he said. A customer in California sued StarKist in 2013 after he purchased a 5-ounce can of StarKist chunk light tuna in water and discovered the can was underfilled and underweight, according to court papers. A test found that the cans of tuna only contained an average of 2.35 ounces of tuna, 17.3 percent below the federal- mandated minimum of 2.84 ounces for the can. The lawsuit accused the company of "cheating customers." Both sides settled to avoid the cost of a trial. StarKist denied it did anything wrong. Lagrosa was among those who have called Press on Your Side recently about the settlement. There are many people out there waiting for their tuna. Initially, the case was delayed after a federal judge denied the settlement's final approval over legal issues involving the notice to consumers, or class members, He approved it in September, closing the case. But later in the fall, the case was appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by several parties, including lawyers for the consumer who initiated the lawsuit. Class-action lawsuits can take some time to resolve themselves. And it's been over a year since people put in their claims. Get ready to wait even longer. Generally, "that's not an extraordinarily long period of time, particularly if you have an appeal," said Middletown lawyer Michael Canning, co-chairman of the litigation practice area at Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, which is not involved in the case. "The appeal is going to extend the time period for at least a year or more." So, StarKist fans, you are going to have to wait. "There is nothing I can do but wait," Lagrosa said. "I hope I see something from it." STEEL & TUBE: Law Firm Attempts to Increase Homeowner Nervousness ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Truebridge, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that Steel & Tube has taken a swipe at Adina Thorn Lawyers, accusing it of attempting to "increase homeowner nervousness". But the Auckland law firm has hit back saying its possible court action is justified. Adina Thorn's mail drop of about 2000 letters in Christchurch invited homeowners to express interest in the firm's potential class action against three steel manufacturers. The letters warn thousands of Canterbury homeowners their properties may have been built with non-compliant steel mesh. The Commerce Commission told three companies, including Steel & Tube, that it would prosecute them over allegedly sub-standard mesh, but the law firm said a guilty verdict was unlikely to mean financial compensation for homeowners. A Steel & Tube spokeswoman said the company expected Adina Thorn's "promotional activities to continue as it attempts to increase homeowner nervousness, and gather sufficient registrations to satisfy the litigation funder's return on investment". "The potential action is based on unsubstantiated claims of the impact on insurance, the safety of homes, and potential resale values," she said. Harbour Litigation Funding -- one of the biggest litigation funders in the world -- had agreed to pay for a class action against suppliers of non-compliant steel. The Steel & Tube spokeswoman said the Commerce Commission's prosecution did not relate to the company's mesh not meeting standards. Instead, it related to the mistaken use of a testing laboratories logo on test certificates and the application of its testing methodologies. "We again affirm that we believe our seismic mesh is and has been produced consistently with the performance requirements in the standard and ensures building safety," she said. Thorn defended her firm's potential court action, saying it was "not on the back of nothing". "The Commerce Commission had carried out a whole lot of testing and we've had access to that testing . . . quite a bit of that testing did not pass." Her firm also had its own expert evidence. "Obviously we wouldn't and funders wouldn't be looking at even spending money . . . unless they thought there was a good case Ms. here," Thorn said. SPIN MASTER: Faces "Hejduk" Suit Over Defective Products -------------------------------------------------------- Jodie Hejduk, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spin Master Corp. and Spin Master Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-at-00052 (E.D. Cal., January 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for defective toy hatchimals. The Complaint says that the Defendants have failed to take proper action to address its malfunctioning product. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Geragos, Esq. Ben J. Meiselas, Esq. Eric Y. Hahn, Esq. Geragos & Geragos 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 625-3900 Fax: (213) 232-3255 Email: mark@geragos.com meiselas@geragos.com eric@geragos.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Andrea Clisura, Esq. Courtney E. MacCarone,Esq. Justin G. Sherman, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: lfeldman@zlk.com aclisura@zkl.com jsherman@zkl.com TASK FORCE: Faces "Higar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Higar and Shaelyn Bobbitt, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Task Force of Texas, L.L.C. and Albert Anderson, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00060 (E.D. Tex., January 19, 2017), seeks overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. Travis Gasper, Esq. Lee & Braziel. L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 Email: www.overtimelawyer.com THOMAS ARNOLD: "Ramirez" Claims FLSA, Ariz. Wage Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Ramirez, Laurin Godson, and Victoria Lisak, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Thomas Arnold Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Thomas Brodie Inc., an Arizona Corporation, D & D Pasty Co., LLC, and Arizona Limited Liability, Pasty Smashers, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Pastyhuggers, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Dean L. Thomas and Jane Doe Thomas, a married couple, Michael A. Pappas and Jane Doe Pappas, a married couple, and James P. Downey and Jane Doe Downey, a married couple, Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-00150-SMM (D. Ariz., January 18, 2017), alleges an unlawful failure by Defendant to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act, Arizona Revised Statutes. Defendant Thomas Brodie Inc. owned and operated Cornish Pasty Co., a restaurant with multiple locations in Arizona. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Phone: (480) 382-5176 Fax: (602) 956-1409 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com TIME WARNER: Faces "Collura" Suit Over Proposed AT&T's Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard G. Collura, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Time Warner, Inc., Jeffrey L. Bewkes, James L. Barksdale, William P. Barr, Robert C. Clark, Mathias Dopfner, Jessica P. Einhorn, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Fred Hassan, Paul D. Wachter and Deborah C. Wright, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00399 (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2017) is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Time Warner, Inc., to enjoin the proposed transaction in which AT&T will acquire each outstanding share of Time Warner common stock through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. The Defendants' failure to provide Time Warner's stockholders with the material information is a violation of Securities Law. Defendant Time Warner, Inc. is an American multinational media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered in New York City. AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications conglomerate, headquartered at Whitacre Tower in downtown Dallas, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: mershowsky@zlk.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 337-1567 Email: denright@zlk.com etripodi@zlk.