/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170206.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 6, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 26 Headlines 1-800 FLOWERS: "Rodkey" Junked for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ABC CORP: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of New York ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Feb. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set AFFINITYLIFESTYLES.COM: "Nunes" Remanded to Nevada State Court AGILE THERAPEUTICS: RM Law Files Securities Class Suit AIR LINE PILOTS: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Valdez" Suit ALEX MOLINAROLI: Court Denies Prelim. Injunction Bid in "Gumm" ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Files Another Appeal to Ninth Circuit APPLE INC: Customer Suit Over IPhone Upgrade Program Dropped ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Sue Over Merger Deal BALTIMORE, MD: Harrell Appeals Decision in "Smith" Class Suit BANC OF CALIFORNIA: March 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set BANK OF AMERICA: Removal of "Goldberg" Suit Affirmed BAYER CORP: "Hall" Suit Goes Back to State Court BAYER CORP: E.D. Mo. Judge Remands "Dotson" Suit to State Court BIG HEART: Fitzpatrick Appeals E.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit BP EXPLORATION: Woodbridge Baric Not Liable, 5th Cir. Says BRUCE BOUTON: Faces Class Suit Over Music Royalties BT GROUP: Holzer Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit BT GROUP: To Bring Forward Auditor Review in Wake of Scandal CELLULAR BIOMED: 9th Cir. Dismissed Shareholders' Appeal CHICAGO PARKING: Mobile App Does Not Update Correctly, Suit Says COOK SALES: Court Approves Settlement in "Warren" CR ENGLAND: Gradie Appeals Ruling in "Harper" Suit to 10th Cir. DELTA AIR: Oman Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of N.D. Cal. Ruling DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Directors Lied to Students, Suit Says DISH NETWORK: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Ray" Suit DONALD J. TRUMP: Campaign Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ELECTROLUX HOME: "Kukich" Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa. ENDOLOGIX INC: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set EPIQ SYSTEMS: Sued Over Worker's Refusal to Waive Class Rights ERIC RYAN: Faces Gorss Suit in District of Connecticut FACEBOOK INC: Judge Declines to Dismiss "Brickman" TCPA Action FIELDTURF USA: Faces Paw Suit in District of Minnesota FORD MOTOR: PowerShift Transmissions Defective, Suit Says FRED BATHON: Class Action Over Bid Rigging Can Proceed GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Robbins Geller Tapped as Lead Counsel GOLDEN RULE: King Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of E.D. Pa. Decision GRA CONVENIENT: Faces "Muhammad" Suit in E.D.N.Y. HEARTS WITH HOPE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Anderson" Suit HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Cooper" Suit HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Watkins Appeals Decision to 6th Circuit HP INC: Failed to Pay Overtime to Software Testers, Suit Says HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settlement in Defective Engines Suit Get Final OK HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Refuses to Remand Elantras Gas Mileage Suits ILLINOIS, USA: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Winner" Class Suit INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ISLE CASINO: Overcharged Customers, Class Action Says JACKSON HEWITT: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Hollingsworth" JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of "Holtz" Suit Under SLUSA Affirmed LACE ENTERTAINMENT: MLB Seeks Review of Ruling in "Gomez" Suit LOUISIANA: Livingston Parish Joins August Flood Class Suit LOUISIANA: Court Narrows Claimants in "Marshall" Suit LOUISVILLE SLUGGER: Trying to Cover Up Defect, Suit Says MANITOBA: Flood Evacuees' Class Action Can Go Forward MDL 2445: Court Trims Claims in Amneal Antitrust Suit MDL 2615: Court Dismisses Complaints in FCRA Suit MEDICREDIT INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Raffin" Suit METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Faces "Katz" Suit in E.D.N.Y. MICROSOFT CORP: Suspended Xbox Service Features, Maher Claims MINNESOTA, USA: Foster Appeals Judgment Before 8th Cir. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Bush Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit MOUNT SINAI HEALTH: Latner Seeks Review of Judgment to 2nd Cir. NATIONAL ELECTORAL: To Face Suit Over Destruction of Property NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Suppress Cheerleaders' Wages, Suit Says NEIU: Defendants Immune from Suit, Judge Says NEW ORIENTAL: Feb. 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set NEW YORK: Bus Companies Sue Over Excessive Tolls NEW YORK: Rold Appeals Ruling in Barcia v. Insurance Board OMNI INSURANCE: Colter Appeals D. S.C. Court Decision to 4th Cir. OMNI INSURANCE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Colter" Suit OMNI LIMOUSINE: Court Refuses to Certify "McSwiggin" PHARMAVITE LLC: Bradach Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit PIXARBIO CORPORATION: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set PNC FINANCIAL: "White" Plaintiffs Can't Add RICO Claims PRIMARY CARE: "George" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. REGUS MANAGEMENT: Circle Click Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit RESTAURANT.COM INC: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of "Shelton" Suit Order ROCKET FUEL: Bid to Amend Complaint in Securities Suit Denied SAZERAC CO: Misrepresents Age of Bourbon, "Penrose" Suit Claims SCOUT ANALYTICS: "Weller" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend SEATTLE GENETICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit SEE'S CANDY: Cal. Appeals Court Tweaks Judgment in "Silva" SHARKNINJA OPERATING: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Rosenthal" Suit SOUTH DAKOTA: Fleming Seeks Review of Judgment in Tribes' Suit SOUTH DAKOTA: Judge Pfeifle Appeals Judgment in Tribes' Suit SOUTH DAKOTA: Vargo Seeks Review of Judgment in Tribes' Suit SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stuppiello" Suit SPEEDWAY LLC: Faces "Brodie" Suit in Western Dist. of Pa. ST. ANTHONY'S MEDICAL: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hern" Suit STILLWATER MINING: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Assad" Suit Claims SUGAR TRANSPORT: Plaintiff May Amend "Guinn" FLSA Complaint SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Van Dusen" Suit SYSCO CORP: Calif. Court Refuses to Remand "Hernandez" TOBACK BERNSTEIN: Directed to Pay Counsel Fees in "Torres" TTC AMERIDIAL: Oliver's Bid to Certify Withdrawn as Stipulated UNARCO INDUSTRIES: Court Partly Dismisses "Hernandez" UNITED STATES: "Al Saeedi" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al. UNITED STATES: "Emamjomeh" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al. UNITED STATES: "Rashekhi" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al. UNITED STATES: Flint, Mich. Residents Sue over EPA Inaction UNITED STATES: Turpeinen Brothers, et al. Claims Dismissed US XPRESS: Ayala Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Judge Rejects Bid for Interlocutory Appeal VISTA OUTDOOR: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set WAL-MART STORES: Judge Won't Add $86MM to Award for Drivers WAL-MART STORES: Nikmanesh Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Circuit WASTE MANAGEMENT: Savannah Suit Removed to N.D. Ga. WELLS FARGO: Noncitizen College Students Sue Over Loan Grants WESTERN UNION: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set WESTERN UNION: Calif. Man Sues Over $586MM Deal with Gov't WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Class Action Over ISCO Stock Sale WYNDHAM VACATION: Calif. Man Sues Over Collection Calls WYNDHAM VACATION: Appeals Decision in "Bitner" Suit to 7th Cir. WYOMING, OH: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Daniels" Suit Granted YAHOO! INC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ********* 1-800 FLOWERS: "Rodkey" Junked for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas M. Rose of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted the Motion to Dismiss the case captioned, PAMELA RODKEY and CHERIE CUMMINGS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees nationwide, and on behalf of the Ohio and Oregon Classes, Plaintiffs, v. 1-800 FLOWERS TEAM SERVICES, INC., HARRY AND DAVID, LLC, 1-800-FLOWERS SERVICES SUPPORT CENTER, INC., and DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-311 (S.D. Ohio). 1-800-Flowers Support Center employed Pamela Rodkey, an Ohio resident, as a customer service specialist in Ohio from approximately August 2009 to October 31, 2014. Team Services is an operating subsidiary of 1-800-Flowers.com and issued paychecks to the Plaintiffs on behalf of 1-800-Flowers Support Center and Harry and David. The Plaintiffs allege that their employers failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Counts I and II), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Rev. Code Section 4111.03 (Count III), and Oregon State Law (Count IV). Team Services moved to dismiss the First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), arguing that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the case because it does not have sufficient contacts with the State of Ohio to satisfy Ohio's long- arm statute or constitutional due process requirements. In his Entry and Order dated January 23, 2017, available at https://is.gd/sedWNV from Leagle.com, Judge Rose held that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Team Services and that there is no evidence that Team Services determined either Rodkey's designation as exempt or non-exempt or the amount that she was paid for her overtime hours. Cheri Cummings, et al. are represented by Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq. -- brucelaw@meizgray.com -- Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. -- srey@nka.com -- and -- Deborah R. Grayson, Esq. -- deborahg@meizgray.com -- MEIZLISH & GRAYSON 1-800 Flowers.com, Inc. is represented by Daniel L. Messeloff, Esq. -- Daniel.Messeloff@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS PC Harry and David, LLC is represented by Daniel L. Messeloff, Esq. - - Daniel.Messeloff@jacksonlewis.com -- and -- Jeffrey B. Keiper, Esq. -- KeiperJ@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS PC ABC CORP: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC Corp. The case is captioned as Victor Reyes Gomez on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABC Corp, doing business as Che Bella Pizza; Jimmy Berrer; and John Does 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00657 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2017). ABC is located in New Jersey, USA. The Company builds industrial gas plants to factories, plants, mills, laboratories and industrial facilities in many countries around the world. The Plaintiff appears pro se. ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Feb. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm disclosed a class action lawsuit against Abeona Therapeutics Inc., (ABEO) concerning possible violations of federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PlasmaTech Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. shares between March 31, 2015 and June 19, 2015; and/or Abeona shares between June 22, 2015 and December 9, 2016 inclusive, are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of the February 14, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at -- brian@lundinlawpc.com No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. Mako Research published a report on SeekingAlpha.com stating "ABEO science is demonstrably unviable with numerous irrefutable flaws that will lead to failure." The report found that Steven H. Rouhandeh, the Company's Executive Chairman and Principal Executive Officer, was the managing director at D. Blech & Co., a brokerage firm that was the subject of SEC investigations during the 1990s as well as a securities class action suit that ended in a $15 million investor settlement due to allegations that the firm changed the price of some biotech stocks through transactions that falsely inflated the market price of the stocks to maintain the firm's interest in these stocks. When this information was disclosed to the public, the value of Abeona fell, causing investors harm. AFFINITYLIFESTYLES.COM: "Nunes" Remanded to Nevada State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the case captioned, JENNIFER NUNES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AFFINITYLIFESTYLES.COM, INC. d/b/a REAL WATER, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02265-APG-NJK (D. Nev.) to the state court. Plaintiffs Jennifer Nunes, Dennys Sian, Ramona Wells, and Keyatra Grant filed the proposed class action in Nevada state court against defendant Affinitylifestyles.com d/b/a Real Water. The plaintiffs allege that Real Water uses municipal tap water, processes it, and sells it as bottled water at a "premium price." The plaintiffs allege there is no scientific basis for these claims and some of the claims are contrary to known scientific principles. The plaintiffs thus claim Real Water has violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation by misbranding its bottled water. The plaintiffs assert only state law claims of violation of Nevada's laws against consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices (count 1), breach of express warranty (count 2), breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (count 3), and unjust enrichment (count 4). Real Water removed the action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, asserting that the plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FDCA. The plaintiffs move to remand, arguing that they assert only state law claims and that the mere reference to federal law within their state law claims does not support removal. Real Water responds that the plaintiffs' state law claims are expressly preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which amended the FDCA. Alternatively, Real Water argues the plaintiffs' claims raise a substantial question of federal law sufficient to support federal question jurisdiction. In an Order dated January 23, 2017 available at https://is.gd/FzbYOQ from Leagle.com, Judge Gordon held that Real Water has not established federal question jurisdiction based on a substantial question of federal law. Dennys Sian, et al. are represented by J. Randall Jones, Esq. -- r.jones@kempjones.com -- William L. Coulthard, Esq. -- w.coulthard@kempjones.com -- Michael J. Gayan, Esq. -- m.gayan@kempjones.com -- and -- Nathanael R. Rulis, Esq. -- n.rulis@kempjones.com -- KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD, LLP -- and -- Terry W. Riedy, Esq. Scott K. Canepa, Esq. CANEPA RIEDY ABELE & COSTELLO 851 S. Rampart Blvd., Suite 160 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Tel:(702)304-2335 Affinitylifestyles, Com, Inc. is represented by David B. Avakian, Esq. -- David.Avakian@lewisbrisbois.com -- and -- Josh Cole Aicklen, Esq. -- Josh.Aicklen@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP -- Paige S. Shreve, Esq. -- Paige.Shreve@lewisbrisbois -- LEWIS ROCA ROTHERGERBER CHRISTIE LLP AGILE THERAPEUTICS: RM Law Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Agile Therapeutics, Inc. securities between March 9, 2016 and January 3, 2017, inclusive. Agile shareholders may, no later than March 7, 2017, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of Agile and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online, visit: www.maniskas.com. Agile, a specialty pharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of prescription contraceptive products for women. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) that the Twirla contraceptive patch had an efficacy rating that fell below peer group standards; (2) that over half of patients in its "Secure" Phase 3 Study discontinued the study early; (3) that the Twirla patch therefore allegedly had a slight chance of FDA approval; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Agile's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On January 3, 2017, Agile disclosed statistical information pertaining to its Phase 3 SECURE study analyzing the Company's combined hormonal contraceptive patch Twirla. The study, which was initiated at the request of the FDA, comes after the FDA rejected Agile's initial marketing application back in 2013. The Company cited "positive top-line results" in the study, yet reported an efficacy measure that failed to meet the standard set by other approved contraceptive patches. Additionally, 51.4% of subjects opted to discontinue the study. On this news, Agile stock fell nearly 48% on January 4, 2017, closing at $2.63/share, down $2.37/share. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than March 7, 2017, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. AIR LINE PILOTS: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Valdez" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Stephen Valdez, Armando Castroverde, Ruben Freyre and Jeffrey Ware filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Stephen Valdez, et al. v. Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Case No. 2:16-cv-02256, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs want to recover damages against the Defendant as a result of alleged intentional or reckless misrepresentation of the true nature of a 2015 Collection Bargaining Agreement, particularly pay rate increases, signing bonuses, retirement benefits, Sick Leave Buyback, overall value, and/or "industry- leading" status to the FedEx pilots. The Plaintiffs allege that ALPA engaged in many forms of misconduct in connection with the ratification of the 2015 CBA, breaching its duty of fair representation. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Stephen Valdez, et al., Case No. 17-503, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiffs-Petitioners STEPHEN VALDEZ, JEFFREY WARE, RUBEN FREYRE and ARMANDO CASTROVERDE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joe David Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS, P.C. 168 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 150 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 899-9789 E-mail: Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com Defendant-Respondent AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, is represented by: Deborah Ellen Godwin, Esq. GODWIN, MORRIS, LAURENZI & BLOOMFIELD, P.C. P.O. Box 3290 Memphis, TN 38173 Telephone: (901) 528-1702 Facsimile: (901) 528-0246 E-mail: dgodwin@gmlblaw.com ALEX MOLINAROLI: Court Denies Prelim. Injunction Bid in "Gumm" -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Pamela Pepper of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied the motion for preliminary injunction in the case captioned, ARLENE D. GUMM ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. ALEX A. MOLINAROLI ET AL, Defendants, Case No. 16- CV-1093-PP (E.D. Wis.). The plaintiffs hold shares of common stock in the merged company Johnson Controls Inc. and they hold those shares in taxable accounts. JCI and Tyco International entered into the merger plan on January 24, 2016. The plan came to fruition after "months of negotiations between the companies." In its January 25, 2016 announcement of the merger, JCI stated that the merger would be tax-free to Tyco shareholders and taxable to JCI shareholders. The shareholders voted to approve the merger. JCI and Tyco finalized the merger on September 2, 2016. The August 16, 2016 complaint names certain senior executive officers of JCI, all members of JCI's board of directors, JCI itself, Jagara Merger Sub LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyco), and Tyco. It asserts that the defendants structured the merger in such a way as to allow JCI to gain tax benefits by reincorporating in Ireland. Specifically, the suit argues that because the merger resulted in the shareholders of JCI owning a particular percentage of the "parent" corporation, the Internal Revenue Code triggers capital gains taxes for the shareholders. The complaint alleges that this result has damaged two groups: (1) all public shareholders of JCI, and (2) the "minority taxpaying shareholders"--people like the named plaintiffs, who hold their shares in taxable accounts. In the Plaintiffs' motion seeking a preliminary injunction, they ask the court to enjoin JCI "from continuing to act in a manner that will force the plaintiffs and others similarly situated to pay taxes and from falsely reporting to the IRS that JCI shareholders owe capital gains taxes in connection" with JCI's current tax structure. In her Decision and Order dated January 25, 2017, available at https://is.gd/5kraur from Leagle.com, Judge Pepper held that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the monetary damages available as a remedy are inadequate to address the harm they allege. The court reminded the plaintiffs that, under its December 12, 2016 order, within twenty-one days of the date of this order, they must file either an amended complaint or a notice that they do not plan to amend the complaint. Paul J Pontier, et al. are represented by Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. -- gmfishbein@locklaw.com -- and -- Vernon J. Vander Weide, Esq. - - vweide@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP -- K. Scott Wagner, Esq. -- ksw@wagner-lawgroup.com -- WAGNER LAW GROUP SC Alex A Molinaroli, et al. are represented by Ben M. Germana, Esq. -- BMGermana@wlrk.com -- Cecilia A. Glass, Esq. -- CAGlass@wlrk.com -- Claire E. Addis, Esq. -- CEAddis@wlrk.com -- and -- Jonathan M. Moses, Esq.-- JMMoses@wlrk.com -- WACHTELL LIPTON ROSEN & KATZ -- Kate E. Gehl, Esq. -- kgehl@foley.com -- Thomas L. Shriner, Jr., Esq. -- tshriner@foley.com -- Bryan B. House, Esq. -- bhouse@foley.com -- and -- Philip C. Babler, Esq. -- pbabler@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Files Another Appeal to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Juan Perez filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to his lawsuit entitled Juan Perez v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, LLC, Case No. 2:13-cv-07741-R-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District Court of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as Juan Perez v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, LLC, Case No. 17-55082, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Perez also filed an appeal from a ruling entered by the District Court. That appellate case is captioned as Juan Perez v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, LLC, Case No. 16-80168 (9th Cir.). In his complaint, the Plaintiff raises a total of six causes of action against the Defendant. The primary claims for the purpose of class certification are: claim one for failure to provide meal and rest breaks and claim two for failure to pay wages. The remaining four claims are derivative of the first two. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by February 17, 2017; -- Transcript is due on March 20, 2017; -- Appellant Juan Perez's opening brief is due on April 28, 2017; -- Appellee Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, LLC's answering brief is due on May 30, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant Juan Perez, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, is represented by: Natasha Chesler, Esq. Timothy B. McCaffrey, Jr., Esq. CHESLER MCCAFFREY LLP 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 882-6407 Facsimile: (310) 882-6359 E-mail: nchesler@tbmlaw.net tmccaffrey@tbmlaw.net Defendant-Appellee Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, is represented by: Amanda Kate Bonn, Esq. Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6039 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: abonn@susmangodfrey.com mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com APPLE INC: Customer Suit Over IPhone Upgrade Program Dropped ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an Apple customer who claimed the tech giant willfully kept upgrades from its most loyal customers in order to drive revenue dropped his lawsuit on January 13. Emil Frank, a Brooklyn resident who bought the iPhone Upgrade Program, filed a federal class action in September claiming that Apple did not live up to the promises it made customers who purchased the program. The program, unveiled in 2015, promised Apple members the opportunity to upgrade to annual new versions of the iPhone as long as certain conditions were met -- in this case 12 payments within 6 months, according to the complaint. Essentially the company promised to give those enrolled in the program access to the newest and best technology, but Frank complained it failed to do this when the iPhone 7 came out in September. "This is not just a problem created by the limited supply of the newly released iPhones," Frank said in the lawsuit. "Rather, Apple intentionally limited the inventory available to iPhone Upgrade Program customers (who are already contractually locked into making monthly payments for their old devices) to capture sales from new customers who weren't already part of the program." It is unclear why Frank chose to drop the case. Apple did not comment when the first complaint was filed, and did not return request for comment. Frank's lawyers did not return an email seeking comment. ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Sue Over Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that shareholders claim in a federal class action in Boston, that key details are omitted from the Jan. 19 solicitation statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning Takeda's proposed $5.2 billion acquisition of Ariad Pharmaceuticals. The case is captioned, DONALD D. VENTRICE, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., GEORGE W. BICKERSTAFF, III, ALEXANDER J. DENNER, JULES HAIMOVITZ, PARIS PANAYIOTOPOULOS, ANNA PROTOPAPAS, NORBERT G. RIEDEL, SARAH J. SCHLESINGER, TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, and KIKU MERGER CO., INC., Defendants, Case 1:17- cv-10151-DJC (D. Mass., January 28, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Tel: (484) 588-5516 - and - Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Tel: (781) 453-0100 BALTIMORE, MD: Harrell Appeals Decision in "Smith" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Movant Phoenicia Harrell filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Nicole Smith, et al. v. Housing Authority of Baltimore, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02921-GLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. The appellate case is captioned as Nicole Smith, et al. v. Housing Authority of Baltimore, et al., Case No. 17-1103, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. According to the briefing schedule in the Appellate Case, initial forms are due within 14 days. Movant-Appellant PHOENICIA HARRELL is represented by: Landon M. White, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF LANDON M. WHITE P. O. Box 3343 Baltimore, MD 21216 Telephone: (443) 799-0710 E-mail: landon@baltimorelegalservices.com Plaintiffs-Appellees NICOLE ANDREA SMITH, JACQUELINE KIANA MORANT, AMY TOWSON, SARA GARRET, ONNADAY MCINTOSH-GRIGGS, STEPHANIE HARRIS, TAKIRA CARTER, LYNETTE COOPER, SHANAE BARNES, CELESTE ENGLISH, MYRTLE GILBERT, TOWANDA PARKER, TRACEY HOLDEN, ROSENA PRINCE, LASONIA GILBERT, DETRIA ADAMS, SIERRIA WARREN, SHANAE BOLES, and KHRYSTYNA KELLEY, All of the above Individually Named Plaintiffs On Behalf of Themselves and all Other Similarly Situated, are represented by: Cary Johnson Hansel, III, Esq. HANSEL LAW, P.C. 2514 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 Telephone: (301) 461-1040 Facsimile: (443) 451-8606 E-mail: cary@hansellaw.com - and - Annie Beth Hirsch, Esq. HIRSCH & COSCA, PC 8401 Colesville Road Silver Spring Telephone: (301) 761-1697 E-mail: abh@hirschandcosca.com Defendants-Appellees HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY and PAUL GRAZIANO, Baltimore City Housing Commissioner and Executive Director of the Housing Authority of Baltimore City, are represented by: Jannai Charlana Goslee, Esq. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS 10 South Street Baltimore, MD 21202-0000 Telephone: (410) 396-3345 - and - Carrie Blackburn Riley, Esq. BLACKBURN RILEY, LLC 828 Dulaney Valley Road Baltimore, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 825-8088 Facsimile: (410) 321-4944 E-mail: cbr@blackburnriley.com BANC OF CALIFORNIA: March 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Banc of California, Inc. concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between October 29, 2015 and January 20, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the firm prior to the March 24, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com. No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. Seeking Alpha released an article claiming that Banc of California had concealed several connections between it and Jason Galanis, who has been convicted of criminal securities fraud. Specifically, the Complaint maintains that: Banc of California CEO Jason Sugarman was the founder, CEO, and indirect owner of a company controlled by Galanis; and that separately, Galanis controlled Banc of California's founding shareholder.The Complaint further claims that Banc of California was using an off-balance sheet entity to render loans to insiders. Then, on November 10, 2016, Banc of California revealed it would be stalling the filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2016 so that its Special Committee could complete a review into the aforementioned improper relationships and related party transactions. On January 23, 2017, Banc of California stated that the Securities and Exchange Commission is pursuing a formal order of investigation directed at these same issues. When this news was released to the public, the value of Banc dropped, causing investors serious harm. Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. BANK OF AMERICA: Removal of "Goldberg" Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of LaSalle Bank in the case captioned MARGARET RICHEK GOLDBERG, as Trustee under the Seymour Richek Revocable Trust, on behalf of a class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and LASALLE BANK, N.A., Defendants- Appellees, No. 11-2989 (7th Cir.). Stephen Richek, as trustee under the Seymour Richek Revocable Trust, opened a custodial account with LaSalle Bank with a sweeps feature. Richek was satisfied with LaSalle's services until it was acquired by Bank of America. After the acquisition, Bank of America notified the clients that a particular fee was being eliminated. Richek, who had not known about the fee, then sued in state court, contending that LaSalle had broken its contract (which had a schedule that did not mention this fee) and violated its fiduciary duties. Richek proposed to represent a class of all customers who had custodial accounts at LaSalle. The Bank removed the suit to federal court, relying on the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA or the Litigation Act). The Bank is not an issuer or underwriter covered by the 1933 Act. SLUSA authorizes removal of any "covered class action" in which the plaintiff alleges "a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security". The statute also requires such state-law claims to be dismissed. The district court held that Richek's suit fits the standards for both removal and dismissal and entered judgment in the Bank's favor. The Seventh Circuit noted that Richek's claim depends on the omission of a material fact -- that some mutual funds paid, and the Bank kept, fees extracted from the "swept" balances. Richek conceded that his suit is a "covered class action" and that each of the mutual funds is a "covered security." The Bank's omission was in connection with a purchase or sale of a "covered security". According to Richek, the Bank's omission is outside the scope of the Litigation Act because it does not involve the price, quality, or suitability of any security. The Seventh Circuit, however, explained that the Litigation Act does not say what kind of connection must exist between the false statement or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; the statute asks only whether the complaint alleges "a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security". The Seventh Circuit held that no more is needed as Richek's complaint alleged a material omission in connection with sweeps to mutual funds that are covered securities. The Seventh Circuit also held that a claim that a fiduciary that trades in securities for a customer's account has taken secret side payments is well inside the bounds of securities law. A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's January 23, 2017 ruling is available at https://is.gd/kxImnI from Leagle.com. Terry Rose Saunders -- tsaunders@saunders-lawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. J. Stephen Walker, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Mary J. Hackett -- mhackett@mcguirewoods.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. David J. Bird, for Defendant-Appellee. Kim M. Watterson -- kwatterson@reedsmith.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Raven Moore, for Defendant-Appellee. BAYER CORP: "Hall" Suit Goes Back to State Court ------------------------------------------------ Judge Carol E. Jackson granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case captioned JAMIE HALL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-1523 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo.). On July 28, 2016, 94 individuals filed suit in the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit (St. Louis City) seeking damages for injuries arising from the use of Essure, an implanted birth control device manufactured by the defendants. The plaintiffs are citizens of several states, including Missouri, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Defendant Bayer Corporation is a citizen of Indiana, where it is incorporated, and Pennsylvania, where it has its principal place of business; defendant Bayer HealthCare LLC, is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware whose nine members are citizens of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the Netherlands, and Germany; defendants Bayer Essure Inc., and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., are citizens of Delaware and New Jersey; and Bayer AG is a citizen of Germany. The defendants removed the case to the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, invoking jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, federal question jurisdiction, and mass action jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiffs moved to remand the action to the state court from which it was removed. The defendants filed a response in opposition, a motion to dismiss the claims of all non-Missouri plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction, and a motion to sever the plaintiffs' claims. The defendants argued that the nondiverse plaintiffs are fraudulently joined because the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants for the claims brought by the non-Missouri plaintiffs. Judge Jackson, however, held that the defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish that the plaintiffs' claims are fraudulently joined. The judge stated that courts in the Eastern District of Missouri have repeatedly held that an alleged lack of personal jurisdiction does not establish fraudulent joinder. The judge also found that common issues of law and fact are likely to arise because the plaintiffs all alleged that they sustained injuries from the use of Essure. The defendants also argued that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. section 1331, which provides that federal district courts "shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." The defendants contended that the plaintiffs' claims require a determination of whether the defendants violated federal regulatory requirements. Judge Jackson, however, pointed out that in other removed Essure device cases, courts in the district have consistently rejected the defendants' federal question jurisdiction argument. Lastly, the defendants argued that the case is part of a "mass action" under CAFA. CAFA allows removal to federal court of mass actions defined, in relevant part, as civil actions in which 100 or more individuals pursue claims for monetary relief and there is a proposal to try the claims "jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact." Judge Jackson found that there are fewer than 100 plaintiffs and the record does not support a finding that there is a proposal to try this case jointly with any other pending Essure device case. The judge thus concluded that CAFA's mass action provision does not support the Court's exercise of removal jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, Judge Jackson found that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking and the action must be remanded to the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (City of St. Louis) from which it was removed. A full-text copy of Judge Jackson's January 10, 2017 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/XunKiZ from Leagle.com. Jamie Hall, Mishel Williams, Brandi Stone, Rebekah Trautman, Sheyla Acevedo, Latoyia Adkins, Susan Bates, Rachael Bauer, Sheila Bell, Shontel Bolden, Diana Bravo, Katina Brooks, Cheron Brooks, Victoria Brothwell, Yolanda Buford, Dawn Byers-Platta, Erin Campbell, Christy Castie, Chantelle Curtis, Kelly Duncan, Stephanie Falkiewicz, April Feutz, Sandy Finley, Samantha Fregoso, Carla Garcia, Lisa Hamilton, Jennifer Hodge, Candace Hoover, Lacrisha Howard, Lakeila Irvin, Chelsea Johnston, Lakesha Jones, Brenda Jones, Heather Kuone, Kate Largent-Brown, Candice Lewis, Debbie Lindsay, Joyce Long, Jennifer Lopez, Shanica Lowe, Liza Lozano, Vanessa Major, Joyce Marsillett, Keri Masse, Lamisise Miles, Stephanie Miller, Angela Morris, April Mosier, Nicole Murphy, Shermika Myles, Connie Najar, Jennifer Noriega, Sarah Okelberry, Nikki Patton, Inez Perez, Victoria Perez, Ashley Perez, Kathryn Pierce, Odessey Ramos, Tamara Ray, Sara Reinhart, Cassie Reveile, Maribel Reyes, Doris Roberts, Michelle Rodriguez, Teresa Russell, Jaimelis Sanchez, Crystal Sedita, Kawana Seymour, Katrina Sheeler, Lindsey Singh, Leanne Stele, Melody Stowe, Michelle Stowers, Kristin Stroup, Michelle Suman, Raye Sutton, Metrecia Terrell, Tanisha Thomas, Rose Thompson, Cherie Townsend, Jessica Trujillo, Toniesha Turner, Monique Valdez, Crystal Vargas, Megan Verkamp, Lawain Walker, Leseanda Walker, Jessie Wallace, Melissa Ward, Susan Wilkinson, Courtney Winkler, Andrea Wolfgang, Monica Young, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Holland -- eholland@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Randall S. Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC. Bayer Corporation, Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc, Bayer HealthCare LLC, Defendants, represented by W. Jason Rankin -- jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM. BAYER CORP: E.D. Mo. Judge Remands "Dotson" Suit to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen of the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, in the case TANYA DOTSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16cv01593PLC (E.D. Mo.) Essure is a medical device for permanent birth control allegedly manufactured, promoted, marketed, and sold by Bayer Corp., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Essure, Inc. f/k/a Conceptus, Inc., and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., all of which are non- citizens of Missouri. Plaintiffs are ninety-four Essure users, who are citizens of Missouri and thirty other states. Plaintiffs filed an action in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, seeking monetary relief, including punitive damages, for injuries allegedly arising out of their use of Essure. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1446, defendants removed the lawsuit on the grounds that the court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, for each plaintiff's claim and complete diversity of citizenship exists between the proper plaintiffs and defendants, federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because plaintiffs plead violations of federal law on the face of their petition, and removal jurisdiction under the mass action provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(11)(B)(i), due to the number of plaintiffs and claims when considered in conjunction with the number of plaintiffs and claims in nearly identical complaints filed in five other removed Essure device cases. Defendants further urge there is complete diversity if the court ignores the citizenship of the non-diverse plaintiffs who, defendants assert, were fraudulently joined or fraudulently misjoined. Additionally, defendants argue the court should initially exercise its discretion and dismiss the non-Missouri plaintiffs, including the non-diverse plaintiffs, due either to lack of personal jurisdiction or the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand and contend that the court should first resolve subject matter jurisdiction issues because they are straight forward and not arduous." In particular, plaintiffs move to remand due to the absence of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that complete diversity does not exist between all defendants and all plaintiffs, who are all properly joined, defendants' alleged violations of the FDCA and CFR are not sufficiently substantial to confer federal question jurisdiction and removal jurisdiction under the mass action provision of the CAFA is inappropriate because no party has proposed a joint trial of the claims. Magistrate Judge Cohen granted plaintiffs' motion to remand because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). A copy of Judge Cohen's memorandum and order dated January 4, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/nQCMp9 from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Holland -- eholland@allfela.com -- Randall S. Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- at HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC Bayer Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gerard T. Noce -- gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- Jason Rankin -- jrankin@heplerbroom.com - - at HEPLER BROOM; Rebecca K. Wood -- rwood@sidley.com -- at SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC, and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants, represented by Gerard T. Noce -- gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- Jason Rankin -- jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- at HEPLER BROOM BIG HEART: Fitzpatrick Appeals E.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Fitzpatrick filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Susan Fitzpatrick v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Case No. 2:16-cv-00063-JAM-AC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brought the lawsuit against Milo's Kitchen manufacturers Big Heart Pet Brands. The Plaintiff disputes label claims that Milo's Kitchen dog and cat treats are made in the United States. The appellate case is captioned as Susan Fitzpatrick v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Case No. 17-15047, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by February 3, 2017; -- Transcript is due on March 6, 2017; -- Appellant Susan Fitzpatrick's opening brief is due on April 14, 2017; -- Appellee Big Heart Pet Brands' answering brief due on May 15, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant SUSAN FITZPATRICK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Wesley W. Barnett, Esq. John E. Norris, Esq. Dargan Maner Ware, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue, South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9976 E-mail: wbarnett@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com dware@davisnorris.com - and - Benjamin P. Tryk, Esq. TRYK LAW, PC 7050 N. Fresno Street Fresno, CA 93730 Telephone: (559) 840-3240 Facsimile: (888) 528-5570 E-mail: ben@tryklaw.com Defendant-Appellee BIG HEART PET BRANDS is represented by: Amy B. Alderfer, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-7941 E-mail: aalderfer@cozen.com - and - Richard Fama, Esq. COZEN O'CONNER 45 Broadway Atrium New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 908-1229 E-mail: rfama@cozen.com BP EXPLORATION: Woodbridge Baric Not Liable, 5th Cir. Says ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment against Woodbridge Baric Pre- Settlement Funding, L.L.C. in the case captioned IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON. LAKE EUGENIE LAND & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED; ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; ET AL, Defendants. WOODBRIDGE BARIC PRE-SETTLEMENT FUNDING, L.L.C., Movant-Appellant, v. LOUIS J. FREEH, Special Master, Appellee, No. 15-30599 (5th Cir.). In 2012 Woodbridge Baric loaned Jarrod Burrle $24,000. Woodbridge Baric and Burrle agreed that Burrle would not be required to repay the loan if his economic loss claims in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill fail unless he had misrepresented his claim to Woodbridge Baric, in which case Burrle agreed to indemnify Woodbridge Baric and hold it harmless. In 2013, the Deepwater Horizon Court-Supervised Settlement Program paid over $50,000 on one of Burrle's claims, and Burrle's attorneys paid Woodbridge Baric $20,000 of those funds in partial repayment of the loan. Subsequently, Louis Freeh, appointed by the district court as a special master to investigate misconduct in the administration of the settlement program, determined that Burrle's claim was fraudulent and moved the court to order Burrle and others, including Woodbridge Baric, to make restitution for the funds paid in connection with that claim. The district court granted the motion as to Woodbridge Baric, finding that Woodbridge Baric would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the $20,000 from Burrle. Woodbridge Baric appealed. The Fifth Circuit found that Woodbridge Baric's right to Burrle's repayment of the principal amount of its loan did not depend solely on the success of Burrle's claims: Woodbridge Baric's contracts with Burrle expressly required Burrle to indemnify and hold Woodbridge Baric harmless for the loss of the principal amount of the loan if his representations to Woodbridge Baric regarding his claims were not accurate and complete in all respects. The Fifth Circuit found that although Woodbridge Baric assumed some of the risks associated with non-recovery in its contracts with Burrle, it specifically disclaimed the risk that Burrle had asserted fraudulent claims and withheld that information from it. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that Woodbridge Baric was entitled to Burrle's full repayment of the principal under their contracts. Because Burrle's payment to Woodbridge Baric discharged an unconditional, bona fide obligation, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Woodbridge Baric is not liable in restitution to the settlement program. A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's January 9, 2017 ruling is available at https://is.gd/TmEStj from Leagle.com. George Davidson Fagan -- gfagan@leakeandersson.com -- for Movant- Appellant. Margaret Frohn Swetman -- mswetman@leakandersson.com -- for Movant-Appellant. Gregory A. Paw -- pawg@pepperlaw.com -- for Appellee. Anton L. Hasenkampf -- ahasenkampf@leakeandersson.com -- for Movant-Appellant. BRUCE BOUTON: Faces Class Suit Over Music Royalties --------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that session musicians and vocalists claim in a federal class action in Brooklyn that they are entitled to the more than $100 million in royalties kept in a fund created in 1998 by AFM, short for the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, and SAG-AFTRA, short for the Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. The case is captioned, JON BLONDELL, PAUL HARRINGTON, TIMOTHY JOHNSON, STEPHANIE LOWE, F/K/A STEPHANIE MARIE, CHASTITY MARIE, AND CLAYTON PRITCHARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiffs, v. BRUCE BOUTON, DUNCAN CRABTREE-IRELAND, AUGUSTINO GAGLIARDI, RAYMOND M. HAIR, JR., JON JOYCE, AND STEFANIE TAUB, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00372 (E.D.N.Y., January 23, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Kieran M. Corcoran, Esq. LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P. 1325 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 763-8491 Fax: (212) 763-8304 E-mail: kmc@lhlaw.net - and - Roger L. Mandel, Esq. Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq. LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777 Dallas, TX 75219-4259 Telephone: (214) 560-2201 Telecopier: (214) 560-2203 E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net beb@lhlaw.net - and - Eric Zukoski, Esq. James H. Birch, Esq. QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS, WINSLETT AND MOSER, P.C. 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel: (214) 871-2100 Fax: (214) 871-2111 E-mail: ezukoski@qslwm.com jbirch@qslwm.com BT GROUP: Holzer Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Holzer & Holzer, LLC, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased BT Group PLC securities between May 24, 2012 and January 20, 2017. The lawsuit alleges, among other thing, that BT Group used improper accounting and sales practices in its Italian business segment during that time. The complaint claims that BT Group's financial results were misstated as a result. If you purchased BT Group securities between May 24, 2012 and January 20, 2017 and suffered a loss on your investment, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. at mdees@holzerlaw.com, or by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff is March 27, 2017. Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. BT GROUP: To Bring Forward Auditor Review in Wake of Scandal ------------------------------------------------------------ Nic Fildes at Financial Times reports BT is to bring forward a review of its auditors in the wake of a damaging accounting scandal in Italy that will end a relationship with PwC that dates back more than 30 years. The telecoms company was due to tender for a new audit partner in 2019 with a view to switching from PwC, according to people familiar with the situation. However, BT will now accelerate that following the accounting scandal that has engulfed BT Italia and triggered a GBP530m write-off. BT first became aware of issues at its Italian unit, part of its Global Services division, last summer when a whistleblower contacted senior management in London. It initially pencilled in a GBP145m cost of inappropriate accounting but an in-depth investigation by KPMG uncovered a complex accounting scandal involving several people. BT revealed the higher loss on January 24 alongside a warning about government spending in Britain, which wiped a fifth off its market value. The emergence of the worsening crisis in its Italian business has triggered a number of lawsuits against the company, notably one led by law firm Pomerantz that has filed a potential class action in New York against BT and its executives. The law firm led a class action lawsuit against BP over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The scale of the accounting scandal at BT Italia has caught investors by surprise. The managers of the Italian unit have been accused by BT of artificially depressing its cost base to appear more profitable than it actually was. This was achieved through various schemes, including a process where loans were taken to settle creditor bills against receivables but those loans were not booked through the balance sheet. Such activity can be hard to discern but people familiar with the KPMG investigation have also said that BT Italia's management had been booking operating expenses as capital expenditure to boost its cash flow. Such methods, which were adopted by WorldCom during the technology boom to artificially boost profits, should have been spotted, according to the people. BT has used PwC since it was privatised in 1984, when the auditor was known as Coopers & Lybrand, and has never tendered the business. A previous accounting problem at BT's Global Services division in 2008 and 2009, which led to writedowns of almost GBP2bn, resulted in a change of personnel at PwC working on the account as the company sought to strengthen its audit functions. European Union regulations introduced last year require companies to put the job of auditing their accounts out to tender once every decade, and change their auditor at least every 20 years. BT had reserved the right to kick off an early tender for its audit business stating in its annual report that "service issues" could be a trigger for a quicker switch. Both BT and PwC declined to comment. BT will face further scrutiny when it reports third-quarter results. CELLULAR BIOMED: 9th Cir. Dismissed Shareholders' Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that the Ninth Circuit has dismissed an appeal by a group of shareholders who had accused Cellular Biomedicine Group in a federal class action in San Francisco, of inflating its stock price and hiding deaths connected to its cancer treatment. The shareholders had asked the Ninth Circuit earlier this month to dismiss the case, but did not reveal the reasons behind the request. Shareholder attorney Jacob Goldberg declined to comment in an interview on January 30, why his clients had agreed to drop their appeal, but said that there had been no settlement of the case. Cellular Biomedicine attorney Adrienne Ward said in an interview that the plaintiffs hadn't told her client why they decided to drop their appeal, either. But she conjectured that the decision was influenced by a similar case in the Eleventh Circuit -- In Re: Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation -- that found for the defendant. "Right now, if they walk away from this appeals case, it has no precedential value, it's just more of a data point," she said, adding," I would surmise that they would be concerned about -- within a circuit where they do practice frequently -- causing there to be an adverse Ninth Circuit opinion to their interests." The Jan. 23 dismissal affirms a September 2016 decision by U.S. District Judge William Orrick granting Cellular Biomedicine's motion to dismiss the shareholders' second amended complaint, and puts an end to the two-year-old litigation. "The case as we pleaded it is now over," Goldberg said. Cellular Biomedicine, a Delaware corporation based in Palo Alto, develops stem cell and immune cell therapies for diseases like cancer, osteoarthritis and spinal muscular atrophy, marketing its patented cell technology to China's burgeoning health care market. The company's Car-T cancer treatment technology involves engineering cancer patients' own immune cells to recognize and attack their tumors, according to an April 2015 complaint filed by lead plaintiff Francis Bonanno. Bonanno claimed that the company paid a promoter to inflate its stock price in violation of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rules, and that it failed to disclose that that was how it had achieved its $500 million valuation. Bonanno also accused the company of hiding deaths that occurred during its Car-T studies. Cellular Biomedicine's illicit promotional campaign allegedly ballooned its stock price from $13.79 per share on January 2, 2015 to a high of $47.06 per share on March 23. According to Bonanno, the truth about the company's finances and research was revealed in an April 7, 2015 report published on Seekingalpha.com by an anonymous blogger called the Pump Stopper, which claimed that the company was "engaged in a massive fraudulent scheme to mislead investors and that the company had no meaningful financial value." Bonanno said the blog post caused Cellular Biomedicine's stock price to tumble nearly 22 percent, closing at $25.22 per share the day it was published. Orrick dismissed the case for the second time last September, ruling that the Pump Stopper's report couldn't serve as a "corrective disclosure" because it contained already-public information that the average investor could understand. He also found that the plaintiffs had failed to show that Cellular Biomedicine's stock price had dropped due to the report's revelations rather than due to the company's own stock promotion activities. Specifically, Orrick said the plaintiffs had failed to plead loss causation -- a causal connection between a material misrepresentation and a plaintiff's loss. Loss causation is satisfied by pleading that a defendant revealed "the truth" through corrective disclosures that caused the company's stock price to fall and investors to lose money. In making his finding, Orrick said the plaintiffs hadn't shown that the Pump Stopper's report constituted "true facts" and not an opinion. Although the plaintiffs had claimed that the Pump Stopper had revealed for the first time the extent of the company's promotional campaign, Orrick disagreed, characterizing the report as "an individual's summary and comments" on facts that were already public. "Because the Pump Stopper Report only collected and opined on already public information, it does not constitute disclosure of 'the truth' as required for a corrective disclosure," he said. The plaintiffs had acknowledged that Cellular Biomedicine's promotional activities were public, but had argued that the average investor couldn't understand them without an analyst's help. Orrick, however, found that the plaintiffs hadn't alleged that the company's promotional campaign would have been difficult for the average investor to understand. The judge similarly demolished the plaintiffs' argument that information regarding Cellular Biomedicine's promotional activities wasn't incorporated into its market price because it wasn't available in its public filings. "This argument fails -- it is irrelevant if the public information at issue comes directly from the company or from non-company sources; all public information will be incorporated into stock prices in an efficient market," Orrick said. "Plaintiffs have failed to point to any non-public information in the Pump Stopper Report and have failed to explain why this public information would not be factored into market price," he added. Goldberg is with The Rosen Law Firm in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania. Ward is with Ellenoff Grossman & Schole in New York. The case is captioned, MICHELLE JACKSON; ERVIN D. WINDOM; DING LIANG; BEVERLY J. NISSENBAUM, Plaintiff -- Appellants, vs. CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE GROUP, INC., WEI CAO, "WILLIAM", Defendant -- Appellees. Case: 16-16646 (9th Cir., Jan. 17, 2017). Lead Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellants: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com CHICAGO PARKING: Mobile App Does Not Update Correctly, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class of consumers claims in Chicago, Cook County court that the ParkChicago mobile app that allows users to pay for parking meter fees does not always update correctly, leading to parking tickets. The case is Edward Sanchez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Chicago Parking Meters LLC, LAZ Parking Chicago LLC, the City of Chicago and John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 2017CH01351, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Jan. 27, 2017. Attorney for Plaintiff: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Jonathan B. Piper, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS, & OPPENHEIM LLC 134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: 312-658-5500 Fax: 312-658-5555 COOK SALES: Court Approves Settlement in "Warren" ------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge William H. Steele of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama granted the Consent Motion for Final Order Approving Settlement of Collective Action in the case captioned, ALLISON WARREN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COOK SALES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-0603-WS-M (S.D. Ala.). Plaintiffs Allison Warren, Chester Dampier, Sherri Mullinax and Evelyn Clem brought the action seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. (FLSA), against defendants, Cook Sales, Inc., and Cook Portable Warehouses of Mississippi, LLC. The Complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were employed by the defendants as sales representatives and/or lot managers, that they routinely worked more than 40 hours per week, and that the defendants failed to pay them overtime pay of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40, as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiffs brought their Complaint as a putative FLSA collective action, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly-situated sales representatives, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Following months of mediation, the parties entered into a Release and Settlement Agreement, which provides that Cook Sales will pay $495,000 into a common fund, referred to as the "Gross Fund," to settle the claims of the Named Plaintiffs, Original Opt-In Plaintiffs, and Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs who submitted consent to join forms in a timely manner. The parties have agreed that, subject to court approval, the Gross Fund will also be used to pay attorney's fees, litigation costs and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel in an amount not to exceed $148,500, or 30% of the Gross Fund. The Settlement Agreement also provides that the Gross Fund will be used to furnish each of the four Named Plaintiffs and each of the four Original Opt-In Plaintiffs with a "service payment" of $5,000, for an aggregate of $40,000. The Settlement Agreement further provides that the Gross Fund will be used to pay all costs, fees and expenses of the Settlement Claims Administrator, not to exceed $15,000. In his Order dated January 23, 2017, available at https://is.gd/SHtKnG from Leagle.com, Judge Steele held that he is satisfied that the proposed attorney's fees sought by the plaintiffs' counsel constitute adequate, reasonable compensation and that the plaintiffs' recovery in the matter has been neither tainted nor otherwise adversely affected by the fee award negotiated and requested by their lawyers; the proposed incentive awards to each of the Named Plaintiffs and Original Opt-In Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 (or $40,000 in total) from the Gross Fund are approved as fair and reasonable; and the proposed payment of $10,168 to Simpluris out of the Gross Fund is approved as fair and reasonable. Chester Dampier, et al. are represented by Robert F. Childs, Jr., Esq. -- rchilds@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC -- and -- Robert C. Epperson, Esq. Sam Jones Smith, Esq. BURR & SMITH, LLP 111 2nd Avenue N.E. Suite 1100 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel: (813)253-2010 Cook Sales, Inc. is represented by Elliott Britton Monroe, Esq. -- bmonroe@lgwmlaw.com -- Michelle McClafferty, Esq. -- mmcclafferty@lgwmlaw.com -- and -- Taffiny Smith Stewart, Esq. -- tstewart@lgwmlaw.com -- LLOYD, GRAY, WHITEHEAD & MONROE, P.C. CR ENGLAND: Gradie Appeals Ruling in "Harper" Suit to 10th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Movants William H. Gradie, William Borschowa, Romi Francescu, Sang Lee and Tony Ruiz filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Harper, et al. v. C.R. England, Case No. 2:16-CV- 00906-DB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah - Salt Lake City. The appellate case is captioned as Harper, et al. v. C.R. England, Case No. 17-4008, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, William H. Gradie has asked the District Court to not allow the settlement of an overlapping class action to block his case. Mr. Gradie, a truck driver, sued C.R. England for alleged illegal labor practices. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript order form and docketing statement are due on February 9, 2017, for William Borschowa, Romi Francescu, William H. Gradie, Sang Lee and Tony Ruiz; and -- Notice of appearance due on February 9, 2017, for William Borschowa, C.R. England, Inc., Romi Francescu, William H. Gradie, Milton Harper, Sang Lee, Jonathan Mitchell, Tony Ruiz and Ronnie Stevenson. Plaintiffs-Appellees MILTON HARPER, RONNIE STEVENSON, and JONATHAN MITCHELL, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, are represented by: Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: kyle@bamlawca.com - and - Lauren I. Scholnick, Esq. STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK, LLC Plaza 721 675 East 2100 South, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Telephone: (801) 359-4169 Facsimile: (801) 359-4313 E-mail: lauren@utahjobjustice.com Defendant-Appellee C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a corporation, is represented by: David B. Dibble, Esq. Scott A. Hagen, Esq. RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1500 E-mail: ddibble@rqn.com shagen@rqn.com - and - Drew R. Hansen, Esq. THEODORA ORINGHER PC 535 Anton Boulevard Ninth Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7109 Telephone: (714) 549-6112 Facsimile: (714) 549 6201 E-mail: dhansen@tocounsel.com Movants-Appellants WILLIAM H. GRADIE, SANG LEE, WILLIAM BORSCHOWA, TONY RUIZ and ROMI FRANCESCU are represented by: Russell Thomas Monahan, Esq. COOK & MONAHAN LLC 323 South 600 East, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Telephone: (801) 595-8600 Facsimile: (801) 595-8614 E-mail: Russell@Cooklawfirm.com - and - Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq. VAN VLECK TURNER & ZALLER LLP 6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (323) 592-3505 Facsimile: (323) 592-3506 E-mail: bvanvleck@vtzlaw.com DELTA AIR: Oman Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of N.D. Cal. Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Dev Anand Oman, Todd Eichmann, Albert Flores and Michael Lehr filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Dev Oman, et al. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 3:15- cv-00131-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit against the Defendant for alleged failure to pay minimum wages to its flight attendants. The appellate case is captioned as Dev Oman, et al. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 17-15124, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by February 17, 2017; -- Transcript is due March 20, 2017; -- Appellants Todd Eichmann, Albert Flores, Michael Lehr and Dev Anand Oman's opening brief is due on April 28, 2017; -- Appellee Delta Air Lines, Inc.'s answering brief is due on May 30, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants Dev Anand Oman, Todd Eichmann, Michael Lehr and Albert Flores, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, are represented by: Daniel S. Brome, Esq. Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 277-7234 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: dbrome@nka.com helland@nka.com Defendant-Appellee Delta Air Lines, Inc., is represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Street Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: afrederick@morganlewis.com - and - Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2692 Facsimile: (213) 442-1601 E-mail: rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Directors Lied to Students, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that, citing DeVry University's $100 million settlement in December with the Federal Trade Commission, a federal class of shareholders accuses the for- profit's school board of directors of lying to the students, investors and the public. The case is captioned, HARRIET MYERS, derivatively on behalf of DEVRY EDUCATION GROUP INC., Plaintiff, v. DANIEL HAMBURGER, TIMOTHY J. WIGGINS, RICHARD M. GUNST, PATRICK K. UNZICKER, CHRISTOPHER B. BEGLEY, DAVID S. BROWN, LISA WARDELL, ANN WEAVER HART, LYLE LOGAN, ALAN G. MERTEN, FERNANDO RUIZ, RONALD L. TAYLOR, and JAMES D. WHITE, Defendants, and DEVRY EDUCATION GROUP INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00384 (N.D. Ill.). Liaison Counsel: Matthew T. Hurst, Esq. Matthew T. Heffner, Esq. Heffner Hurst 30 North LaSalle Street, 12th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60602 Tel: (312) 346-3466 Fax: (312) 346-2829 Email: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com Counsel for Plaintiff: Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq. Joseph M. Profy, Esq. David M. Promisloff, Esq. PROFY PROMISLOFF & CIARLANTO, P.C. 100 N 22nd Street, Unit 105 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 259-5156 Fax: (215) 600-2642 - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 519 Allegheny Building 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 391-5164 Fax: (412) 471-1033 DISH NETWORK: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Ray" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dish Network, LLC, and Echosphere, L.L.C., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Dish Network, L.L.C, et al. v. Ray, Case No. 1:16-CV-00314-LTB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver. The appellate case is captioned as Dish Network, L.L.C, et al. v. Ray, Case No. 17-1013, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the original lawsuit -- Matthew Ray, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. Dish Network L.L.C. and EchoSphere L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-01239-NYW (D. Colo., June 11, 2015) -- is brought against the Defendants for alleged failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate call centers in Colorado for the purpose of providing satellite television services. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Docketing statement was due on January 31, 2017, for Dish Network, LLC and Echosphere, L.L.C.; -- Transcript order form was due on January 31, 2017, for Meghan W. Martinez, Esq.; and -- Notice of appearance was due on January 31, 2017, for Dish Network, LLC, Echosphere, L.L.C., and Matthew Ray. Plaintiffs-Appellants DISH NETWORK, LLC and ECHOSPHERE, L.L.C., are represented by: Ann Elizabeth Christoff Purvis, Esq. Meghan W. Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ LAW GROUP 720 South Colorado Boulevard South Tower, Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 597-4000 Facsimile: (303) 597-4001 E-mail: purvis@mlgrouppc.com martinez@mlgrouppc.com Defendant-Appellee MATTHEW RAY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, is represented by: Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: jgamboa@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com - and - Brian Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES 242 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com DONALD J. TRUMP: Campaign Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reportsa class action lawsuit alleging Donald Trump's presidential campaign texted people without their permission has been dismissed, court documents show. And the plaintiff in the case has told The Cook County Record the case was setttled. On Jan. 11, plaintiff Joshua Thorne, through his lawyers with the firms of Siprut P.C. and Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim LLC, each of Chicago, filed a notice in Chicago federal court of his intention to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice, the lawsuit against the Trump campaign, formally known as Donald J. Trump for President Inc. The notice does not discuss why the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. However, in messages to The Cook County Record, Thorne said the case had been settled. He said, on advice of his legal counsel, he could not provide any more detail. Thorne, identified in court documents as a resident of Cook County, had sued the Trump campaign committee in April, asserting the campaign had violated federal telecommunications law by using an automated program to send campaign-related text messages to Thorne's mobile phone, as well as potentially many other phones belonging to other people, without receiving permission to do so. According to the complaint, Thorne had received a text message on March 4 from Trump for President, asking him to "Reply YES to subscribe to Donald J. Trump for President," and telling him "Your subscription will help Make America Great Again!" The complaint asserted the source of the message, listed as "88022" is a texting short code "leased by Trump for President of Trump for President's agent(s) or affiliate(s) and is used for operating Trump for President's text message marketing program." Thorne claimed he did not provide his number to the Trump campaign. The complaint asserted the registrant of the website that hosts Trump's campaign's privacy policy is a company identified as Tatango Inc., which "advertises bulk messaging software on its website." According to the complaint, Tatango's website brags its programs allow text messages to be simultaneously sent to "42,435 cellular phone numbers." "On information and belief, prior to sending the text messages, Trump for President entered into an agreement with Tatango to use Tatango's software to send hundreds, if not thousands, of text messages en masse," the complaint said. Further, the complaint said Thorne and his counsel believe the Trump campaign received a guide on complying with federal law from Tatango prior to sending the text messages. In September, Thorne had formally asked the court to certify a class of potentially thousands of others who may have received similar text messages from the campaign. The complaint had asked the court to award damages of up to $1,500 per text message, plus attorney fees. However, in October, the plaintiffs had withdrawn that motion for class certification, without explanation in court documents. Thorne said resolution of the case had been delayed as the parties awaited potential further input from the federal government on the possibility of clarifying the applicability of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act to political campaigns. When that guidance was not provided before the end of the 2016 presidential election campaign, the parties agreed to settle the case, Thorne said. ELECTROLUX HOME: "Kukich" Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned ALEX KUKICH, Individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. ELH-16-3412 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander granted the motion filed by Electrolux Home Products, Inc. to transfer the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where a similar case is pending. In October 2016, Alex Kukich, a citizen of Maryland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed suit against Electrolux, alleging that the stainless steel handles on "Over- The-Range Microwave Ovens" designed and manufactured by Electrolux dangerously reach up to 168 Fahrenheit when the "cooking surface below is in operation . . ." In the Complaint, Kukich asserted claims, inter alia, for strict liability on the basis of design defect and failure to warn; negligent failure to warn; negligence; violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and unjust enrichment. Electrolux moved to transfer the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where the case of Rice v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., 4:15-cv-0371-MWB is pending in the Williamsport Division of that district. According to Electrolux, Rice is "based on the same allegations that form the basis of Kukich's complaint." Electrolux pointed out that in Rice, as in Kukich's case, the plaintiff seeks to certify a national class under Rule 23(b)(2), consisting of "[a]ll persons in the United States who own a Microwave with a stainless steel handle . . . ." Given the pendency of the Rice case, Electrolux maintained that "the interests of justice weigh heavily in favor of transferring . . . to avoid duplicative litigation, avoid inconsistent rulings, and promote judicial efficiency." Kukich opposed the motion to transfer, stating, inter alia, that the Pennsylvania court lacks personal jurisdiction over him and that a Maryland court should apply Maryland law with regard to the claims under Maryland law. Judge Hollander was satisfied that, based on Electrolux's registration as a foreign corporation in Pennsylvania, it has consented to general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. Thus, the judge found that Electrolux has made a preliminary showing that Kukich could have filed suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Kukich argued that the Court should afford great weight to his choice of forum. However, Judge Hollander held that Kukich's decision to bring his suit in Maryland is not entitled to substantial weight, given his intent to seek certification of a national class. Judge Hollander found that the convenience of the parties militates against transfer. The judge pointed out that, to the extent that it would be inconvenient for Electrolux to litigate the case in Maryland, a transfer would merely shift the inconvenience from Electrolux to Kukich. Judge Hollander, however, found that the convenience of the witnesses is a neutral factor in the context of the case, considering that neither side has identified any witness who would be inconvenienced by a trial in one district or the other, and that at least some of the discovery obtained in the Rice case could be used in the Kukich case, without the need for duplication. Judge Hollander determined that the pendency of similar litigation in the Middle District of Pennsylvania strongly favors the transfer of the case to that forum. The judge noted that the pendency of the Rice case in the Middle District of Pennsylvania involves the same alleged defect of the same part that was manufactured and designed by the same defendant, the claims are being litigated by many of the same attorneys, and the national classes that are sought to be certified are effectively the same. Another element that Judge Hollander found relevant to the interest of justice is a comparison of the docket conditions in the two courts. Electrolux argued that transfer will allow for the speedier resolution of the case because the case load in the Middle District of Pennsylvania is lighter than in Maryland. The judge thus found that this factor favors transfer. Lastly, Judge Hollander found that the applicability of Maryland law in the case does not weigh against transfer, noting that Kukich has not suggested any reason why the Pennsylvania court would be unequipped to apply the law of a neighboring state. Judge Hollander thus concluded that the balance of factors strongly supports the transfer of the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. A full-text copy of Judge Hollander's January 24, 2017 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/a2FouJ from Leagle.com. Alex Kukich, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew N. Friedman -- afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Robert Joseph Barton, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Charles J. Kocher -- ckocher@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC, pro hac vice, Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Raina Borrelli -- rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustagson Gluek PLLC, Sally M. Handmaker -- shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Simon Bahne Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC, pro hac vice. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric Christopher Rusnak -- eric.rusnak@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP. ENDOLOGIX INC: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Endologix, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 17-cv-00061, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Endologix securities between August 2, 2016 and November 16, 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 Endologix 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. Endologix develops, manufactures, markets, and sells medical devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the United States and internationally. Endologix's products are intended for the minimally invasive endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. One of the Company's products is built on the platform of endovascular sealing ("EVAS"). Endologix's current EVAS product is the Nellix(R) EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System ("Nellix EVAS System"). The Nellix EVAS System is currently engaged in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") premarket approval process (the "PMA process"), which requires Endologix to collect and submit nonclinical and human clinical data on Nellix EVAS System for its intended use to demonstrate that it is safe and effective. In the PMA process, the FDA will approve the medical device and thereby authorize its commercial distribution in the U.S. if it determines that the probable benefits outweigh the risks for the intended patient population, and, therefore, makes a determination of reasonable assurances of safety and effectiveness. In December 2013, Endologix received Investigational Device Exemption ("IDE") approval in the United States to begin a clinical trial for the Nellix EVAS System, which commenced in January 2014 (the "IDE Study"). Enrollment in the IDE study was completed in November 2014. In the third quarter of 2015, Endologix obtained IDE continued access approval for additional patients. On May 26, 2016, Endologix reported purportedly positive clinical data from the IDE Study and submitted the results to the FDA as part of the PMA process for the Nellix EVAS System. 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: (1) Endologix did not have the requisite clinical data for FDA premarket approval of its NellixAr EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System; and (2) as a result, Endologix's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 16, 2016, before market hours, Endologix issued a press release entitled "Endologix Provides Update on Nellix PMA Process," revealing "that the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has requested the Company provide 2-year patient follow-up data from the EVAS-FORWARD IDE Study of the Nellix(R) EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System (Nellix EVAS System)." On this news, Endologix's share price fell $2.02, or over 20.5%, from its previous closing price, to close at $7.82 on November 16, 2016, damaging investors. 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. EPIQ SYSTEMS: Sued Over Worker's Refusal to Waive Class Rights -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Denney, writing for The New York Law Journal, reports that the National Labor Relations Board's New York office has filed a complaint against a legal services technology provider accused of firing an employee for refusing to sign an employment agreement requiring him to settle disputes through arbitration and without joining a class. The suit comes as the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari to three cases that question the legality of requiring workers to waive as a condition of employment the right to join class action suits. According to a complaint filed in November against Epiq Systems Inc., a Kansas City-based company with offices across the globe that provides documents and other services, by the NLRB's regional office in New York, Epiq's employment agreement contains a provision obligating employees and the company to arbitrate disputes and to waive the right to a jury trial. The agreement also requires employees to bring actions against the company in their individual capacities and prohibits arbitrators from consolidating multiple claims. The complaining party in the case was fired in August after refusing to sign the contract and Epiq has admitted that refusal to sign was the reason for termination, according to the NLRB's motion for summary judgment filed earlier this month. The provisions, the NLRB alleges in the motion, violate Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, which makes it an unfair labor practice to interfere with workers' rights to form or join labor unions, bargain collectively or "engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." In its reply to the complaint, Epiq denies the legal conclusion that by admitting an employee was fired for not signing the employment contract that it has discouraged employees from concerted activities. Epiq representatives did not respond to requests for comment. As for the central issue in the complaint against Epiq--whether it is legal for companies to include class action waivers in employment contracts--the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review this question in three cases from the Fifth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits. Cliff Palefsky, a San Francisco-based employment and civil rights attorney and partner at McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky, said that giving workers an ability to band together and act in concert is "the essence of our entire labor law system" and that allowing companies to take away rights to file class action lawsuits would be a "devastating blow for workers." "The ability to bring a class action suit for wage and hour violations is probably the most effective form of concerted action available to workers right now to redress certain aspects of their relationship to their employer," Palefsky said. In Murphy Oil v. NLRB , 808 F.3d 1030, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in 2015 that it has held that the use of class action procedures by employees is not a substantive right under the NLRA and that concerted-activity waivers in employment agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. But last year, U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Seventh and Ninth circuits each held that concerted-activity waivers imposed by employers violate provisions of the NLRA and are thus unenforceable. The cases were Morris v. Ernst & Young , 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016) and Lewis v. Epic Systems , 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016). ERIC RYAN: Faces Gorss Suit in District of Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Eric Ryan Corporation. The case is styled as Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. The Eric Ryan Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, and John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00126 (D. Conn., Jan. 27, 2017). Eric Ryan Corporation is a utility and telecommunications cost reduction consultant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358 5345 Facsimile: (212) 571 0284 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com FACEBOOK INC: Judge Declines to Dismiss "Brickman" TCPA Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Francisco, on January 30, refused Facebook's constitutional challenge to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and its request to dismiss a class action involving data scraping to send unsolicited text messages. The case is captioned, COLIN R. BRICKMAN, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant. Case No. 16-cv-00751-TEH (N.D. Cal., January 27, 2017). FIELDTURF USA: Faces Paw Suit in District of Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FieldTurf USA, Inc. The case is titled as Paw, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FieldTurf USA, Inc.; FieldTurf, Inc.; and FieldTurf Tarkett SAS, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-00274-JRT-TNL (D. Minn., Jan. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Chief Judge John R. Tunheim. FieldTurf manufactures synthetic turf for athletic fields including football, soccer, baseball and multi-purpose use. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C Gudmundson, Esq. Bryce Daniel Riddle, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341 0400 Facsimile: (612) 341 0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com bryce.riddle@zimmreed.com FORD MOTOR: PowerShift Transmissions Defective, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that consumers claim in a federal class action in Sherman, Texas, that Ford Motor Co. knew its PowerShift transmissions are defective, but sold them in 22 models anyway. The case is captioned, Benjamin Ascensio, Caleb Barnes, Linda Bourland, Terrie Bumpus, Felton Burton, Teresa Byrd, Alvin Cearley, Alice Clark, Florinda Esparza, Ruby Granados, Taylor Harrell, Deborah Head, Joel Hinojosa, Sharon Johnson, Josh Lazette, Jamie Lopez-Martinez, Michelle Pope, Daniel Reyes, Megan Rice, Teresa Rodriguez, Ivy Rosenberg, Juanita Sanches, Julian Santana, Bill Smith, Christine Tamez, Dawn Utsey, Staci Wyatt, And Robert Zebrowski, Plaintiffs vs. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00074-ALM (E.D. Tex. February 1, 2017). Attorney for Plaintiffs: Richard C. Dalton, Esq. 1343 West Causeway Approach Mandeville, LA 70471 Tel: (985) 778-2215 Fax: (985) 778-2233 E-mail: rdalton746@aol.com FRED BATHON: Class Action Over Bid Rigging Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ Ann Maher at Madison St.Clair Record reports that an Illinois Supreme Court decision issued on January 25 means that a class action trial over bid rigging by former Madison County treasurer Fred Bathon and others can proceed. The high court denied defendants' petition for leave to appeal a Fifth District Appellate Court ruling, which found that visiting judge William Becker did not abuse his discretion in certifying a class of distressed property owners who were charged excessive interest rates at auctions of delinquent property taxes. Whether the case proceeds to trial or settlement ensues remains to be seen. And while the appellate court ruled that class certification was appropriate on common questions, justices said last September that individual damages have to be decided separately. Associate Circuit Judge William Becker presides over the action by special assignment as visiting judge from Clinton County. Plaintiffs claim that at auctions of delinquent property taxes from 2005 to 2008, Bathon arranged for tax buyers to charge interest at the legal limit of 18 percent. Bathon pleaded guilty of antitrust violations in 2013, and served a sentence. Tax buyers Scott McLean, Barrett Rochman and John Vassen also served sentences. Former U.S. attorney Stephen Wigginton, who prosecuted Bathon and the tax buyers, did not seek restitution for property owners, finding individual calculation of damages would be impracticable. Property owners later filed three suits proposing class actions against Bathon and tax buyers in Madison County circuit court. Becker's predecessor on the special assignment, Clinton County circuit judge Dennis Middendorf, consolidated the actions. The single action alleged civil conspiracy and violations of Illinois antitrust law against Bathon, McLean, Rochman, and Vassen. The suit also sought damages from tax buyers Dennis Ballinger, Kenneth Rochman, Scott Sieron and Joseph Vassen, as well as others who are no longer in the action. It alleged breach of fiduciary duty against Bathon and sought action against the bond he executed as treasurer. It included a count against the county and then treasurer Kurt Prenzler, who is now county board chairman, seeking recovery under state law for sales in error. Finally, it included a count against the county for money had and received, a claim similar to unjust enrichment. Defendants opposed class certification, echoing Wigginton's conclusion that individual calculations weren't practical. Becker held a hearing on class certification and granted it, finding that common questions of law or fact predominated over individual questions. He wrote that almost 10,000 delinquent tax sales occurred in the relevant time. He defined the class as all who paid 12 percent or higher. Regarding damages, he wrote, "The problem is that if the alleged tax sale scheme is proved true, all or some of the defendants created a system whereby it is difficult if not impossible for an individual plaintiff to prove that a lower rate would have been bid and what that rate would have been for a particular piece of property." He concluded that he could reach an appropriate method to calculate damages. The tax buyers, the county, and Foley petitioned the Fifth District appellate court for interlocutory review, and Fifth District judges denied it. Defendants asked the Illinois Supreme Court for leave to appeal, and obtained instead a supervisory order directing the Fifth District to hear their appeal. Fifth District judges heard it and decided Becker didn't abuse his discretion by certifying a class action. "Although we recognize that four of the defendants pleaded guilty to the conspiracy in federal court, the determination of whether the remaining defendants, including Foley, were involved in the unlawful behavior is still at issue in the case," Justice Thomas Welch wrote. "Foley claims that he was not the auctioneer at the tax sale who picked the winning bids and that he was not even present at the 2008 tax sale. "Antitrust conspiracies often have to be proven from inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence. "All class members will rely on the same discovery, same witnesses, and other evidence to prove the existence of the conspiracy, whether the remaining defendants were part of the alleged conspiracy, and a causal connection between the conspiracy and any injury." Welch rejected a defense argument that statutes of limitation precluded the claims. "Although we recognize that this is an issue that will need to be determined, commonality is not destroyed where class members may be affected differently by the applicability of the statute of limitations," Welch wrote. Although the Justices found Becker didn't abuse his discretion by certifying a class action, they found he abused his discretion by not limiting it to liability. Welch wrote that findings of the Department of Justice supported this conclusion. "Without a methodology to calculate damages on a class wide basis and given the unique characteristics of real property as well as the subjective nature of the bidding process, we conclude that the calculation of actual damages would be too individualized to be handled as part of the class action," he wrote. "If individual damage determinations are necessary, the court can utilize various procedures to determine damages, including the creation of subclasses. "Furthermore, if the class becomes unmanageable at some later time in the litigation, the court always has the option to set aside the class certification or a portion of it." Finally, he excused Madison County and Prenzler from the proceedings. He wrote that nothing in statutory language allows a delinquent property tax owner to bring a statutory sale in error cause of action against the county. Regarding money had and received, he wrote that plaintiffs alleged no facts suggesting the county retained any money as a result of the alleged conspiracy. Steven Giacoletto -- collinsvilleattorney@gmail.com -- of Collinsville, Aaron Weishaar aWeishaar@rwalawfirm.com -- of St. Louis, and Nelson Mitten -- mitten@riezmanberger.com -- and Paul Grote -- grote@riezmanberger.com -- with Riezman Berger of Clayton represent plaintiffs. Andrew Kasnetz -- akasnetz@sandbergphoenix.com --, Timothy Sansone -- tsansone@sandbergphoenix.com --, Natalie Kussart -- mkussart@sandbergphoenix.com --, and Michele Parrish -- mparrish@sandbergphoenix.com , all of Sandberg Phoenix in St. Louis, represent the Rochmans. Gordon Nash -- Gordon.nash@dbr.com -- and Daniel Delaney -- daniel.delaney@dbr.com -- with Drinker Bindle of Chicago represent Ballinger. Paul Slocomb -- paulslocomb@yahoo.com -- of St. Louis represents the Vassens. Alvin Paulson -- acp@acplawfirm.com -- with Paulson Law Firm of Belleville represents Sieron. Craig Unrath -- cunrath@heylroyster.com -- of Heyl Royster in Peoria represented the county and continues to represent Foley, along with Michael Schag -- mschag@heylroyster.com --, Patrick Cloud -- pcloud@heylroyster.com --, and Ann Barron -- abarron@heylroyster.com --, all of Heyl Royster in Edwardsville. Bathon didn't participate in the appeal. GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Robbins Geller Tapped as Lead Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cara Mannion at Law360 reports an Indiana federal judge tapped Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on January 27 as lead counsel in a proposed class action challenging call center software provider Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories Inc.'s $1.4 billion acquisition of competitor Interactive Intelligence Group Inc. as undervalued and unduly beneficial to Interactive's executives. Robbins Geller's client, Karl Trahan, had argued on Jan. 18 that he had the largest financial interest as a proposed class member in the case, which alleges Interactive Intelligence's board and executives pushed through an overly restrictive sale to California-based Genesys to reap more than $292 million from their own stock sales. Interactive Intelligence, which provides customer engagement software through cloud storage, agreed in August to sell its shares to Genesys at $60.50 a piece. But Interactive's shareholders alleged in November that this deal lowballed the company's value, which a Yahoo Finance analyst predicted could have been as high as $67 a share. Interactive's officers and directors stand to make a pretty penny through special payments on the deal that aren't available to shareholders, investors said, including senior management's alleged $20.9 million change-of-control payment. The acquisition also allows the company's elite to cash in millions of dollars in holdings while giving them the opportunity to stay on board after the transaction, investors say. Shareholders also say the deal's stipulations are overly restrictive, including a $43 million termination fee and a nonsolicitation provision that they say bars Interactive from sharing any confidential company information with bidding competitors and allows Genesys to match any higher bids. Interactive's directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a deal so preclusive, shareholders say. Interactive's CEO Donald Brown, who owns 17.1 percent of the company and is also a defendant in the suit, entered into a voting agreement with Genesys to back the acquisition, according to the investors. Brown's shareholding, combined with the shares owned by other executives said to support the deal, amounts to 19.5 percent of company shares already pledged to a yes, which could sway other companies from bidding, they say. The suit says the Interactive defendants released misleading proxy statements on Sept. 20 and Oct. 4 that don't detail how its financial adviser calculated the fairness analysis of the deal. Robbins Geller did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Interactive shareholders are represented by David T. Wissbroecker, Edward M. Gergosian and Danielle S. Myers of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Kathleen Farinas and Linda George of George & Farinas LLP and Frank J. Johnson and W. Scott Holleman of Johnson & Weaver LLP. Counsel information for Interactive Intelligence Group Inc., Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories Inc., Giant Merger: Sub Inc., Greeneden Lux 3 S.AR.L., Greeneden U.S. Holdings I LLC, Greeneden U.S. Holdings II LLC, Donald E. Brown, Mitchell E. Daniels, Edward L. Hamburg, Michael C. Heim, Mark E. Hill and Richard A. Reck was not available on January 27. The case is Trahan v. Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc., et al., case number 1:16-cv-03161, in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana. GOLDEN RULE: King Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of E.D. Pa. Decision ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Wendy King filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit titled Wendy King v. Golden Rule Insurance Co., Case No. 2-16-cv-03614, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The appellate case is captioned as Wendy King v. Golden Rule Insurance Co., Case No. 17-1162, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Clerk of the Appeals Court directed all parties to file written responses addressing the Appeals Court's authority to consider the appeal, with a certificate of service attached, within 14 days from the date of the order. Plaintiff-Appellant Wendy King, Individually and as administrator of the estate of Christopher King, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph J. Fantini, Esq. David S. Senoff, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS 130 North 18th Street One Logan Square, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 790-4559 Facsimile: (215) 875-7735 E-mail: jfantini@anapolweiss.com dsenoff@anapolweiss.com Defendant-Appellee Golden Rule Insurance Co. is represented by: Francis X. Manning, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP 457 Haddonfield Road LibertyView, Suite 100 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 321-2403 E-mail: fmanning@stradley.com - and - Marissa R. Parker, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP 2005 Market Street, Suite 2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 564-8091 E-mail: mparker@stradley.com GRA CONVENIENT: Faces "Muhammad" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GRA Convenient Inc. The case is entitled as Aslam Muhammad and Imran Muhammad, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRA Convenient Inc., GRA Convenient 1 Inc., GRA Convenient II Inc., GRA Convenient III Inc., Adnan Saeed, John Doe Corp., Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00478 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2017). GRA is in the convenience stores business. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. HEARTS WITH HOPE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Anderson" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Vance Anderson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Vance Anderson v. Hearts With Hope Foundation, Case No. 4:15-CV-2037, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The appellate case is captioned as Vance Anderson v. Hearts With Hope Foundation, Case No. 17-20021, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant VANCE ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Charles W. Branham, III, Esq. DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP 3900 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75226 Telephone: (214) 722-5990 Facsimile: (214) 722-5991 E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com Defendant-Appellee HEARTS WITH HOPE FOUNDATION is represented by: David M. Noll, Esq. HAGAN NOLL & BOYLE, LLC 820 Gessner Road Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (713) 343-0478 Facsimile: (713) 758-0146 E-mail: david.noll@hnbllc.com HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Cooper" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Honeywell International, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Rebecca Cooper, et al. v. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00471, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated retirees and their spouses and eligible dependents, and surviving spouses to enforce their rights to collectively-bargained retiree healthcare until age 65 pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The appellate case is captioned as Rebecca Cooper, et al. v. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 17-1042, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. A Telephone Mediation Conference was scheduled for February 2, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. (ET) with Bob Kaiser. Plaintiffs-Appellees REBECCA COOPER, MORRIS MCKENNEY and ROBERT KOLINSKE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated, are represented by: John G. Adam, Esq. LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C. 306 S. Washington, Suite 600 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-5900 E-mail: jga@legghioisrael.com - and - William Wertheimer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM WERTHEIMER 30515 Timberbrook Lane Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Phone: 248-644-9200 E-mail: billwertheimer@gmail.com Defendant-Appellant HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., is represented by: Mark John Magyar, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT 300 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 700 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 776-7500 E-mail: mmagyar@dykema.com - and - Cody D. Rockey, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT 2723 S. State Street, Suite 400 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 214-7660 E-mail: crockey@dykema.com HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Watkins Appeals Decision to 6th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs James Ulicny and Ann Watkins filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Ann Watkins, et al. v. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01925, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 13, 2017, the District Court dismissed retirees' claims for lifetime healthcare benefits from Honeywell. Honeywell provided healthcare benefits to the Plaintiffs through a series of collective bargaining agreements and, although it continued to do so for several years after the final CBA expired, Honeywell eventually notified the Plaintiffs that it would terminate contributions toward their healthcare benefits. The appellate case is captioned as Ann Watkins, et al. v. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 17-3032, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant brief is due on February 21, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due on March 23, 2017; and -- Mediation Office is involved in this appeal. A Telephone Mediation conference has been scheduled for February 2, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. (ET) with Bob Kaiser. Plaintiffs-Appellants ANN WATKINS and JAMES ULICNY, for themselves and others similarly-situated, are represented by: John G. Adam, Esq. Stuart M. Israel, Esq. LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C. 306 S. Washington, Suite 600 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-5900 E-mail: jga@legghioisrael.com israel@legghioisrael.com Defendant-Appellee HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., is represented by: Jennifer M. Bandy, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 Facsimile: (202) 879-5200 E-mail: jennifer.bandy@kirkland.com HP INC: Failed to Pay Overtime to Software Testers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in San Jose, Calif., that HP Inc., spun off from Hewlett-Packard in 2015, failed to pay overtime to software testers and business analysts, among other violations of California labor law. Attorneys for Plaintiff: David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realin, esq. Ben Travis, Esq. Michael Morphew, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 399-3995 Fax: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com btravis@markham-law.com mmorphew@markham-law.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (888) 474-7242 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: walterhaines@yahoo.com Kellie Hopstein on behalf of herself and other class members, Plaintiff, v. HP Inc., a Delaware Corporation (d.b.a HEWLETT PACKARD), and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 17-cv-305557, Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, January 24, 2017. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settlement in Defective Engines Suit Get Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the proposed settlement in the case captioned, ELIZABETH MENDOZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, LTD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-01685-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Alleging that their 2011-2014 Hyundai Sonatas were sold with defective engines, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Mendoza and Beth Graham sued Hyundai Motor Co., et al. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that a common defect in the vehicles' rotating assembly -- specifically, in the lubrication channels within the connecting rods and other parts of the assembly -- was responsible for the various symptoms and eventual engine failures experienced by Sonata owners. The Plaintiffs contend that by selling Sonata vehicles without disclosing that the engines were defective, Hyundai violated California's consumer protection statutes and common law. The Plaintiffs also aver that Hyundai breached its warranty obligations by blaming owners for causing the engine failures, accusing them of not properly maintaining or servicing their vehicles. The parties were able to reach a preliminary settlement before the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The Court granted preliminary approval to the parties' proposed settlement agreement and conditionally certified the putative class for settlement purposes only on July 8, 2016. In its order granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval, the Court also (1) appointed the law firm of Gibbs Law Group LLP and McCune Wright LLP, as counsel for the settlement class; (2) approved the parties' proposed notice; (3) set the deadline for filing objections and requests for exclusion by November 28, 2016; and (4) set the date of the fairness hearing to December 15, 2016. Under the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement agreement, Hyundai has agreed to (1) warn drivers about the problem; (2) extend its Powertrain Warranty for free inspections and repairs; (3) reimburse Class Members for past vehicle repairs, rental cars, and towing services; and (5) compensate Class Members for trade-ins and sales. The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for final approval of the class action settlement and a motion for $761,415.67 in attorney fees, reimbursement of $33,584.33 in costs, and $2,500 each for Lead Plaintiffs Mendoza and Graham in service award. In her Order dated January 23, 2017, available at https://is.gd/U4XFVb from Leagle.com, Judge Freeman found that the class meet the Rule 23(a) and (b) requirements; the parties' proposed settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable; and the request for attorneys' fees, costs and service award are reasonable. Thus, Judge Freeman approved settlement of the class action, for which Hyundai has already paid $8.6 million in compensation, Elizabeth Mendoza is represented by David Christopher Wright, Esq.-- dcw@mccunewright.com -- Jae Kook Kim, Esq. -- jkk@mccunewright.com -- Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- Matthew David Schelkopf, Esq. -- mds@mccunewright.com -- and -- Richard D. McCune, Jr., Esq. -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP -- David K. Stein, Esq. -- ds@classlawgroup.com -- and -- Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP -- Steven Augustine Lopez, Esq. -- sal@classlawgroup.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP Beth Graham is represented by David K. Stein, Esq. -- ds@classlawgroup.com -- Dylan Hughes, Esq. -- dsh@classlawgroup.com -- Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- and -- Steven Augustine Lopez, Esq. -- sal@classlawgroup.com -- GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is represented by Shon Morgan, Esq. -- shonmorgan@quinnemmanuel.com -- and -- Joseph Robert Ashby, Esq. - - josephashby@quinnemannuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN, LLP HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Refuses to Remand Elantras Gas Mileage Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- The cases captioned JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., Defendant. ALIM ABDURAHMAN, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., ET AL., Defendants. JIHAD ABDUL-MUMIT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case Nos. 3:13-cv-00030, 3:14 cv-00002, 3:14-cv-00005 (W.D. Va.), involve allegations that Hyundai Motor America, Inc., misstated or misrepresented the gas mileage obtained by Hyundai Elantras. Gentry is a class action against a single defendant, HMA. Abdurahman is a mass action of over 700 plaintiffs against 29 defendants: HMA and various Virginia dealerships. Abdul-Mumit -- also a mass action with substantively identical allegations to Abdurahman -- has over 500 named plaintiffs suing 27 defendants. The cases previously were stayed, transferred to MDL 2424, and then partially remanded by the MDL back to the Court in September 2015. Each case contains a claim under the Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act (Lemon Law), Va. Code Sections 59.1-207.9 et seq.; the Virginia Consumer Protection Act of 1977 (VCPA), Va. Code Sections 59.1-196 et seq.; and for false or misleading advertising, Va. Code Sections 18.2- 216 & 59.1-68.3. On November 2, 2012, HMA announced its "recalculation" of fuel economy estimates for certain vehicles. At the MDL, a class settlement was reached for pre-November 2nd purchasers and is now on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. Thus, the MDL remanded these cases for proceedings on two sets of claims: (1) any pre-November 2nd purchasers who opted out of the settlement; and (2) post- November 2nd purchasers of 2011-13 Hyundai Elantras sold in Virginia. HMA moved to dismiss the three cases arguing that the Plaintiffs lack standing, which is a jurisdictional issue that must be decided, and that the VCPA claims are subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard for fraud. In his Opinion dated January 23, 2017, available at https://is.gd/xEyn93 from Leagle.com, Judge Norman K. Moon of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia concluded that aspects of the Lemon Law claim in Gentry based on the on-board mileage calculator may proceed. But the aspect to the Lemon Law claim based on fuel economy, as well as Mr. Gentry's VCPA and false advertising claims, will be dismissed because those counts do not state a claim. As for Abdul-Mumit and Abdurahman, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act. In addition to sharing some shortcomings with the Gentry complaint, the complaints in Abdul-Mumit and Abdurahman are devoid of facts pertaining to any of the hundreds of named plaintiffs or to any Defendant other than HMA. Accordingly, Judge Moon denied the motions to remand the Abdurahman and Abdul-Mumit cases, dismisses those cases, and partially granted the motion to dismiss the Gentry case. John William Gentry, et al. are represented by: James Ben Feinman, Esq. JAMES B. FEINMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1003 Church St, Lynchburg, VA 24504, USA Tel: (888)691-0140 Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is represented by Ashley Walker Winsky, Esq. -- awinsky@mcguirewoods.com -- and -- James Francis Neale, Esq. -- jneale@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP -- Karin A. Kramer, Esq. -- karinkramer@quinnemmanuel.com -- Shon Morgan, Esq. -- shonmorgan@quinnemmanuel.com -- and -- Joseph R. Ashby, Esq. -- josephashby@quinnemmanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP. ILLINOIS, USA: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Winner" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Sandy Winner and Laura Baston filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Sandy Winner, et al. v. SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv- 07213, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action lawsuit was brought by home day care owners Laura Baston of Casey and Sandy Winner of Jacksonville and names Gov. Bruce Rauner and the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois & Indiana as defendants. The Plaintiffs assert that Illinois should repay what the conservative Illinois Policy Institute estimates was as much as $10 million in annual withholding of "agency fees" that were deducted from reimbursements for private contractors who cared for low-income children eligible to receive state support. The fees, which are not supposed to be used for political activity, had been collected since 2005 under an executive order by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The appellate case is captioned as Sandy Winner, et al. v. SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana, et al., Case No. 17-1126, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript information sheet was due by February 2, 2017; and -- Appellant's brief is due on or before February 28, 2017, for Laura Baston and Sandy Winner. Plaintiffs-Appellants SANDY WINNER and LAURA BASTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq. QUANTUM LEGAL LLC 513 Central Avenue Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: jeff@Qulegal.com Defendant-Appellee SEIU HEALTHCARE ILLINOIS & INDIANA is represented by: Robert E. Bloch, Esq. DOWD, BLOCH, BENNETT, CERVONE, AUERBACH & YOKICH Eight S. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60603-0000 Telephone: (313) 372-1361 E-mail: rebloch@dbb-law.com Defendant-Appellee BRUCE V. RAUNER, Governor, in his official capacity as Governor of Illinois, is represented by: Nadine J. Wichern, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 100 W. Randolph Street State of Illinois Center Chicago, IL 60601-0000 Telephone: (312) 814-5659 E-mail: nwichern@atg.state.il.us INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Innocoll Holdings, plc and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Innocoll securities between November 3, 2016 through December 29, 2016, inclusive. Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/innl. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Innocoll's New Drug Application ("NDA") submission to the FDA in October 2016 for XARACOLL was incomplete; (2) due to the incomplete NDA submission, XARACOLL would not be approved in 2017 as investors were led to believe; and (3) consequently, Defendants' statements regarding Innocoll's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On December 29, 2016, Innocoll revealed that it had received a Refusal to File letter from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding its New Drug Application for XARACOLL, a postsurgical pain treatment and the Company's lead product candidate. Innocoll said that the FDA stated that XARACOLL should have been categorized as a drug/device combination which would necessitate additional information. Following this news, Innocoll stock has dropped up to 66%, damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/innlor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Innocoll you have until March 27, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. ISLE CASINO: Overcharged Customers, Class Action Says ----------------------------------------------------- Jeff Weinsier at Local 10 News reports a class-action lawsuit recently filed against the Isle Casino on Powerline Road in Pompano Beach claims they have been overcharging some customers. The game table is still on the floor inside the Isle Casino, but a sign on it reads "Sorry for the inconvenience, craps is temporarily out of service." "We deserve our money back. They ripped us off," Isle Casino Fan Club member James Scott said. The lawsuit, in which Scott is named as a plaintiff, claims that the overcharging has been going on since 2012, when the machine was put in at the casino. "We did test bets. We recorded it and noticed on every buy bet, the casino was taking more than they should have," attorney Daren Stabinski said. "In some cases, it was doubling what it was supposed to take," attorney Christina Pierson added. The machine, called "Organic Dice," is supposed to take 5 percent on the bet as a commission. "For the 4 and 10, they were taking 10 percent. They were charging the percentage off the winnings rather than the bet itself," Stabinski said. The suit says players are entitled to compensation for being overcharged. Interblock USA, the manufacturer of the game, is also named as a defendant in the suit. Pierson said other casinos that use the same machine don't overcharge. The class in the lawsuit would be made up of the casino's Fan Club members. "We know who the fan club members are. There are stats to show when they played and how much they played," Pierson said. Pierson said the casino is responsible for knowing how its games are working. "You don't think that the rules would be broken, that they would be taking more than they should out of your betting," Scott said. "Casinos are based on trust. It's hard to believe a casino would allow this to happen," Stabinski said. Jill Alexander, a spokeswoman for Isle of Capri Inc., had no comment on the pending litigation. JACKSON HEWITT: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Hollingsworth" ---------------------------------------------------- Judge Philip G. Reinhard of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the motion to dismiss the case captioned, Phil Hollingsworth, et al., Plaintiff, v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., et al., Defendant, Case No. 16 C 50059 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiff Steve Yankee alleges the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by sending daily automated text messages to his cellular phone. Yankee is not a customer of defendant and has not asked it to send him text messages. Yankee alleges the text messages he received from the defendant were fully automated and were part of the defendant's daily automated account notification program. Although the defendant acknowledged receipt of the "STOP" message by texting back: "Your subscription to Jackson Hewitt messages has been canceled," Yankee continued to receive additional messages, the suit alleges. Yankee further alleges that the text messages were sent from an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) as defined in the TCPA. Yankee's cell phone number was assigned to a cellular phone service for which Yankee incurs charges for incoming messages. The Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Defendant argues the complaint fails "to plead necessary facts to support his allegations that an ATDS was used to send text messages to Plaintiff." In his Order dated January 25, 2017, available at https://is.gd/Hz6uW9 from Leagle.com, Judge Reinhard found that Yankee met the pleading requirement and his allegations plausibly suggest he has a right to relief above a speculative level. Phil Hollingsworth is represented by Katherine Ann Rehan, Esq. -- Katherine.rehan@illinoisattorney.com -- KATHERINA A. REHAN ATTORNY AT LAW -- and -- Stephen F. Taylor, Esq. Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road, Wilton, Connecticut Tel: (855)801-2100 Jackson Hewitt Inc., et al. are represented by Joseph E. Hopkins, Esq. -- joseph.hopkins@lockelord.com -- and -- Martin Wojslaw Jaszczuk, Esq. -- martin.jaszczuk@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of "Holtz" Suit Under SLUSA Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case captioned PATRICIA HOLTZ, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 13-2609 (7th Cir.) under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). JPMorgan Chase Bank offers to manage clients' portfolios of securities. Its affiliates sponsor mutual funds in which these funds can be placed. The complaint alleged customers invested in these mutual funds believing that, when recommending them as suitable vehicles, the Bank acts in clients' best interests. But Patricia Holtz, on behalf of a class of other investors, alleged that the Bank gives its employees incentives to place clients' money in the Bank's own mutual funds, even when those funds have higher fees or lower returns than competing funds sponsored by third parties. Holtz maintained that the Bank violated its promises and its fiduciary duties by inducing its investment advisers to make recommendations in the Bank's interest rather than the clients'. Holtz filed the suit in federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act because the class has more than 100 members, the stakes exceed $5 million, and at least one member of the class has citizenship different from the Bank's. The suit is also a "covered class action" for the purpose of SLUSA because mutual funds are securities. SLUSA requires the district court to dismiss any "covered class action" in which the plaintiff alleges "a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security." Under SLUSA, securities claims that depend on the nondisclosure of material facts must proceed under the federal securities laws exclusively. Holtz did not want to invoke federal law and framed her claims entirely under state contract and fiduciary principles. But the district court concluded that these claims necessarily rest on the "omission of a material fact" and dismissed the suit under SLUSA. Holtz maintained that falsehoods and omissions have nothing to do with her claims. She stated that they "are not in any way based on, dependent upon, or necessarily entangled with proof that [the Bank] made any false statements or omitted to disclose material information. Rather, [she] assert[s] simply that [the Bank] failed to provide the independent research, financial advice, and due diligence required by the parties' contract and their fiduciary relationship." However, the Seventh Circuit found that the suit depends on Holtz's assertion that the Bank concealed the incentives it gave its employees. If it had told customers that its investment advisors were compensated more for selling the Bank's mutual funds than for selling third-party funds, plaintiffs would have no claim under either state or federal law. A full-text copy of Judge Seventh Circuit's January 23, 2017 ruling is available at https://is.gd/acrh3h from Leagle.com. Stephen Victor D'Amore -- sdamore@winston.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Daniel L. Berger -- dberger@gelaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jonathan K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Tyler S. Graden -- tgraden@ktmc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Shannon Lack Braden, for Plaintiff-Appellant. LACE ENTERTAINMENT: MLB Seeks Review of Ruling in "Gomez" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants MLB Enterprises Corporation and Anthony Capeci filed an appeal from a District Court order dated January 6, 2017, in the lawsuit styled Gomez v. Lace Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-3326, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The appellate case is captioned as Gomez v. Lace Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 17-170, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Jacqueline Gomez and Yashira Carrasco, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought the Case against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are Lace Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a Lace Gentlemen's Club, MLB Enterprises, Corp., d/b/a Lace Gentlemen's Club, MLB Enterprises, Corp., Anthony Capeci and Glen Orecchio. The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club located at 725 7th Avenue, in New York City. Petitioners MLB Enterprises Corporation and Anthony Capeci are represented by: Jennifer M. Kinsley, Esq. KINSLEY LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 19478 Cincinnati, OH 45219 Telephone: (513) 708-2595 E-mail: jennifer@kinsleylawoffice.com - and - Daniel Alan Silver, Esq. SILVER & SILVER LLP 1 Liberty Square New Britain, CT 06051 Telephone: (860) 225-3518 E-mail: Daniel@lawsilver.com Respondents Jaqueline Gomez, Individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Yashiro Currasco, Individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 E-mail: rifbecca@gmail.com LOUISIANA: Livingston Parish Joins August Flood Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- John Dupont at Livingston Parish News reports that The Livingston Parish Council on a 7-0 vote on January 26 night joined three other Livingston Parish governmental entities in a class action lawsuit against the state Department of Transportation and Development in relation to the August flood. The Council acted on the recommendation of Parish President Layton Ricks to join the cities of Walker and Denham Springs, along with the Livingston Parish Public School System and two individuals in a lawsuit that targets the DOTD and 21 contractors. Councilmen Jeff Averett and Tab Lobell were absent. The lawsuit, initiated by former Walker Mayor Rick Ramsey, alleges that barriers along Interstate 12 played a substantial role in the severe flooding on the north side of the thoroughfare in August. The barrier was the work was part of the 2009 expansion of Interstate 12 as DOTD's "Geaux Wider" project to expand the interstate from two to three lanes in each direction. The lawsuit says a 19-mile concrete barrier, from East Baton Rouge Parish to the Walker area in Livingston Parish is "acting as a man-made flood wall that interrupts the natural flow of surface waters." The lawsuit does not request a specific amount of money but asks for "economic and compensatory damages in amounts to be determined at trial." Ricks had initially expressed mixed feelings about a lawsuit against the state. He told the council Gov. John Bel Edwards assured him the punitive action would not derail state-funded road projects in Livingston Parish. "They look at this as a wall built under the Jindal Administration, and they weren't a part of that," Ricks said. Josh Palmintier of the Baton Rouge legal firm of deGravelles, Palmintier, Holthaus & Fruge filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs Jan. 5 in 19th Judiciai District Court in Baton Rouge. Palmintier estimated 100,000 homes were affected by the flooding and the damages could eventually run from the "tens of millions to hundreds of millions." District 2 Councilman Garry "Frog" Talbert had asked if the parish could offer support for the suit without joining as a plaintiff. He also asked 33-1/3 percent share which would go to the legal firm for fees if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs. Talbert said he did not oppose the suit, but did not believe the contractors deliberately designed a project that would cause flooding. "That amount is the cap," Palmintier said. "The judge decides the plaintiff's fee." Talbert also asked Palmantier if his would want plaintiffs to shell out the difference between the 33 percent and the amount the judge sets. "Absolutely not," Palmantier responded. "The judge is the arbitrator of last resort. If he says 20 percent, our fee goes to 20 percent." District 9 Councilman Shane Mack said the punitive action was necessary, regardless of the contractor's intentions. "I went back and forth. It's hard to foresee the future, and it would be my hope they didn't try to develop something that would cause extra flooding, but what's obvious is that this wall caused homes and businesses to go through extensive flooding," he said. "I didn't want to join the suit, but this is one way we can take action to flood out, get contractor and DOTD to review plans, find way to get water to flow better under the interstate." Parish Council Chairman Tracy Girlinghouse agreed with a recommendation by Palmantier that the parish enter into the suit to show solidarity with the other entities who have already joined. "It's important to do this for solidarity and let people know we support the people of Livingston Parish," he said. "Not to be coy, but this is an easy decision -- the design clearly elevated the water." Talbert said he did not disagree that the wall exacerbated flooding. "But even if the wall wouldn't have been there, we still would have had widespread, rampant flooding," he said. Ramsey told the council that the City of Walker would have filed even if the other entities would not come aboard. He said the law firm had already invested $100,000 on research by Rice University hydrologist, which backed the former mayor's claims that the interstate design worsened the flood. "Had we not filed suit, nothing would've happened," Ramsey said. "We only did this to get some relief. "We did this for the people," he said. "Lawyers can't do this for free. If we don't stand up and make sure DOTD doesn't recognize this as a flood plan, they'll make the same mistake again and again. It's a great design for a desert in the mountains, but not a great design for this area." Ramsey told the council the plaintiffs would have a greater chance to win the suit with a larger group involved. District 4 Councilman John Wascom, who offered the motion to follow the parish president's recommendation, said the suit had nothing to do with monetary gain. "It's to stop a bad design," he said. Ricks said he initiated the legal action to protect the people of Livingston Parish. "I hate lawsuits . . . and (jokingly) I don't like lawyers," he said. "I lost my home. Layton lost his home. Tracy lost his home, and this hit widespread across the parish. "Every voter looks at the actions of elected officials in Livingston Parish," Ramsey said. "There are options, and this is the option." LOUISIANA: Court Narrows Claimants in "Marshall" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARSHALL, v. LOUISIANA STATE, et al., Section: "G" (2), Civil Action No. 15-1128 (E.D. La.), Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown granted in part and denied, in part, the partial motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Law Enforcement District for the Parish of Orleans and Marlin N. Gusman. On April 9, 2015, Donald L. Marshall filed a putative class action complaint against Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Orleans Parish, and the Law Enforcement District for the Parish of New Orleans, seeking unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Marshall alleged that, in the three years prior to filing his complaint, he worked for the defendants as a deputy sheriff, and that he and other similarly situated individuals were not paid in compliance with the FLSA. Specifically, Marshall, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, sought wages and overtime for time spent less than 30 minutes prior to his shift and for up to 30 minutes after his shift for which he was not paid. On January 22, 2016, the Court conditionally certified the action as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). After notice was sent, 99 individuals opted in to the action by filing a consent and joinder with the Court. On November 22, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to those individuals who failed to timely file their opt-in notices and/or worked at a facility not covered by the opt- in class. The defendants contended that the FLSA claims of 13 of the opt-in plaintiffs are undisputedly barred by the statute of limitations. According to the defendants, those 13 opt-in plaintiffs whose claims are barred by the statute of limitations are: Robert P. Carr, Nicole S. Clay, Cynthia Donald, Trina Griffin, Kevin Jones, Corey Lewis, Rennell Lowe, Robert Nolan, Brandon Prevost, Harold Ramson, Ira Thomas, Ronald Ward, and Troylyn Washington. Additionally, the defendants contended that it is undisputed that six of the opt-in plaintiffs never worked at one of the eight opt- in facilities within the specified timeframe of April 10, 2012 to April 9, 2015. According to the defendants, those six opt-in plaintiffs whose claims are barred because they never worked at one of the eight opt-in facilities are: John Dimatteo, Carylenna Grant, Stephanie Hudson, McRay Mottley, Corey Payne, and Carla Thomas. Marshall did not oppose summary judgment as to "those individuals whose opt-in forms were received more than three years after the last date of work, based on all discovery provided to Plaintiff." Thus, Marshall did not oppose summary judgment as to the following opt-in plaintiffs whose opt-in forms were received more than three years after their last day of work and whose claims are barred by the statute of limitations under FLSA: Robert P. Carr, Nicole S. Clay, Cynthia Donald, Trina Griffin, Kevin Jones, Corey Lewis, Rennell Lowe, Robert Noland, Brandin Prevost, Harold Ramson, Ira Thomas, Ronald Ward, and Troylyn Washington. Accordingly, Judge Brown granted summary judgment as to these opt-in plaintiffs whose claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, Marshall did not oppose summary judgment as to the claims of opt-in plaintiffs John Dimatteo, Corey Payne, and McRay Mottley, who did not work at one of the eight facilities covered by the conditionally certified class during the applicable time period defined by the Court, between April 10, 2012, and April 9, 2015. Therefore, Judge Brown granted summary judgment as to the claims of these three opt-in plaintiffs as well. Marshall contended, however, that summary judgment is not appropriate as to Thomas and Hudson, because there is a genuine dispute as to whether Thomas and Hudson worked at one of the facilities covered by the conditionally certified class during the applicable time frame. To support his contentions, Marshall pointed to time records that indicate that Thomas was employed by the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office until at least April of 2015 and to Thomas' discovery questionnaire responses, which indicate that she worked at covered facilities, the Tents and the Temporary Detention Center, between 2012 and 2015. Likewise, Marshall pointed to the defendants' time records that indicate that Hudson worked with the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office until October 2014 and to Hudson's discovery questionnaire responses and affidavit, which indicate that she worked at covered facilities, the Tents and the Temporary Detention Center, until October 2014. Judge Brown found that Marshall has pointed to sufficient evidence in the record to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the opt-in plaintiffs Thomas and Hudson worked at facilities covered by the conditionally certified class during the applicable time period,43from April 9, 2012 to April 9, 2015. Accordingly, Judge Brown denied summary judgment as to the claims of opt-in plaintiffs Thomas and Hudson. Finally, Judge Brown noted that Marshall did not address in his opposition whether summary judgment is appropriate as to the claim of opt-in plaintiff Carylenna Grant. The judge found that the uncontroverted evidence in the record indicates that Grant did not file a written consent to join the litigation until more than three years after her employment at Templeman V. Thus, the judge held that Grant's claim is barred by the statute of limitations under FLSA and the judge granted summary judgment as to Grant's claim. A full-text copy of Judge Brown's January 10, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/75KVeS from Leagle.com. Donald L Marshall, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Richard Alvin Tonry, II, Tonry, Brinson & Glorioso, LLC, Brian L. Glorioso -- brian.glorioso@yahoo.com -- Tonry, Brinson & Glorioso, LLC, Douglass Evans Alongia, Tonry, Brinson & Glorioso, LLC & Raymond Joseph Brinson, Tonry, Brinson & Glorioso, LLC. Marlin N. Gusman, Law Enforcement District for the Parish of Orleans, Defendants, represented by Henry Philip Julien, Jr. -- hpj@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm, Alexander C. Landin -- acl@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm, Eric R. Miller -- em@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm, Inemesit U. O'Boyle -- iou@chehardy.com -- Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP & James McClendon Williams -- jmw@chehardy.com -- Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP. LOUISVILLE SLUGGER: Trying to Cover Up Defect, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that customers claim Louisville Slugger is trying to cover up a manufacturing defect in one of its pricey baseball bats by saying they were made that way on purpose to help batters with their swings. In a class-action lawsuit filed Monday in Chicago federal court, lead plaintiff George Alea claims Louisville Slugger's parent company Wilson Sporting Goods refused to honor its warranty and refund him for the bat he bought for his son to use for high school baseball. Alea's son noticed that the handle of the Louisville Slugger Prime BBCOR bat moved independently from the barrel when he swung it, making it less effective for hitting, the complaint states. Wilson's customer service department allegedly told Alea that was normal. But judging from other complaints littering the internet, the problem wasn't normal, and Wilson knew all about it, according to the lawsuit, which cites various posts about broken BBCOR bats. On top of that "the bats are expensive by any measure, costing approximately $400 each, and are purported to be of extremely high quality," Alea says in his lawsuit. "The release of the bat coincided with an onslaught of complaints," the lawsuit states. But instead of correcting it or allowing customers to return the bats, "defendants took the unorthodox approach of creating a post- hoc marketing regime focusing on (and indeed promoting) the defect, as if it were deliberate," Alea claims. The product description was allegedly changed to say that the bat's "TRU3 Dynamic Socket Connection allows for slight movement between the barrel and handle to further maximize barrel trampoline effect and eliminate negative vibration." "Defendants appear to have hatched a scheme to deny warranty claims and act as if the defect was instead a noteworthy feature of the bats," Alea says in his complaint. The lawsuit accuses Wilson and Louisville Slugger of violating consumer-protection laws in several states, including Illinois and Florida, and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The proposed class of Florida, California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and New York consumers who bought the BBCOR bat since April 2015 is represented by Michael Flannery of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP in St. Louis, Mo., and Washington D.C., and by Baron & Herkowitz in Miami. Wilson did not immediately return a request for comment. The case is captioned, GEORGE ALEA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, vs. WILSON SPORTING GOODS CO. AND LOUISVILLE SLUGGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00498 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675 St. Louis, MO 63105 Tel: (314) 226-1015 Fax: (202) 789-1813 Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. William H. Anderson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016 Tel: (202) 789-3960 Fax: (202) 789-1813 Email: charlesl@cuneolaw.com wanderson@cuneolaw.com - and - Jon Herskowitz, Esq. BARON & HERKOWITZ 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 670-0101 Fax: (305) 670-2393 Email: jon@bhfloridalaw.com MANITOBA: Flood Evacuees' Class Action Can Go Forward ----------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports a class-action lawsuit against the Government of Manitoba and the attorney general of Canada on behalf of a group of roughly 4,000 Manitoba flood evacuees will go forward after a trio of Manitoba judges certified the suit. In a unanimous decision delivered on January 25, three judges from Manitoba's Court of Appeal -- the province's highest court -- ruled in favour of a group of individuals representing four First Nations that were evacuated following severe flooding in spring of 2011. Manitoba First Nation files $100M lawsuit over 2011 flood The decision officially certifies the class-action suit on behalf of residents of Dauphin River First Nation, Lake St. Martin First Nation, Little Saskatchewan First Nation and Pinaymootang First Nation. Their effort to bring a $950-million class-action lawsuit against the province was initially denied in 2014, but the request for an appeal was granted in late 2015. After court heard the appeal last September, the Wednesday ruling overturned the initial decision. The ruling states the first judge erred in his decision and that a class-action suit is a "fair, efficient and manageable" path to advance the claims. Flood victims get second crack at suing Manitoba for 2011 flood The First Nations were home to around 4,000 people before the flooding, which the plaintiffs say was caused by the province in an effort to save homes and towns further south. Nearly six years later, hundreds of the evacuees still haven't returned home. 'Finally going to be some justice' A spokeswoman from Manitoba Justice said the province is reviewing the decision and has not yet determined its next steps. The lawsuit also names the Manitoba Association of Native Firefighters Inc. as a defendant. MANFF was charged with caring for thousands of First Nations members whose homes and communities were flooded in 2011. That responsibility was later transferred to the Red Cross. Clifford Anderson, one of the group of 10 plaintiffs representing the evacuees in the lawsuit, said he was thankful to see the court decision. "It means there's finally going to be some justice," he said. "Somebody's going to be found responsible, or hopefully, maybe it won't have to go to court and they'll come down to the table and start some kind of negotiations." 