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Has Prelim. Settlement in Defective Frames Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Office of the Attorney General on Jan. 23 disclosed that a preliminary class action settlement agreement has been entered into by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., concerning 2005-2010 Toyota Tacoma, 2007-2008 Tundra, and 2005-2008 Sequoia vehicles. Attorney General Edward Manibusan said his office "receives information regularly on class action lawsuits filed in U.S. jurisdictions. The Toyota case caught my attention because we have a large number of Toyota vehicles in the Commonwealth. I wanted to make sure that Toyota vehicle owners are aware of the agreement." According to Consumer Counsel Michael J. Cyganek, "the proposed settlement provides for a free Frame Inspection and Replacement Program to determine whether a Subject Vehicle's frame should be replaced. If the frame needs to be replaced to meet the Rust Perforation Standard, replacement will be at no cost." He added, "The settlement also reimburses Class Members who previously paid for a frame replacement due to rust perforation that satisfies the Rust Perforation Standard and that were incurred prior to January 3, 2017." Specifically, this class action settlement agreement relates to the following Subject Vehicles distributed for sale or lease in the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and all other United States territories and/or possessions: -- Tacoma, model years 2005-2010 -- Tundra, 2007-2008 -- Sequoia, 2005-2008 Cyganek explains "those affected by the settlement are persons, entities or organizations who at the time as of or before Dec. 2, 2016, owned, purchased or leased the Subject Vehicles distributed for sale" in those jurisdictions. Cyganek also noted the following deadlines: -- March 27, 2017: Deadline to Object to the Settlement -- March 27, 2017: Deadline to Exclude Yourself from the Settlement -- March 27, 2017: Deadline to Ask the Court for Permission to Speak at the Fairness Hearing -- April 27, 2017: Fairness Hearing -- June 26, 2017: File a Claim to Seek Reimbursement Deadline For more information or to file a claim, visit the class action settlement agreement website (http://www.toyotaframesettlement.com/home/faqs/#q3)which summarizes this action and also provides the option to submit a claim for relief. Any questions may be directed to the Settlement Notice Administrator by phone at 1-800-481-7948. Attorney General Edward Manibusan states, "My office will continue its review of consumer protection litigation and inform consumers here in the Commonwealth of matters that may affect their rights and interests." TRADEWINDS BEVERAGE: Sues Over Iced Tea Product False Ad -------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Rhinesmith, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff v. Tradewinds Beverage Company; Sweet Leaf Tea Company; Nestle Waters North America, Inc. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00408 (C.D. Cal., January 18, 2017), alleges violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and for fraud and negligent misrepresentation in Defendants' sale of Tradewinds Iced Tea products. Defendants manufacture and produce a variety of sweetened and unsweetened iced teas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 West Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 350 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 263-5992 Fax: (949) 209-1948 E-mail: Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. 111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 400 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 612-1708 Fax: (562) 394-9556 Email: ross.law@me.com SUNDAY RILEY: Faces Class Action Over Bionic Anti-Aging Cream ------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Wischhover, writing for Racked, reports that Skincare diehards swear by Sunday Riley. Under her eponymous brand, the Houston-based entrepreneur offers one of the best-selling products at Sephora, Good Genes, a lactic acid-based exfoliator that garners rave reviews. And every time she launches a new product, there's internet buzz. But one of Sunday Riley's older products, Bionic, is the subject of a recent class action lawsuit. Two women filed the suit in early December after purchasing the product, which sold for $125 for 1.7 ounces, according to Top Class Actions. Bionic does not appear to be currently available at any of the brand's retailers. "Like a modern-day snake oil salesman, Sunday Riley . . . preys on consumers' fundamental fear of aging by marketing the [cream] as if it were an FDA-approved drug that could change the physical structure and function of skin itself," the plaintiffs, Helena Armstrong and Lynn Moore, allege in the suit. The suit goes on to provide examples of claims taken from the brand's product descriptions and label, which stated benefits like ". . . loaded with active ingredients that activate your body's ability to extend the lifespan of your skin" and "repair and restore collagen." The brand's website has been shut down for several months and Bionic removed from stores, prompting fans in a thread in Sephora's community forum to wonder if Bionic had been discontinued and whether the brand might be going out of business (it's been quiet on some social media channels as well). Letters had been going back and forth between the two parties at least since June 2016, according to the filing. Sunday Riley declined to comment at this time. It's unclear why the plaintiffs chose Sunday Riley's brand to target with this suit, since any number of higher-end (and higher- profile) skincare brands make similar claims. It's not unusual to find vague claims of skin regenerative powers and allusions to "studies" by many brands. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Samfiru Tumarkin Files Class Action in Ontario ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lewis, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Uber drivers are employees not independent contractors and are owed standard employee compensation including a minimum wage and vacation pay, says a proposed class-action lawsuit launched on behalf of an Uber delivery driver in Toronto. Filed with the Ontario Superior Court by Toronto employment law firm Samfiru Tumarkin LLP on January 19, the action against Uber Technologies Inc. also demands $200 million in punitive damages. It names occasional Uber driver David Heller as representative plaintiff for the class to be drawn from the approximately 20,000 Uber drivers in the province. The suit seeks class-action certification and a court ruling that members of the class are employees of Uber and are entitled to the same benefits and protections enjoyed by other Ontario employees. The lawsuit's claims haven't been tested in court. Uber spokeswoman Susie Heath said the company is proud to offer drivers "the flexibility and control that comes with being their own boss. Thousands of Ontarians have already partnered with Uber in large part because of the independence and flexibility our service provides," she said in an email. The proposed class-action lawsuit argues that drivers who have worked for Uber in Ontario since 2012 have been misclassified and should be recognized as employees under the Employment Standards Act. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Uber violated the act through misclassification and by not advising drivers of their entitlement to wages at least equal to Ontario's minimum, overtime after 44 hours and vacation pay at 4 per cent of pay. The claim argues that the duties performed by class members create an employment relationship with Uber since a hallmark of a typical contractor is being able to freely negotiate the terms of engagement. The claim says the service, for example, trains workers, sets pay rates, methods and work volume. Lior Samfiru, head of the labour and employment law practice group at Samfiru Tumarkin, said U.S. class actions over Uber workers' employment classification are unresolved except for one where a settlement was reached but the court has ordered the parties to renegotiate because it said the settlement was too low. Mr. Samfiru said there have been successful cases of Uber drivers applying to tribunals to be reclassified as employees, including a recent case in California. He said he expects a decision to be made on certification of the Ontario suit in the second half of the year. UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Merkovich" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Merkovich moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled JEFFREY MERKOVICH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00058 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, Mr. Merkovich asserts, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence, Mr. Merkovich states. He contends that he is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice. Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes. In dicta, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification motion. Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount."). As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, Mr. Merkovich contends. Mr. Merkovich also asks to be appointed as class representative and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2g7WfIHn The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com UNITED KINGDOM: Hindraf to Take Rights Class Action to ECHR ----------------------------------------------------------- Free Malaysia Today reports that Hindraf Makkal Sakthi will take its rights suit against the United Kingdom to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France, after having exhausted its legal avenue in the UK. The French city along the border with Germany is the next stage after the Court of Appeal in London had on Jan. 19 dismissed Hindraf's application for leave to appeal the High Court decision delivered on Apr 1, 2015 striking out the class action suit filed by Hindraf on behalf of Malaysian Indian descendants of indentured labourers. "The case will be filed in Strasbourg within the next six months," Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy said in the statement issued on Jan. 20. "We have exhausted all local avenues in the United Kingdom, and that is the pre-requisite for us to now take the case to the ECHR," he said. Mr. Waytha clarified in a WhatsApp message that Brexit (Britain leaving the European Union) will not affect Hindraf's suit in Strasbourg. "The suit will be filed under the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK remains under the Convention despite its imminent exit from the EU," he said. Meanwhile, on the case presented to the Court of Appeal in London, Mr. Waytha said the presiding judge, Lord Justice Henderson, saw no reason to interfere with High Court Judge Blake's decision. Judge Henderson added there was no proximity between the claimant (Waytha), his ancestors and the UK government. On Apr 1, 2015, the High Court in London denied Hindraf leave to initiate a suit against the Queen and her government. "Our case is novel and unprecedented, hence the high legal standard imposed on us, as seen in the striking out proceedings, was truly unfair," Mr. Waytha said. On a brighter note, Mr. Waytha agreed that Judge Henderson sympathised with the plight of Indians in Malaya (peninsula). "The judge described the manipulation of the original Reid Commission's constitutional proposals as 'glaring', and added that the 'manipulation' may be infringing the European Convention on Human Rights. "Hindraf has volumes of evidence to be heard and tested and old historical documents to be presented to the court for its evaluation," he said. Mr. Waytha reckons the injustices suffered by the community needs to be highlighted to the world at large. "Hindraf will not be hindered in its journey and we will continue to take up the cause of the marginalised Indian community." Representing Hindraf, British lawyer Stuart Steven argued that the amended Malayan Constitution did not comply with the United Nations and European Convention on human rights legislation, he said. Hence, the claim is that there was an act of negligence on the part of Her Majesty's Government, Mr. Steven added. V.C. LAUDERDALE: Faces "Onyenecho" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- LYNDA ONYENECHO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. V.C. LAUDERDALE, INC. d/b/a VEGAS CABARET, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60121-BB (S.D. Fla., January 18, 2017), is filed over an attempt by the employer to evade the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. V.C. LAUDERDALE, INC. is an adult entertainment club. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad E. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICES LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, #588 Sunrise, FL 33323 Phone: (954) 763-5722 Fax: (954) 763-5723 E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com VIRGINIA: Arguments in DMV Class Action Scheduled for Feb. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ WVIR reports that a court date is set in a federal lawsuit challenging a Virginia law that automatically suspends driver's licenses from people who can't pay court costs and fines. In July 2016, the Legal Aid Justice Center, a Charlottesville- based, nonprofit organization, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of four central Virginia plaintiffs as a systemic solution to a problem that plagues hundreds of thousands of Virginians. Legal Aid Justice Center is asserting that Virginia is crippling hundreds of thousands of low-income residents by suspending their driver's licenses for failure to pay court costs and fines. They want the state to strike the statute down as unconstitutional and to reinstate licenses that have suspended without basic due process protections. A federal judge in Charlottesville is set to hear arguments on motions in the case on February 2. The state of Virginia has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the case should not be tried in federal court and its constitutional claims are not valid. The Department of Motor Vehicles is hoping to have the lawsuit dismissed. A trial is scheduled for December 11 through December 15. VOLKSWAGEN: Car Owners Dissatisfied with Buy Back Delay ------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Pender at San Francisco Chronicle reports some owners of Volkswagen diesels equipped with emissions-cheating software feel they were duped twice, once by the company about how "green" the cars were and more recently about how quickly VW would buy them back under a class-action suit settlement. Owners were originally told that within 10 business days of submitting the documents needed for a claim, VW would tell them whether their application was complete. Once the documentation was complete, VW would send an offer letter within another 10 business days, according to a Federal Trade Commission website. Once they have an offer, owners can schedule an appointment at a dealership to sell back the car. Many owners say they have been waiting far longer than originally outlined. Lindsay Soriano of San Diego said she submitted documents for a buyback of her 2013 Audi A3 -- including registration, government- issued ID and a financial consent form for her lender -- on Nov. 27. "They initially rejected my ID, so I resubmitted and received an email on Dec. 1 that my documents had been approved and my eligibility was being determined," she said in an email. The Dec. 1 email is the last she received. Soriano called the claims hotline four times, each one resulting in conflicting information. "I've been very frustrated by the process," she said. Volkswagen said in an email, "This program is unprecedented in terms of its size and scope, and we have hired approximately 900 contract employees to help accommodate demand. We know that there have been some issues along the way and our teams have been working tirelessly to make necessary adjustments and continually improve the process." On the settlement website, the company now warns people that getting an offer could take longer than 10 days "due to current high claims volumes and response times from lenders." The cheating scandal broke in September 2015, when federal and California environmental regulators alleged that Volkswagen had installed software known as a defeat device in about 482,000 diesel-powered VW and Audi models sold in the United States. The cars, from model years 2009 through 2015, were marketed as "clean diesels" because they got great gas mileage and zippy performance. In reality, they spew up to 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide pollutants when driven, but the software allowed them to pass emissions testing. Last October, a federal judge in San Francisco approved a consumer class-action suit settlement that requires VW to buy back or terminate leases on about 475,000 two-liter VWs and Audis equipped with the cheating device. That part of the settlement could cost VW up to $10 billion. It also requires VW to pay $2.7 billion to fund projects that reduce nitrogen oxides and $2 billion on zero-emission-vehicle infrastructure and promotion. On Jan. 11, VW agreed to plead guilty and pay $4.3 billion to settle criminal and other civil charges. (A separate class-action settlement, which is awaiting approval, covers about 83,000 3-liter cars.) The 2-liter settlement requires VW to buy back vehicles at their September 2015 trade-in value plus a cash restitution payment ranging from $5,100 to $9,852. Owners have the option of keeping their cars and getting them fixed at VW's expense, if an emissions repair is approved by regulators. Regulators just approved a remedy for about 70,000 model year 2015 cars. No repair has been approved for the remaining 2-liter vehicles. Owners who choose the fix won't get the trade-in value but will get the same restitution payment. Drivers who leased the 2-liter diesels can return them without penalty or get them fixed. Either way, they also will get a cash restitution payment, about half what owners get. Before and apart from the settlement, VW offered owners a $500 Visa gift card and a $500 gift card valid only at VW dealerships. Gabriel Bocanegra of Portland, Ore., was satisfied with the settlement offer. He got about $24,200 including restitution for his 2013 Golf diesel. "I drove the vehicle for 3« years for free, more or less," he said. But the claims process was "nerve- racking," he said. "I understand it was done in an expedited way, but they didn't train the people on the phones properly." Frank McPherson of San Jose was also happy with the $22,900 he got for his 2011 Golf TDI with 40,000 miles. "I drove it for almost six years and got back a large percentage of what I paid," he said. McPherson says he was the first person to complete a buyback, on Nov. 26, at Stevens Creek Volkswagen. "All my other friends are waiting for an appointment. I think they have a huge backlog of people waiting to do it." Pete Rogers, a sales manager at the dealership, said, "Everything from the Stevens Creek location is going as smooth as possible. I hear that people want an appointment sooner than what they have. We have hundreds of cars coming back to this dealer. We are doing 7 to 9 appointments per day." Josh Gosliner of San Anselmo is still waiting for an offer for his 2015 Jetta TDI. He said he submitted his documents to the online claims portal on Oct. 21. Five days later, he got an email saying his submission was complete and VW was reviewing his documents to see if he was eligible. That was the last email he got. "The process as originally outlined -- and what it is -- is significantly different," he said. "Every time you talk to them they say, 'We are just really overwhelmed by claims,' which is ridiculous. They knew how many cars they sold." Thinking he would need another car soon, Gosliner bought a gasoline-powered BMW after concluding "that there is no such thing as clean diesel," he said. "Now I'm with two cars and still don't have an offer letter. I'm sitting on a car we quite frankly want out of our lives. Being duped is not something I have enjoyed about this." Drivers covered by the settlement have until September 2018 to return their cars and get a payment, no matter when they apply or get an offer. Their payment will not change, unless they drive more or less than about 1,000 miles per month, in which case there will be a slight adjustment down or up. That means they can drive the car essentially for free for up to two years. The only caveat: They must be able to drive the car to the dealer, so if it gets totaled, they won't get the payment. Frank Landry said he stopped driving his 2010 Jetta TDI three months ago, because "I didn't want to take any chances of something happening with the car." He got $14,850 for the Jetta with 92,000 miles. Even so, "I feel like I was robbed, in a way. It was a total inconvenience. Now I have a small car payment" on a replacement car. His old one was paid off. At a hearing last week, attorneys for VW and plaintiffs updated U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco, who approved the settlement, on its status. They said about 383,000 had claims submitted. Of those, about 267,000 had received offers totaling more than $4.7 billion. Of those, almost 67,000 had completed a buyback or lease termination totaling $1.2 billion. Elizabeth Cabraser, whose San Francisco firm is the lead attorney for plaintiffs, said she thinks Volkswagen "is now doing everything they can" to process buybacks. "We had a satisfaction gap. They are closing that gap." The main holdup, she said, is for owners who have loans through banks, credit unions and other third-party lenders. For owners who owe less than their settlement payment, VW will pay off their loan and pay them the difference. To do that, VW needs to get the customer's loan balance. Some lenders "have been slow to respond" to VW's request for information. Ian Malec of Richmond uploaded documentation to the claims portal on Nov. 8. On Nov. 19, he got an email saying his application contained all the information needed to determine his eligibility. Two months later, on Thursday, he got an email saying VW still needed his loan balance before it could extend an offer. Malec called his lender and was told it had not received anything regarding his claim, but gave him instructions for VW to fax its request. "The frustrating part is that the documents I submitted in November included a financial consent form," he said. WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Neal" Suit Over TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Curtis Neal, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., d/b/a Walmart, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00022-GCM (W.D. N.C., January 17, 2017), seeks damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant violates the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to place non-emergency calls to numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent, in that it places autodialed calls to wrong or reassigned phone numbers, the Complaint says. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., doing business as Walmart, is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley S. White, Esq. Law Offices of Wesley S. White 2300 E. 7th Street, Suite 101 Charlotte, NC 28204 Tel: (702) 824-1695 Email: wes@weswhitelaw.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: (512) 322-3912 Fax: (516) 961-5684 Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com WECTEC GLOBAL: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Bonnie R. Jones, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wectec Global Project Services, Inc. f/k/a CB&I Stone & Webster, Inc. and Stone & Webster SVCS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00031 (W.D. N.C., January 20, 2017), seeks overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. Phil Gibbons Law, P.C. 15720 Brixham Hill Ave, Ste 331 Charlotte, NC 28277 Tel: (704) 612-0038 Email: phil@philgibbonslaw.com WELCH FOODS: "Iglesias" Misbranding Suit Removed to N. D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in the case captioned THOMAS IGLESIAS, Plaintiff, v. WELCH FOODS, INC. and PROMOTION IN MOTION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00219, removed the case from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case alleges individually for Plaintiff and on behalf of others similarly situated in California, that Defendants sell misbranded fruit snacks in violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Welch Foods Inc. -- https://www.welchs.com/ -- processes and produces grape-based products that include juices, jams, jellies, and spreads. The Defendants are represented by: Daniel S. Silverman, Esq. Matthew M. Gurvitz, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 229-9900 Fax: (310) 229-9901 E-mail: dsilverman@venable.com mgurvitz@venable.com - and - Kimberly Culp, Esq. VENABLE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 653-3750 Fax: (415) 653-3755 E-mail: kculp@venable.com WILCOX & WILCOX: Sued in Super Ct. Over Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ESPENSHADE, an individual, and MOES 1 through 1,000, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WILCOX & WILCOX, a business entity of unknown form doing business as Wilcox & Wilcox and Wilcox & Wilcox Sewer Corp.; U.S.A. CORP, a California corporation doing business as Wilcox & Wilcox and Wilcox & Wilcox Sewer Corp.; EVENHAIM INDUSTRIES CORP., a California corporation doing business as Wilcox & Wilcox and Wilcox & Wilcox Sewer Corp.; WILCOX & WILCOX SEWER CORP, a dissolved California corporation doing business as Wilcox & Wilcox and Wilcox & Wilcox Sewer Corp; SHAWN EVENHAIM, an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC647489 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 19, 2017), seeks to recover damages, including loss of compensation for straight time worked, under the California Labor Code. The case is brought by Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees which include, without limitation, all current and former non- exempt employees who worked for Defendants at their business location at 21510 Roscoe Boulevard, Canoga Park, California 91304, within the four years prior to the commencement of the action, who were: (1) not paid all earned straight time wages; (2) not paid all earned overtime wages; (3) were not timely paid all straight time wages and overtime wages earned as of the time of the termination of their employment relationship with Defendants; and (4) not provide lawful wage statements in compliance with California Labor Code. Wilcox & Wilcox is an underground utilities contractor in Southern California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Jones, Esq. Alex V. Vo, Esq. 21300 Victory Blvd., Suite 810 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 657 5600 Facsimile: (818) 657 5605 E-mail: Diones@santiagoioneslaw.com Avo@santiagoioneslaw.com WISCONSIN: Officials Face Class Action Over Solitary Confinement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The ACLU of Wisconsin and Juvenile Law Center, with pro-bono assistance from Quarles & Brady, filed a class action lawsuit on Jan. 23 in federal court against four Wisconsin state officials, including Wisconsin Secretary of Corrections Jon E. Litscher, citing the unconstitutional use of solitary confinement and inhumane conditions for youth in state-run correctional facilities. The suit was filed on behalf of youth confined in the Lincoln Hills School for Boys and the Copper Lake School for Girls. "Federal and state officials raided Lincoln Hills School for Boys (LHS) and the Copper Lake School for Girls (CLS) in December 2015 after numerous reports of mistreatment of young people," said ACLU of Wisconsin Attorney Timothy Muth. "Many staff were fired and new leadership was put in place. Despite these changes, Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake continue to use such barbaric practices as solitary confinement, mechanical restraints, and pepper sprays, which only damage children and make them more -- not less -- likely to reoffend. The State of Wisconsin is far outside the constitutional boundaries and far outside the practices recommended by juvenile justice experts across the country." Children are routinely placed in solitary confinement, put in mechanical restraints or pepper-sprayed at Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake. These facilities incarcerate approximately 150-200 youth as young as 14 years old. Prior to state and federal raids on the facility in December 2015, staff also regularly physically abused youth in the facility, even breaking their arms and legs in some cases. While those practices may no longer be in place, horrific conditions persist. Approximately 15 to 20% percent the young residents are confined in seven by ten foot solitary confinement cells for 22 or 23 hours per day. These children are often forced to spend their only free hour of time each day outside the cell in handcuffs, chained to tables. Officers also regularly use Bear Mace and other pepper sprays against the youth, which causes them excruciating pain and impairs their breathing. As the complaint asserts, these practices violate children's constitutional rights, including their rights to substantive due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "If a parent locked a child in a room even for a day or sprayed them with Bear Mace or pepper spray, we would all recognize it as child abuse," said Jessica Feierman, Juvenile Law Center's Associate Director. "Research confirms that solitary confinement causes lasting and devastating psychological harm. Pepper spray causes excruciating pain and temporary blindness. The children of Wisconsin deserve better." For parents of the youth, knowing their children are experiencing this abuse is excruciating. "It is painful enough to be separated from your child," said Meranda Davis, whose daughter is at Copper Lake and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "The detention centers are very far from home which itself is a challenge -- but to know they are also experiencing this kind of ongoing abuse and mistreatment at the hands of adults in positions of authority is unbearable. These are children -- this should not be happening in this country." The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to put an end to these practices. YAHOO! INC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Yahoo Inc. ("Yahoo" or the "Company") (YHOO) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 17-cv-00373, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Yahoo securities between November 12, 2013 and December 14, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Yahoo securities during the Class Period, you have until March 27, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Yahoo, together with its subsidiaries, is a multinational technology company that provides a variety of internet services, including, inter alia, a web portal, search engine, Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Finance, advertising, and fantasy sports. As of February 2016, Yahoo had an estimated 1 billion monthly active users, roughly 280 million Yahoo! Mail users, and 205 million monthly unique visitors to its sites and services. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Yahoo failed to encrypt its users' personal information and/or failed to encrypt its users' personal data with an up-to- date and secure encryption scheme; (ii) consequently, sensitive personal account information from more than 1 billion users was vulnerable to theft; (iii) a data breach resulting in the theft of personal user data would foreseeably cause a significant drop in user engagement with Yahoo's websites and services; and (iv) as a result, Yahoo's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 22, 2016, Yahoo disclosed that hackers had stolen information in late 2014 on more than 500 million accounts. Following the breach, Yahoo executives advised investors that the breach was not material, in part because the Company had not required to reset their passwords. On this news, Yahoo's share price fell $1.35, or 3.06%, to close at $42.80 on September 23, 2016. On December 14, 2016, post-market, Yahoo announced that it had uncovered a data breach, stating that data from more than 1 billion user accounts was compromised in August 2013. Following Yahoo's announcement, several news sources reported that Verizon was considering ways to amend the terms of its deal with Yahoo to reflect the impact of the data breach and would likely seek "major concessions" from Yahoo. On this news, Yahoo's share price fell $2.50, or 6.11%, to close at $38.41 on December 15, 2016. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. YRBL CORPORATION: Faces "De La Cruz" Suit Over Unpaid Wage and OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Orlando Xocua De La Cruz, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. YRBL Corporation (d/b/a The Kitchen) and Yoonhwan Chung, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00348 (E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for unpaid minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com YS REALTY: "Chaca" Seeks Payment of Wages and Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Edgar Geovany Yanqui Chaca, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. YS Realty II LLC d/b/a Re Sette and Tal Sheinmann, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-00350 (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for wrongful withholding of Plaintiff's overtime compensation, late payment of wages and misappropriated tips. Defendants own and operate Resette, an Italian restaurant located at 7 West 45th Street, New York, NY. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yesy Sanchez, Esq. Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq. Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP 35-10 Broadway, Suite 201 Astoria, NY 11106 Tel: 718-777-0400 Fax: 718-777-0599 Email: yesy@pnlawyers.com ZENITH EDUCATION: Faces "Covington" Suit Over Unpaid Wages and OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Latasha Covington, Plaintiff, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. Zenith Education Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00136 (M.D. Fla., January 19, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation. Defendant Zenith Education Group, Inc. is one of the largest nonprofit career college systems in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle J. Lee, Esq. Lee Law, PLLC P.O. Box 4476 Brandon, FL 33509-4476 Tel: (813) 343-2813 Email: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com - and - W. John Gadd, Esq. Bank of America Buiding 2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250 Clearwater, FL 33762 Tel: (727) 524-6300 Email: wjg@mazgadd.com * Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - May 1, 2017 - NYC ------------------------------------------------------------ Beard Group, Inc., is hosting the 1st Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference on Mon., May 1, 2017, at The Harmonie Club in Midtown Manhattan. Sponsorship and speaking opportunities are available. Contact Joseph Cardillo at joseph@beardgroup.com or (856) 381- 8268 for more information. This event brings together class action and complex litigation professionals from the legal, financial, economic, academic, ethical, corporate, claims and judicial disciplines for a one-day conference, to discuss economic and ethical considerations in class actions, and to provide valuable networking opportunities among top-tier professionals. Special Guest: Kenneth Feinberg, who administered compensation funds for victims of Agent Orange, 9/11, the BP oil spill, and who was recently appointed as special master to oversee the restitution in the Takata settlement, will be in attendance as both a speaker and panelist. Updates about the conference agenda and faculty are posted at http://ClassActionConference.com/on a regular basis. * Class Members Actively Participates in Litigation --------------------------------------------------- Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Volkswagen diesel owners call class counsel on their cellphones. They barrage the court with e-mails. They engage in Twitter discussions. They aren't content to wait passively while their claims are settled through the "Clean Diesel" litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This is the new normal for high-profile, big-dollar class litigation, Samuel Issacharoff told Bloomberg BNA recently. He's a civil procedure professor at New York University Law School in New York who is working on a law review article on the topic. Mr. Issacharoff has seen this kind of increased class member participation in several other recent cases such as the litigation over the Deepwater Horizon spill and the National Football League concussion suits. He says the increased participation is good for the legitimacy of the class action system, even if it causes a few headaches for attorneys. Mr. Issacharoff said the trend could spread to lower-profile, smaller-dollar suits as well. That possibility, according to one federal judge who's presided over a number of class actions, could help counter arguments from both defense counsel and prominent fellow jurists that too many class suits are driven by attorneys seeking fees. 'Complete Revolution.' Elizabeth Cabraser, lead counsel in the VW litigation, said she's seeing a "complete revolution in the relationships between members of the class, their counsel and the court" in high-profile class suits like the diesel emissions cases. Ms. Cabraser is a partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP in San Francisco. There used to be a clear dividing line between cases where one lawyer represented one client, and class litigation, "where someone famously, but inaccurately, boasted that the great thing about class actions was there were no clients," she said recently at a conference hosted by NYU Law. She remembers a time when class counsel might communicate with members of the class twice -- if they were lucky -- over the life cycle of a case: once after the class was certified and once after it was settled. Communication "was an expensive proposition," she said. "We are in a completely different situation today and that process has accelerated so quickly that many of us don't fully even realize yet where we are," she said. Easier Communication. More MDLs Mr. Issacharoff attributes the trend to two changes. First, the means of communication have changed dramatically. "There's not a major event that doesn't prompt a Facebook gathering, Twitter feeds, every kind of social media imaginable," he said. Second, most of the significant class actions today are organized around multidistrict litigation. That means "that in the first instance you already have aggregation even without the class action mechanism," he said. "The class action is a way of resolving it but it's not the first step taken to aggregate or collectivize the proceedings." He used the NFL concussion litigation as an example. It began with hundreds of suits filed all over the country that were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Anita B. Brody. The class mechanism was introduced afterwards as a way to resolve all the suits. "We have this image of class actions as headless entities -- lawyers without clients and stuff like that," Mr. Issacharoff said. But, in the NFL litigation, hundreds of lawsuits were already underway, which meant when the class action was organized, the individuals in the class already had their own lawyers. "By the time you get to the class settlement, the old image that we have that these are anonymous, non-participating individuals, gives way to a very active block of participation," he said. No More Rational Indifference Class members were traditionally thought of as "rationally indifferent" to the ins and outs of litigation, Ms. Cabraser said. They let it proceed without them, and collected their checks after settlement. "Nobody is rationally indifferent to anything anymore," she said. "Or perhaps no one is rational about anything anymore." She said she and other class attorneys are now "barraged with communications" in the suits with big potential payouts for class members. VW class members e-mail class counsel constantly, even call their cell phones. "There is 24/7 real time participation." Class members don't just bug class counsel, they even e-mail the courts. Judge John Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sheepishly asked Ms. Cabraser at the NYU conference, "Should judges respond to those e-mails?" Ms. Cabraser assured him they should not. Class notice documents tell class members not to contact the court directly. Instead, courts should forward communications from class members to the attorneys involved in the case. In the VW and NFL cases, the courts forward batches of e-mails to the attorneys daily, Mr. Issacharoff said. "You have to have new procedures in place," he said. He noted that Ms. Cabraser makes a point of personally answering every e-mail from a VW class member. And Chris Seeger, lead plaintiffs' lawyer in the NFL settlement, holds a weekly call with class members to let players, or their wives, check in on progress or raise concerns, Mr. Issarcharoff said. Mr. Seeger is a partner at Seeger Weiss LLP in New York. Anomaly, or Harbinger? Ms. Cabraser said at first she thought the level of class member involvement in the VW litigation was an anomaly. A car is one of the most expensive purchases many Americans make, and VW diesel buyers were informed buyers who thought they were making a eco- conscious choice. It's no surprise they followed the litigation closely. But Ms. Cabraser said, "I am not so sure now it's an anomaly, I am more sure now that it's a harbinger of things to come." The high participation rates reflect not just the specific demographics of VW class members, but also reflect "the fact that we all feel the right now to participate in what used to be more formal affairs--elections, for example, and court proceedings," she said. "We now all feel the right to participate far more directly, and sometimes far less civilly than we ever did before," she said. Mr. Issarcharoff expects that the trend will spread even to class actions involving low-value consumer claims. Even if the level of participation isn't as high for a $3 per class member settlement over misadvertised batteries, class members will be aware of the case. "You no longer get class actions that nobody has heard of," Mr. Issacharoff said. "What you get is class actions that people may not care about. That's a different set of issues." Increased Efficiency, Legitimacy This kind of increased participation is good for the class action system, Mr. Issacharoff argues. "It has the best of both worlds-- the efficiency of a collective resolution and the lower cost; and the legitimacy of people actually feeling that they are represented." Judge Robert Dow of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois agreed. This trend "should make people feel good about Rule 23 and the class action process," he said at the NYU conference. Judge Dow referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, which governs class actions. He serves on the subcommittee tasked with revising the rule. "If you read Judge Posner's decisions, a lot of what concerns him is all these absent class members are led around by the nose by lawyers that want to make a lot of money," Judge Dow said. He referred to opinions by Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Judge Posner is often skeptical of class settlements, which he warns can be lawyer- driven. For example, he skewered the attorneys in a settlement over leaky windows, charging class counsel with "selling out the class" for higher attorneys' fees, in Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014). If class members are more involved, Judge Dow's line of reasoning goes, there should be less room for abuse of the system. Judge Dow also hopes that media coverage of efficient processes like the VW litigation will help the public "understand the good parts of Rule 23.". "Too often what people see in the papers is the coupon settlement, or the ridiculous sum of money paid for something that doesn't look to the public like an important problem or the fact that the average person gets a check for 18 cents," he said. New Reality More participation will also affect defendants' calculus in settling cases, Mr. Issarcharoff said. "It shines a light on the settlement process," he said. " It's an ongoing process of review and that means that you can't craft a settlement in the darkness and hope that with a little bit extra in attorneys' fees or something like that you make the whole thing go away." Ms. Cabraser said the challenge for everyone involved in the class action world is to accept that the system is forever changed. "Anything we thought we knew or read in a case five years ago, two years ago or even earlier this year may well no longer be true," she said. "One thing I'm certain of is that class actions will be increasingly characterized by incessant communication between class counsel and class members, perhaps between the defendants and class members, and like it or not, between courts and class members." * Monetary Value of Employment-Related Settlements Down in 2016 --------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the monetary value of the top employment- related class action settlements declined significantly in 2016 after they reached all-time highs in 2014 and 2015. The plaintiffs' employment class action bar and governmental enforcement litigators successfully translated their case filings into large class-wide settlements, but they did so at lower values than in the two previous years. The top ten settlements in various employment-related categories totaled $1.75 billion in 2016, which declined from $2.48 billion in 2015 and $1.87 billion in 2014. Whether this is the start of a trend or a short-term aberration remains to be seen as 2017 unfolds. Lower Class Action Settlement Numbers In 2016 As measured by the top ten largest case resolutions in various workplace class action categories, overall settlement numbers decreased in 2016 as compared to 2015. This manifested a trend that began with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2011 in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338 (2011). By tightening Rule 23 standards and raising the bar for class certification, Wal-Mart made it more difficult for plaintiffs to convert their class action filings into substantial settlements. The settlement statistics for 2016 underscore this trend and the impediments to transforming case filings into settlements of cases on a class-wide basis. This also reflects a process whereby there has been a maturing of case architecture considerations, as plaintiffs' lawyers have "re-booted" their strategic approaches to take account of Wal-Mart, and crafted refined class certification theories with better chances of success. That phenomenon is still being played out, as well as manifesting itself in settlement dynamics. Considering all types of workplace class actions (employment discrimination, wage & hour, ERISA, and statutory claims), settlement numbers in 2016 totaled $1.75 billion, which decreased significantly from 2015 when these settlements were at an all-time high of $2.48 billion. This also represented a significant decrease over 2014 levels, when the aggregate settlement numbers totaled $1.87 billion. The Story Behind The Numbers In terms of the story behind the numbers, breakouts by types of workplace class action are instructive. There was an upward trend for wage & hour class action settlements, and a significant downward trend for resolutions of employment discrimination and ERISA class actions, as well as governmental enforcement litigation. By type of case, settlements in private plaintiff statutory workplace class actions experienced the most significant decrease. The top ten settlements in this category decreased to $114.7 million, which was a significant decline from $713.85 million in 2015, but an increase from $74.03 million in 2014. Top 10 Private Statutory Most telling, however, the "Wal-Mart effect" is shown by the pattern for employment discrimination class action settlements in 2016, as well as a comparison of the settlement figures with previous settlement activity over the last decade. Top 10 Employment Discrimination In 2016, the value of the top ten largest employment discrimination class action settlements of $79.81 million was the second lowest figure since 2010, and followed the trend that started in 2011 (after Wal-Mart was decided) that showed decreases in settlement amounts over three years of that 4-year period. On a comparative basis, the settlement figure for 2016 was the second lowest over the past six years. This trend, however, did not hold for wage & hour class action settlements. In 2016, the value of the top ten wage & hour settlements was $695.5 million, a significant increase over 2015. This is most telling in examining the last four years, for 2016 represented almost a four-fold (after two years of declining numbers in 2013 and 2014) in the value of the top wage & hour settlements as compared to 2014. This reflects that Wal-Mart has had far less of an impact in this substantive legal area, as FLSA settlements are not explicitly tied to the concepts on class certification addressed in Wal-Mart (and instead, are based on the standards under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b)). Top 10 Wage & Hour Relatedly, settlements in government enforcement litigation experienced a significant downward trend. The top ten settlements in 2016 totaled $52.3 million, a substantial decrease even from 2015, when settlements hit one of their lowest points in the past eight years. Top 10 Government Enforcement ERISA class action settlements also were down, as the top ten settlements totaled $807.4 million in 2016. This figure represented a decline from $926.5 million in 2015. While the 2016 aggregate settlement number was nearly six times greater than in 2013, it entailed a significant decrease from 2014 (when settlements were $1.31 billion). Nonetheless, ERISA class action settlements this past year were fueled by several mega- settlements. Top 10 ERISA Implications For Employers Settlement trends in workplace class action litigation have been influenced by many factors. In the coming year, settlement activity is apt to be influenced developing case law interpreting the Supreme Court's decision in Tyson Foods, the impact of the Trump Administration's labor and employment enforcement policies, and case filing trends of the plaintiffs' class action bar. * Ohio Drivers Ineligible for Auto Parts Price-Fixing Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Gearino, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that Ohio drivers are left stranded on the side of the road when it comes to $604 million worth of settlements in price-fixing lawsuits against auto-parts suppliers. The reason: Ohio is one of about 20 states that do not allow financial damages to be paid to indirect victims in price-fixing cases. "We don't even get a lousy coupon," said Kathy Fahey of Cleveland, who has owned several vehicles covered by the settlements and was upset to learn that she is ineligible for any of the proceeds. The class-action settlements, $604 million and counting, are some of the largest ever recorded for consumers in price-fixing cases. Dozens of auto-parts suppliers have admitted in cases over the past several years to holding secret meetings to set prices on certain parts that they sold to auto manufacturers, leading to higher costs for dealers and customers. The consumer lawsuits are among several large class actions against the suppliers. The process is running alongside criminal cases that have led to nearly $3 billion in penalties, the most in U.S. history. "Your cost was higher than it would have been," said Steven Williams, a California-based attorney who has argued key parts of the auto-parts cases on behalf of consumers. "It's just an added tax on your car, an added price on your car." Auto owners can go to www.autopartsclass.com to check if a vehicle is covered and which states are eligible for making a claim for a share of the payout. The size of each share will largely be determined by how many people make claims. In these cases, the direct victims are automakers such as Ford and Honda. Others in the process are indirect victims. A 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Illinois Brick v. Illinois, said that indirect victims cannot receive financial awards in antitrust cases. However, the court also has said that state courts and legislatures can allow such awards. In the auto-parts cases, consumers are eligible in 30 states and the District of Columbia, according to court documents. Among Ohio's neighbors, consumers are eligible in Michigan and West Virginia, and ineligible in Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Ohio lawmakers and courts have tended to be assertive in protecting the rights of companies and individuals being sued, often at the expense of the people who are suing. The treatment of indirect victims of price-fixing is one part of this larger set of issues. "It's hard to imagine why you couldn't want consumers to have an ability to recover," Mr. Williams said. "Business interests probably come in and say, 'Don't do this. It will lead to more lawsuits.'" There are good reasons for the state's approach, said Daniel Dew, a legal fellow at the Buckeye Institute, a conservative research group. On price-fixing cases, allowing lawsuits from indirect victims could lead to companies needing to pay out more than once for the same conduct in a way that could outstrip the actual harm. "I don't think the law is perfect," Mr. Dew said. "If there was a way to equitably distribute the damages between the direct buyers and all the indirect buyers, then that would be a fair outcome." However, the settlement documents do list benefits for people in ineligible states such as Ohio. Among them: Some of the parts suppliers agree not to engage in illegal conduct for up to two years. That elicited a groan from Fahey, the Cleveland woman. "I'm trying to laugh about this stuff even if it's not funny when you get down to it," she said. * Workplace Lawsuits May Spike Under Trump Administration --------------------------------------------------------- Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that workplace lawsuits targeting employers' pay practices have been on the rise for years, with some yielding massive settlements. But a major Supreme Court decision expected this year could reverse that trend if the justices allow companies to use arbitration agreements that prohibit class actions. The Supreme Court recently accepted for review three cases that have diverged on the legality of workplace arbitration agreements, which force employees to resolve grievances through an arbitrator and waive their right to participate in class-action lawsuits. Arbitration agreements -- which consumers commonly sign, often without realizing it, when they start a credit card or cellphone contract -- are becoming increasingly popular among employers who want to avoid costly and lengthy battles with their workers in court. The court's review comes as private workplace lawsuits are expected to rise under President Donald Trump. Gerald Maatman, a partner in the Chicago firm of Seyfarth Shaw who represents management in workplace lawsuits, said that while workplace agencies during the Obama years aggressively investigated and sued employers for violations, Republican administrations historically have backed off enforcement, and plaintiffs' attorneys usually end up filing more lawsuits on behalf of workers to fill the void. Curbing class actions -- a key tool workers have to fight violations, because individual claims would fetch too paltry a sum to be worth a lawyer's time -- could alter that landscape amid a boom in litigation involving pay. "Potentially, if arbitration agreements are valid for wage disputes, that could very much drive down the number of lawsuits filed," said James Bormes, a Chicago attorney who represents employees in workplace lawsuits. That's worrisome, he said, because without the threat of class actions, he thinks ""it will give a green light to some companies to commit wage violations." But to David Ritter, a partner in the Chicago firm of Barnes & Thornburg who represents management, arbitration is a preferred alternative to lawsuits that are "adversarial from the start" and hammer good employers who try to comply with laws but sometimes make mistakes. "If class-action waivers are allowed by the Supreme Court, it will be a critical defense that employers can use to stop these wage- and-hour cases that cost so much money and take so much time and are very hard to defend against," Mr. Ritter said. Last year was a banner year for pricey settlements for wage-and- hour class actions, the hottest segment of workplace litigation, in part because they are the easiest to bring as class actions. Wage-and-hour cases involve overtime and minimum wage violations and other laws covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The value of the top 10 wage-and-hour class-action settlements surged to $695.5 million last year, from $436.6 million in 2015 and $215.3 million the year before, according to an annual report from Seyfarth Shaw on workplace class-action litigation. That's in contrast to other categories of workplace litigation, such as cases involving discrimination and pension plans, which saw settlement values decline last year after reaching all-time highs in 2014 and 2015. Federal wage-and-hour lawsuit filings ticked down last year for the first time after rising steadily for 15 years, but that appears to be an aberration, said Mr. Maatman, who is lead author of the Seyfarth Shaw report. He expects filing numbers to rise and hit records again in 2017. "If you're an employer, the No. 1 risk is how you pay people," Mr. Maatman said. To Bormes, the prevalence of the suits suggests that many companies make a business decision to not pay employees properly and deal with consequences should they come. "These are the people on the lowest economic rung of society," Mr. Maatman said. "If you're a huge employer and you're shaving just a quarter a day per employee, that's a whole bunch of money at the end of the year." But to Ritter, the management-side lawyer, the thirst for wage- and-hour litigation has more to do with lawyers eyeing a potential payout. "Plaintiffs' lawyers see dollar signs, and if they can find a single plaintiff [to file a class action], it's like ready, shoot, aim," he said. Employers rarely get a chance to resolve the issue before they're hit with a lawsuit, he added. The rise in wage-and-hour cases, which began to accelerate in the late 1990s but surged in the past decade, can be attributed to a number of factors. Technology is one. Smartphones and nonstop email access have raised new questions about when the workday begins and ends, Mr. Maatman said. In addition, the cost and burden of proof for certifying a case as a class action is lower in wage-and-hour claims than other types of employment litigation, he said. Mr. Maatman expects wage-and-hour class actions to continue their ascent this year amid a "perfect storm" of conditions. Part of it is awareness. The Obama administration's plan to make millions more Americans eligible for overtime by raising the salary threshold at which workers are exempt from collecting the extra pay -- a move which is in limbo after a federal court blocked its implementation -- garnered ample attention that may prompt workers to take a closer look at their paychecks to make sure they are being compensated properly, Mr. Maatman said. Part of it is political. The new administration could drive more lawsuits if the Department of Labor under Trump, predicted to be less regulatory, eases up on enforcement and private plaintiffs attorneys pick up the slack, he said. Part of it is legal. Last year's Supreme Court ruling, which was in favor of thousands of Iowa workers at a Tyson Foods factory who wished to be paid for time spent donning and removing protective gear, could make it easier to prove commonality for a class action by softening prior precedent, Mr. Maatman said. Whether the Supreme Court's decision on mandatory arbitration agreements upends those trends remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen if Trump's Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia -- author of a major opinion favoring arbitration agreements, and the jurist Trump has said would be the model for his pick -- will be on the bench in time for the decision. At issue in the three cases the Supreme Court is reviewing is whether arbitration agreements that preclude class actions are illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, which protects workers' rights to engage in "concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." The National Labor Relations Board has held that they are, and rulings in two of the cases under review agreed. But the decision in the third case rejects that position, finding instead that such agreements are valid under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that arbitration agreements are enforceable under that act. ********* 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 * * *