5 years on: Lake St. Martin evacuees 'devastated' and displaced Anderson left his home on Pinaymootang First Nation with just the clothes on his back and a few blankets in 2011. At the time, he said residents believed they'd be back in their homes by the end of the summer. "It was devastating to have to leave, especially for the elderly people . . . they weren't used to moving around, they were used to living there," he said. "There was lots of social impacts, like separation from other family members because some people had to move to Winnipeg, and there's loss of jobs and loss of income and loss of use of the land, like traditional gardening and stuff like that." 1,903 Manitobans still displaced from homes, 3 years on The First Nation now looks like swampland, he said. "There's cattails and bulrushes growing up right against the houses. The wells are contaminated. The septic fields and tanks have been washed away and the homes now, they're full of mould because they've been sitting in water," he said. Hope to settle outside of court The province still has the right to appeal the ruling and bring the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. One of the evacuees' lawyers, Michael Peerless, said that process could add another year to the proceedings. Peerless, who works for McKenzie Lake Lawyers in Ontario and specializes in class-action cases, said he hopes the province will choose instead to settle the suit outside of court. If the province doesn't appeal and the matter goes to trial, Peerless said it could easily be another five or six years before the suit is resolved. MDL 2445: Court Trims Claims in Amneal Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted in part and denied in part, defendant's motion to dismiss, in the case IN RE: SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALOXONE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Indivior Inc. et al., 16-cv-563, MDL No. 2445, No. 13-MD-2445 (E.D. Pa.) Indivior Inc. manufactures and sold the drug Suboxone, a drug used to treat opioid dependence. Direct Purchaser plaintiffs and End- Payor plaintiffs filed consolidated class action complaints alleging that Indivior Inc. unlawfully delayed and impeded competition from generic versions of Suboxone tablets. Class Plaintiffs claimed that Indivior's conduct negatively affected competition and resulted in ongoing overpayments by consumers. On December 3, 2014, Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg issued an opinion dismissing one of direct purchaser plaintiffs' stand-alone claims, a variety of state law claims brought by end-payor plaintiffs as well as the claims against several of the defendant entities. Thereafter, class plaintiffs filed amended complaints, answers were filed, and a discovery scheduling order was entered. On December 23, 2015, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, a generic manufacturer and competitor of Indivior, filed a complaint in the District of New Jersey regarding Indivior's alleged anticompetitive conduct surrounding Suboxone. The action was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in February and consolidated with the MDL currently before Judge Goldberg. Amneal's complaint consists of claims of monopolization in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 2, attempted monopolization in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 2, false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1152(a). Indivior filed a partial motion to dismiss Amneal's complaint. Judge Goldberg granted in part and denied in part Indivior's partial motion to dismiss. Amneal has offered shifting accounts of what particular statements form the basis of its Lanham Act claim. Given such ambiguity, Judge Goldberg concludes dismissal of Amneal's Lanham Act claim is warranted. Amneal, however, will be given leave to file an amended complaint which more clearly identifies the particular statements that it contends constitute false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act. Lastly, Indivior moves to dismiss Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Indivior PLC because Amneal has failed to serve the two entities. Additionally, Indivior urges that Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. should be dismissed because it is merely Indivior's former corporate name. Amneal responds that it does not oppose the dismissal of its claims against Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. Amneal, however, does not respond to Indivior's arguments regarding Indivior PLC. The motion to dismiss Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. will be granted as unopposed. Indivior PLC was not served and Amneal has not responded to the argument to dismiss Indivior PLC. As such, Indivior PLC will also be dismissed. A copy of Judge Goldberg's memorandum opinion dated January 4, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/QIoDli from Leagle.com. MDL 2615: Court Dismisses Complaints in FCRA Suit ------------------------------------------------- Judge Kevin McNulty has dismissed all the complaints in the case captioned IN RE: MICHAELS STORES, INC., FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT (FCRA) LITIGATION, Civ. Nos. 14-7563 (KM) (JBC), 15-2547 (KM) (JBC), 15-5504 (KM) (JBC), MDL No. 2615 (D.N.J.) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The putative class action arises out of alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and its New Jersey and California state counterparts. Christina Graham, Gary Anderson, Michele Castro, Janice Bercut, and Michelle Bercut applied for employment at Michaels Stores, Inc. through an online employment application. One section of the online application form disclosed that Michaels would be obtaining background checks on the applicants and required applicants to authorize and consent to those checks. Michaels in fact obtained consumer reports, known also as background checks, which it used in making hiring decisions. All of the plaintiffs were hired by Michaels. They contended, however, that Michaels violated the FCRA (and its state counterparts) because its disclosure of its intent to obtain the background checks was insufficient. In essence, the allegations which set forth the elements of a statutory violation are: (1) the plaintiffs completed the online job application on Michaels' website; (2) the application failed to comply with the FCRA's (and/or a state counterpart's) stand-alone disclosure requirement; and (3) for each plaintiff, Michaels procured a consumer report from an outside consumer reporting agency. It follows, say the plaintiffs, that Michaels violated the FCRA because it failed to make a proper disclosure and therefore failed to obtain proper authorizations before procuring the consumer reports. Michaels filed motions to dismiss the operative complaints. In part, Michaels sought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) to dismiss the complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Michaels challenged the plaintiffs' standing, asserting that the complaints failed to allege an injury-in-fact. Judge McNulty found that the plaintiffs have merely alleged a violation of the purely formal requirements of FCRA, and that they did not factually allege any harm aside from the statutory violation itself. The judge pointed out that, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 194 L. Ed. 2D 635 (2016), bare procedural violations of the FCRA, such as the violation of the stand-alone requirement alleged by the plaintiffs, do not constitute an injury-in-fact. In an attempt to salvage standing post-Spokeo, the plaintiffs argued that the alleged FCRA violations caused them two types of concrete harm: (1) informational injury, and (2) invasion of privacy. Judge McNulty, however, found that the plaintiffs did not even allege that they have suffered the harm addressed by Congress' promulgation of the stand-alone disclosure rule. That harm would be an applicant's failure to understand that he or she was authorizing an employer background check. The judge explained that, where the plaintiffs do not allege that they did not see the disclosure, or were distracted from it, the allegations amount to no more than a bare procedural violation of the stand-alone requirement. Thus, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations do not confer standing on an informational injury theory. The plaintiffs also contended that, by violating the stand-alone disclosure requirement, Michaels invaded their privacy when procuring consumer reports, contrary to the FCRA. In relation to this, Judge McNulty stated that the harm addressed by Congress in the FCRA, which would be enough to confer standing, is one traditionally recognized at law: unauthorized release of private information. However, the judge noted that the plaintiffs have conceded that they received a disclosure, and did not allege that they were confused or distracted by the format, or that they did not know what they were authorizing. Nor did the plaintiffs they deny that in fact they completed the online application and authorized the background check. The judge therefore concluded that this was insufficient to confer standing. Lastly, the plaintiffs argued that if the Court finds the plaintiffs to lack Article III standing, Michelle Bercut's action should not be dismissed. Instead, the plaintiffs said that it must be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, where it was commenced. Having found that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' actions, Judge McNulty held that he must remand the removed case to the California state court. A full-text copy of Judge McNulty's January 24, 2017 opinion is available at https://is.gd/LcWY5L from Leagle.com. CHRISTINA GRAHAM, Gary Anderson, Plaintiffs, represented by PATRICIA A. BARASCH, SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC. Michelle Bercut, Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC NJ. Michele Castro, Janice Bercut, Plaintiffs, represented by JOE KENDALL -- jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC, Jody Lynn Rudman -- jrudman@kendalllawgroup.com -- The Kendall Law Group LLP & Matthew R. Scott, Kendall Law Group LLP. Barbara Horton, Plaintiff, represented by ROSEMARY M. RIVAS -- rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Defendant, represented by KEITH J. MILLER - - kmiller@rwmlegal.com -- ROBINSON MILLER LLC, ROBERT T. SZYBA -- rszyba@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP & JUSTIN TAYLOR QUINN -- jquinn@rwmlegal.com -- ROBINSON MILLER LLC. MEDICREDIT INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Raffin" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Medicredit, Inc., and The Outsource Group, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Sheena Raffin v. Medicredit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04912-MWF- PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 18, 2017, the Hon. George H. King granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The class is defined as: All individuals who, from June 29, 2014 to February 26, 2015, while physically present in California and using a cellular device with a California area code, participated for the first time in a telephone conversation with a representative of Defendants or their agents who were recording the conversation without first informing the individual that the conversation was being recorded. Sheena Raffin, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, alleges that Defendants Medicredit, Inc. and The Outsource Group, Inc., violated California wiretapping laws in recording telephone conversations of her and the putative class. She alleges that Medicredit, a debt collector, contacted her "multiple times regarding an alleged debt." Based on these allegations, she sued Medicredit under California's Invasion of Privacy Act. The appellate case is captioned as Sheena Raffin v. Medicredit, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80008, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: Plaintiff-Respondent SHEENA RAFFIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 324 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com Defendants-Petitioners MEDICREDIT, INC., and THE OUTSOURCE GROUP, INC., are represented by: Brad D. Brian, Esq. Michael R. Doyen, Esq. Henry Weissman, Esq. Mark Remy Yohalem, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-9280 E-mail: Brad.Brian@mto.com Michael.Doyen@mto.com Henry.Weissmann@mto.com Mark.Yohalem@mto.com - and - Mark P. Goodman, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 E-mail: mpgoodman@debevoise.com METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Faces "Katz" Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Transit Authority. The case is captioned as Yaakov Katz, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, a New York public benefit corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00472 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2017). MTA is a public benefit corporation responsible for public transportation in the U.S. state of New York, serving 12 counties in Downstate New York, along with two counties in southwestern Connecticut under contract to the Connecticut Department of Transportation, carrying over 11 million passengers on an average weekday systemwide, and over 800,000 vehicles on its seven toll bridges and two tunnels per weekday. MTA is the largest public transit authority in the United States. The Plaintiff appears pro se. MICROSOFT CORP: Suspended Xbox Service Features, Maher Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Microsoft sold gamers 12-month Xbox Live Gold memberships but then suspended service features without notice and without issuing credits or refunds, a class claims in Chicago federal court. The case is captioned, JAMES MAHER, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case: 1:17-cv-00753 (N.D. Ill, January 30, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Kasif Khowaja, Esq. The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC 70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: 312-356-3200-T Fax: 312-386-5600-F E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: 312-201-0575 Fax: 312-332-0600-F E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.coom cpsons@bormeslaw.com MINNESOTA, USA: Foster Appeals Judgment Before 8th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Sheila Foster filed an appeal from a court order dated December 21, 2016, and judgment dated December 22, 2016, entered in her lawsuit styled Sheila Foster v. State of Minnesota, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-02561-DSD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis. The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. The appellate case is captioned as Sheila Foster v. State of Minnesota, et al., Case No. 17-1177, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before March 6, 2017; -- Appendix is due on March 16, 2017; -- Brief of Appellant Sheila Foster is due on March 16, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. Plaintiff-Appellant Sheila Foster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. Mark A. Wendorf, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E1250 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street Saint Paul, MN 55101-0000 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com m.wendorf@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com - and - Joseph Bourne, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. GUSTAFSON & GLUEK PLLC 120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: jbourne@gustafsongluek.com dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com - and - Erin Burns, Esq. Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: eburns@nastlaw.com dnast@nastlaw.com - and - Michael R. Cashman, Esq. Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC 8050 W. 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 Facsimile: (952) 941-2337 E-mail: mcashman@hjlawfirm.com rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com - and - Frank T. Davis, Jr., Esq. Joseph Goldberg, Esq. FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A. 20 First Plaza, Suite 700 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 842-9960 Facsimile: (505) 842-0761 E-mail: ftd@fbdlaw.com jg@fbdlaw.com - and - Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19192-0000 Telephone: (610) 891-0696 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com sparis@smbb.com - and - Marisa C. Katz, Esq. Douglas Micko, Esq. Vildan Aksoz Teske, Esq. TESKE MICKO KATZ KITZER & ROCHEL 222 S. Ninth Street, Suite 4050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 746-1558 Facsimile: (651) 846-5339 E-mail: katz@teskemicko.com micko@teskemicko.com teske@teskemicko.com - and - Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Cornerstone Building One Central Avenue West, Suite 203 St. Michael, MN 55376 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Facsimile: (763) 226-2515 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com kaw@wexlerwallace.com Defendants-Appellees State of Minnesota; Lori Swanson, in her official capacity as Minnesota Attorney General; and Myron Frans, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget, are represented by: Alethea Marie Huyser, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2128 Telephone: (651) 296-6196 E-mail: alethea.huyser@ag.state.mn.us - and - Oliver J. Larson, Esq. Jeffery Thompson, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 1800 Bremer Tower 445 Minnesota Street Saint Paul, MN 55101-2134 Telephone: (651) 297-2040 Facsimile: (651) 297-1235 E-mail: oliver.larson@ag.state.mn.us jeffery.thompson@ag.state.mn.us MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Bush Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony J. Bush filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Anthony Bush v. Mondelez International, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02460-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges that Mondelez falsely and deceptively misrepresents the quantity of food contained in each unit of Go-Paks (including Mini Chips Ahoy!, Mini Oreo, Golden Oreo Mini, Nutter Butter Bites, Mini Nilla Wafers, Ritz Bits, and Teddy Grahams) by way of its packaging. Mondelez International, Inc., and Mondelez Global, LLC are the owner, manufacturer, and distributor of Go-Paks. The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Bush v. Mondelez International, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-15126, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by February 21, 2017; -- Transcript is due on March 20, 2017; -- Opening brief of Appellant Anthony J. Bush is due on May 1, 2017; -- Appellees Mondelez Global LLC and Mondelez International, Inc.'s answering brief is due on May 30, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant ANTHONY J. BUSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. The Pershing Square Building 448 S. Hill St., Suite 701 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com Defendants-Appellees Mondelez International, Inc., and Mondelez Global LLC are represented by: Kenneth K. Lee, Esq. Kate T. Spelman, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 633 West 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-5152 E-mail: KLee@jenner.com kspelman@jenner.com - and - Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 923-2765 E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com MOUNT SINAI HEALTH: Latner Seeks Review of Judgment to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Daniel Latner filed an appeal from the District Court's order and judgment, both dated December 14, 2016, entered in the lawsuit titled Latner v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-683, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brought the lawsuit to put an end to the Defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited calls. The appellate case is captioned as Latner v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc., Case No. 17-99, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel Latner, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com Defendants-Appellees Mount Sinai Health System, Inc., and West Park Medical Group, P.C., are represented by: Jeffrey Neal Rosenthal, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 1 Logan Square, 130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-5553 Facsimile: (215) 832-5553 E-mail: rosenthal-j@blankrome.com NATIONAL ELECTORAL: To Face Suit Over Destruction of Property ------------------------------------------------------------- Tendai Kamhungira at Nehandra Radio reports the National Electoral Reform Agenda (Nera) must face a class-action lawsuit for the alleged looting and destruction of property during a protest for electoral reforms, a Harare judge has ruled. In a decision yesterday, High Court judge Owen Tagu ruled that the Zanu PF-aligned peace and business organisation, Citizens Against Violence and Anarchy Trust (Cavaat), had a standing to lead the case. The decision means Cavaat can hold Nera as a group liable over the alleged damage to property during a protest that took place in Harare on August 26 last year. This could lead to a large payout than if individual lawsuits were required. Nera failed to respond to the application for a certification decision, with the case placed on the unopposed roll. Nera -- a grouping of over 18 political parties -- is accused of organising the demonstration. "I accept that the respondent (Nera) has a right to conduct peaceful demonstrations. "However, I am advised that it is required to put in place adequate measures to ensure that demonstrations are conducted peacefully and must comply to the best of its ability with its notice of a public gathering and or directions given to it by the regulatory authority," said Elton Ziki, who deposed an affidavit on behalf of Cavat. "Notwithstanding this, there was violence during the demonstration," he said, adding that "some of the protestors also participated in the violence." "Ultimately, there was public disorder and a breach of peace, which resulted in loss and or damage of property of individuals who did not even participate in the demonstrations," Ziki argued. The application was filed in terms of Section 3 (1) of the Class Actions Act. In terms of the law, a class action cannot be instituted directly without seeking the court's permission. "The respondent as the convenor had a duty to ensure that the demonstration was peaceful. It was required to put in place adequate measures to ensure that there was no violence," Ziki said. "Even after the violence had started, it had a duty to discourage its members from participating in the violence," he said. He said the Nera protestors were seen throwing stones, looting, vandalising and even burning property, but accused the convenors of failing to take any action to normalise the situation. "As a result of the violence that occurred during the demonstrations, ordinary citizens lost property and business. "It is no longer certain whether one can conduct business in the usual manner for fear of loss or damage of property." "It is only fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable that the respondent be held liable for the loss or damage of property suffered by ordinary citizens," Ziki said, adding that Nera failed to comply with a High Court order for it to demonstrate peacefully. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Suppress Cheerleaders' Wages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that an antitrust class action in San Francisco, accuses the NFL and 26 of its 32 teams of conspiring to suppress wages for cheerleaders in the multibillion-dollar sports enterprise, forcing them to work off the clock and prohibiting them from seeking work in other sports. Former San Francisco 49ers cheerleader Jane Doe claims in the federal class action that NFL and 26 of its 32 teams struck anticompetitive deals designed to underpay their "female athletes." "The conspiracy began with an agreement between senior executives of defendant NFL member teams to eliminate competition for female athletes with the intent and effect of suppressing the compensation and mobility of female athletes," the 25-page complaint states. Doe says the teams agreed to not to recruit each other's female athletes; to pay all cheerleaders a low, flat rate for each game; not to pay them at all for time spent rehearsing or other mandatory activities, such as community outreach; to bar them from working in other professional sports; and to prohibit them from discussing their pay with each other, to mask "the illegal nature of their employment and compensation." Several NFL teams have settled wage-and-hour lawsuits from cheerleaders in recent years In 2014, Oakland Raiders cheerleaders settled their lawsuit for $1.25 million. The Cincinnati Bengals settled a similar lawsuit for $250,000 in 2015, and the New York Jets settled with cheerleaders for $324,000 in 2016. California in 2015 passed a law requiring professional sports teams to pay cheerleaders minimum wage, overtime and provide sick leave, workers' compensation and other employment benefits. Before the rash of labor suits raised most cheerleaders' pay to at least minimum wage, Doe says, dancers were paid as little as $90 to $125 per game with no compensation for other required activities. "Perhaps even more insultingly, defendant NFL member teams required female athletes auditioning for the team to pay approximately $25 per woman just to try out," Doe says in her complaint. In addition to game performances, cheerleaders work approximately 100 three-hour rehearsals, three times a week from about May until December, according to the complaint. Doe estimates the fair market value for their work should be $100,000 per year. That figure is based on minimum rates for live shows and performances prescribed by the Dancers Alliance, a union for professional dancers and choreographers. Doe also complains that NFL teams require cheerleaders surrender the right to use their likenesses in promotional and retail materials. This allows the NFL and its teams to sell calendars and other products featuring female athletes, which bring in about $1 million per team each year, according to Forbes. Doe says the NFL teams use fear and intimidation to further their conspiracy to suppress dancers' wages. "Female athletes were told by defendant NFL member team agents they were lucky to be chosen, should be grateful and could be quickly replaced if they failed to perform in any way," Doe says in the complaint. She accuses the NFL and 26 teams of violating federal and California antitrust laws. Doe seeks class certification, damages for suppressed earnings and recovery of litigation costs. She is represented by Drexel Bradshaw in San Francisco. The case is captioned, Jane Doe, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NFL Enterprises LLC dba National Football League, San Francisco 49ers, Oakland Raiders, San Diego Chargers, Los Angeles Rams, Arizona Cardinals, Atlanta Falcons, Baltimore Ravens, Buffalo Bills, Carolina Panthers, Cincinnati Bengals, Dallas Cowboys, Denver Broncos, Detroit Lions, Houston Texans, Indianapolis Colts, Jacksonville Jaguars, Kansas City Chiefs, Miami Dolphins, Minnesota Vikings, New England Patriots, New Orleans Saints, New York Jets, Philadelphia Eagles, Seattle Seahawks, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Tennessee Titans and Washington Redskins, Case No. 3:17-cv-00496 (N.D. Cal., January 31, 2017). NFL spokesman Robert Roberts did not return a phone call seeking comment on February 1. Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: Drexel A. Bradshaw, Esq. Thomas J. O'Brien, Esq. Bradshaw & Associates, P.C. One Sansome Street Thirty-Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 433-4800 Fax: (415) 433-4841 NEIU: Defendants Immune from Suit, Judge Says --------------------------------------------- District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case KIMBERLY BOLANOS, Plaintiff, v. NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, DANIEL WEBER, and SHARON HAHS, Defendants No. 14 CV 7533 (N.D. Ill.) Kimberly Bolanos, a Caucasian woman, was a graduate student at Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU), and began working there in June 2007 as a Graduate Assistant. Beginning in June 2009, she was employed in the Registrar's office, in a position referred to as the Assistant Registrar of Graduate Records or, sometimes, Coordinator of Graduate Records under the supervision of the University Registrar, Daniel Weber. Bolanos disapproved of the practices of several other workers, who, she claims, came to work late, misreported their time, and engaged in personal activities while at work. Bolanos confronted these other workers from time to time; after one such confrontation, another employee claimed that Bolanos had created a hostile and threatening work environment. On March 13, 2014, Bolanos was served with a union grievance. The grievance, filed as a class action, alleged that Bolanos did not provide a respectful workplace. Bolanos was investigated and eventually was terminated by NEIU. Bolanos filed a complaint on September 26, 2014 against NEIU, alleging claims of sex, race, and national origin discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; due process violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. Section 2701, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030; and state law claims of intrusion on seclusion, retaliatory discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). NEIU moved to dismiss all but the Title VII claims on sovereign immunity grounds. The court granted that motion without prejudice on February 18, 2015. The court noted that Bolanos's Section 1981 and Section 1983 claims against NEIU were barred by sovereign immunity, and that the other claims were also barred absent an immunity waiver for such claims. The court granted Bolanos leave to amend to address the sovereign immunity issue for those claims and to make a claim for prospective relief, if appropriate. In her amended complaint filed on March 11, 2015, Bolanos withdrew her claim under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the intrusion-on- seclusion claim, and added Weber and Hahs as defendants in their individual and official capacities. The amended complaint alleges, against all defendants: sex discrimination under Title VII (Count I); race and national origin discrimination under Title VII (Count II); retaliation under Title VII (Count III); violation of procedural and substantive due process under Section 1983 (Count IV); sex, race, and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Section 1983 (Count V); sex, race, and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Section 1981 (Count VI); retaliatory discharge (Count VIII); and IIED (Count IX). She alleged a violation of the SCA against NEIU only (Count VII). Aside from removing two claims and adding two defendants, the allegations in the amended complaint are virtually identical to those in the original complaint. Defendants Weber and Hahs moved to dismiss all but the Section 1983 claim alleging sex, race, and national origin discrimination. The court also dismissed the due process clams in Count IV and dismissed the Section 1981 claim in Count VI because there is no private right of action against state actors under Section 1981. As for Count V, the court dismissed the retaliation aspect of the claim, and all of the official-capacity claims. The court denied the motion with respect to Count IX. All claims in the amended complaint remain against defendant NEIU, and the claims remaining against defendants Weber and Hahs are Count V and Count IX, in their individual capacities. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all counts. Judge Pallmeyer granted defendants' motion for summary judgment reasoning that the absence of evidence sufficient to reach a jury on plaintiff's Title VII claims defeats her claims under Section 1983, and Section 1981 as well. Defendants Weber and Hahs are entitled to summary judgment on Count V and because defendants have sovereign immunity and Bolanos's claim for IIED fails as a matter of law, summary judgment is granted on Count IX. A copy of Judge Pallmeyer's memorandum opinion and order dated January 4, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/kNTH2v from Leagle.com. Kimberly Bolanos, Plaintiff, represented by: Jennifer Marie Hill, Esq. Anthony J. Peraica Esq. Anthony J. Peraica & Associates 5130 S Archer Ave Chicago, IL 60632 Telephone: 773-735-1700 Defendants, represented by Erin M. Petrolis -- Jeffrey John Freeman -- at Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois NEW ORIENTAL: Feb. 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired New Oriental American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between September 27, 2016 and December 1, 2016, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased New Oriental ADRs during the Class Period, you have until February 13, 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. New Oriental is a Cayman Islands corporation headquartered in Beijing, People's Republic of China ("PRC"). New Oriental provides private educational services under the New Oriental brand in the PRC. 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: (1) New Oriental engaged in college application fraud; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about New Oriental's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On December 2, 2016, Reuters published a report detailing allegations of academic fraud at the company. Specifically, Reuters reported that eight former and current New Oriental employees informed Reuters that New Oriental "engaged in college application fraud, including writing application essays and teacher recommendations, and falsifying high school transcripts." On that same day, Reuters reported that the American International Recruitment Council, which certifies agencies that recruit foreign students on behalf of U.S. colleges, will investigate the company in response to the Reuters report. On this news, shares of the Company fell $6.99 per share or over 14% from its previous closing price to close at $42.00 per share on December 2, 2016, damaging investors. 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. NEW YORK: Bus Companies Sue Over Excessive Tolls ------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that citing a federal judge's finding that trucking companies pay excessive tolls on the New York Thruway to subsidize the state's canal system, bus companies claim in a federal class action in Manhattan, that the unconstitutional scheme affects them the same way and they want a refund. The case is captioned, AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION; DATTCO, INC; STARR TRANSIT CO., INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY; NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION; BILL FINCH in Civil Action No.1.17-cv-782 his official capacity as Acting Executive Director of the New York State Thruway Authority; JOANNE M. MAHONEY in her official capacity as Chair of the New York CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT State Thruway Authority/ Canal Corporation Boards of Directors; DONNA J. LUH in her official capacity as Vice-Chair of the New York State Thruway Authority/ Canal Corporation Boards of Directors; and RICHARD N. SIMBERG, J. DONALD RICE JR., JOSE HOLGUIN-VERAS, ROBERT L. MEGNA, STEPHEN M. SALAND, in their official capacities as members of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of Directors, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00782 (S.D.N.Y. February 1, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Regind R. Goeke, Esq. Evan M. Tager, Esq. Kristina M. Portner, Esq. Matthew A. Waring, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW. Washington, DC 20006-1101 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 Facsimile: (202) 263-3300 - and - Richard P. Schweitzer, Esq. Richard P. Schweitzer, PLLC 1717 K Street, NW., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-3040 NEW YORK: Rold Appeals Ruling in Barcia v. Insurance Board ---------------------------------------------------------- Intervenor William J. Rold filed an appeal from the District Court's stipulation and order dated December 19, 2016, relating to the lawsuit titled Barcia v. Sitkin, Case No. 79-cv-5831, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Louis Sitkin was sued individually and as Chairman of the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The consolidated class actions challenged the practices and procedures of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, a body established by the State of New York to determine eligibility for unemployment benefits. The appellate case is captioned as Barcia v. Sitkin, Case No. 17- 160, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Intervenor-Appellant William J. Rold is represented by: Jane Becker, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER 416 Ponce de Leon San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (787) 585-3824 E-mail: janebeckerwhitaker@gmail.com janebeckerwhitaker@yahoo.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Nidia Barcia, Municipal Labor Committee, Kettely Laraque, Michael Wernham, Charles Rosa, Soso Liang Lo, Joan Miller, John Paulsen, Esperanza Polanco, and Joyce Glotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David Alan Raff, Esq. RAFF & BECKER, LLP 470 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 732-5400 Facsimile: (212) 732-0270 E-mail: raffd@raffbecker.com Defendants-Appellees Louis Sitkin, Individually and as Chairman of the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; James R. Rhone, Individually and as members of the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; Arthur Strauss, Individually and as members of the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; Harry Zankel, Individually and as members of the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; Douglas Pugh, Individually and as members of the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; Philip Ross, Individually and as Industrial Commissioner of the State Of New York; New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; and New York State Department of Labor are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 416-8020 E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov OMNI INSURANCE: Colter Appeals D. S.C. Court Decision to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Allison Colter filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit styled Allison Colter v. Omni Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-04171-JMC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at Columbia. The appellate case is captioned as Allison Colter v. Omni Insurance Company, Case No. 17-1071, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 20, 2017, District Judge J. Michelle Childs denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment in the Case. Allison Colter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed the putative class action seeking damages from Defendants Omni Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company for their alleged imposition of an illegal and unauthorized "betterment" or depreciation charge on property settlements for accidents. In her Motion, Plaintiff seeks to alter or amend the July Order on the basis that it is either a clear error of law if the betterment issue is not certified to the South Carolina Supreme Court or a manifest injustice if the court fails to allow Plaintiff to amend her Complaint. In the Order dated January 6, 2017 available at https://is.gd/fdfFEV from Leagle.com, Judge Childs concluded that its entry of the July Order did not result in the commission of either clear error or manifest injustice. Plaintiff-Appellant ALLISON COLTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn, Jr., Esq. GOODWYN LAW FIRM, LLC 2519 Devine Street Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (803) 251-4517 E-mail: JGoodwyn@Goodwynlaw.com - and - Rachel Gottlieb Peavy, Esq. GOODWYN LAW FIRM, LLC 2519 Devine Street Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (803) 251-4517 Defendants-Appellees OMNI INSURANCE COMPANY and OMNI INDEMNITY COMPANY are represented by: Brett Harris Bayne, Esq. J. Andrew Delaney, Esq. MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLP 1320 Main Street P. O. Box 12519 Columbia, SC 29211-2519 Telephone: (803) 227-2281 E-mail: brett.bayne@mgclaw.com adelaney@mgclaw.com OMNI INSURANCE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Colter" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Omni Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Allison Colter v. Omni Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-04171-JMC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at Columbia. The appellate case is captioned as Allison Colter v. Omni Insurance Company, Case No. 17-1104, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Allison Colter filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in her District Court case. The Appellate Court Clerk assigned Case No. 17-1071 to that proceeding. Allison Colter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed the putative class action seeking damages from Defendants Omni Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company for their alleged imposition of an illegal and unauthorized "betterment" or depreciation charge on property settlements for accidents. * * * An order is filed consolidating the Defendant's Appellate Case (Case No. 17-1104) with the Plaintiff's Appellate Case (Case No. 17-1071). In addition, according to the briefing schedule in the instant Appellate Case, initial forms are due within 14 days. Plaintiff-Appellee ALLISON COLTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn, Jr., Esq. Rachel Gottlieb Peavy, Esq. GOODWYN LAW FIRM, LLC 2519 Devine Street Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (803) 251-4517 E-mail: JGoodwyn@Goodwynlaw.com rpeavy@goodwynlaw.com Defendants-Appellants OMNI INSURANCE COMPANY and OMNI INDEMNITY COMPANY are represented by: Brett Harris Bayne, Esq. J. Andrew Delaney, Esq. MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLP 1320 Main Street P. O. Box 12519 Columbia, SC 29211-2519 Telephone: (803) 227-2281 E-mail: brett.bayne@mgclaw.com adelaney@mgclaw.com - and - Helen Faith Hiser, Esq. MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC P. O. Box 650007 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (843) 567-2930 E-mail: helen.hiser@mgclaw.com OMNI LIMOUSINE: Court Refuses to Certify "McSwiggin" ---------------------------------------------------- Judge James C. Mahan of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the defendant's decertification, and the defendant's objection to the Magistrate's Order in the case captioned, CHRISTY McSWIGGIN and KEVIN McSWIGGIN, Plaintiffs, v. OMNI LIMOUSINE, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-02172-JCM-NJK (D. Nev.). The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on December 19, 2014, alleging seven causes of action against the defendant involving their compensation for their employment as "Chauffeurs/Limousine drivers." Before the court is the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, defendant Omni Limousine's motion for decertification of the conditional class formed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the defendant's objection to Magistrate Judge Koppe's September 23, 2016, order denying defendant's second motion to strike. In his Order dated January 23, 2017, available at https://is.gd/xQ0XpY from Leagle.com, Judge Mahan denied class certification saying the motion was overdue and failed to comply with the numerosity requirement. As to the Defendants' decertification, the Court found that the plaintiffs, in the particular circumstances of the case, are sufficiently "similarly situated" under the FLSA to survive the motion. Regarding the defendant's objection to Magistrate Judge Koppe's order, Judge Mahan held that the plaintiffs accurately argue that the defendant has failed to file a timely objection to that order. Kevin McSwiggin, et al. are represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah Lin Jones, Esq. Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK, LLC 7287 Lakeside Dr. Reno, NV 89511-76520 Tel: (775)284-1500 Omni Limousine is represented by Anthony L. Hall, Esq. -- ahall@hollandhart.com -- and -- Rico Cordova, Esq. -- rncordova@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART LLP PHARMAVITE LLC: Bradach Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Bradach filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit titled Noah Bradach, et al. v. Pharmavite, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03218-GHK-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as Noah Bradach v. Pharmavite, LLC, Case No. 17-55064, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs Noah Bradach and Laura Corbett have previously filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. That appellate case is captioned as Noah Bradach, et al. v. Pharmavite LLC, Case No. 16-56407. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they viewed "Helps Maintain a Healthy Heart" on Pharmavite's vitamin E supplements and purchased at least one bottle of the supplements in reliance on this statement. The Plaintiffs brings two claims rooted in the alleged falsity of the "Helps Maintain a Healthy Heart" statement: (1) violation of California's unfair competition law, and (2) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by February 17, 2017; -- Transcript is due on May 18, 2017; -- Appellant Noah Bradach's opening brief is due on June 27, 2017; -- Appellee Pharmavite, LLC's answering brief is due on July 27, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant NOAH BRADACH, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Jonathan D. Miller, Esq. NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 Facsimile: (805) 563-5385 E-mail: jonathan@nps-law.com - and - Manfred P. Muecke, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-7748 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com psyverson@bffb.com - and - Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: eryan@bffb.com - and - Laura Mummert, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C. Eight Tower Bridge 161 Washington Street, Suite 1025 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: mummert@lawgsp.com - and - Brian Penny, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005-1108 Telephone: (212) 907-0718 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: bpenny@labaton.com - and - Howard Sedran, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com - and - Max A. Stein, Esq. Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC 1 N. Franklin Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 300-5505 E-mail: mstein@boodlaw.com sweltman@boodlaw.com Defendant-Appellee PHARMAVITE, LLC, is represented by: Bridget Ahmann, Esq. Joseph Michael Price, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766-8055 Facsimile: (612) 766-1600 E-mail: bridget.ahmann@FaegreBD.com joseph.price@FaegreBD.com - and - Juliet Arlene Markowitz, Esq. Rene P. Tatro, Esq. TATRO TEKOSKY SADWICK LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 225-7171 Facsimile: (213) 225-7151 E-mail: jmarkowitz@ttsmlaw.com renetatro@ttsmlaw.com PIXARBIO CORPORATION: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased PixarBio Corporation ("PixarBio" or the "Company) (OTC: PXRB) securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to PixarBio's private placement that closed on October 30, 2016; and/or (2) publicly traded on the open market from October 31, 2016 through January 20, 2017, inclusive. PixarBio shareholders may, no later than March 27, 2017, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of PixarBio and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online, visit: www.maniskas.com. PixarBio is a specialty pharmaceutical/biotechnology company that focuses on the pre-clinical and clinical development of neurological drug delivery systems for post-operative pain. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) the market for PixarBio's securities exhibited manipulative or deceptive activities; (2) PixarBio's assertions in press releases, third-party promotional materials, and PixarBio's Form S-1 concerning, among other things, PixarBio's business combinations and current shareholders; the identity and qualifications of key shareholders and employees and PixarBio's current and prospective development efforts lacked veracity; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 3, 2017, PixarBio's Chief Executive Officer, Frank Reynolds, disclosed that the Company had plans to acquire InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. ("InVivo"). In response, InVivo stated that it had never been involved in any negotiations regarding a deal and rejected the offer. Then on January 23, 2017, citing concerns about possible "manipulative or deceptive activities," the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission froze trading of PixarBio shares. According to the SEC, "the market for the security appears to reflect manipulative or deceptive activities." If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than March 27, 2017, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C. (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by email at rm@maniskas.com or visit: www.maniskas.com. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit our website: www.maniskas.com. RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. PNC FINANCIAL: "White" Plaintiffs Can't Add RICO Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lawrence F. Stengel granted in part and denied in part, the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint in the case captioned NELSON WHITE, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-7928 (E.D. Pa.). The putative class action was brought by homeowners claiming violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants carried on a "captive reinsurance scheme" in which the defendants enjoyed kickbacks, referrals, and fees that are prohibited by RESPA. After Judge Stengel denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in 2014, the case was stayed pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's decision in Cunningham v. M & T Bank Corp., 814 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2016). Both parties sought a stay pending the Cunningham decision because the issue in that case was identical to an issue in this case: whether equitable tolling applies to RESPA's one-year statute of limitations. After Cunningham was decided, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay. The plaintiffs also moved for leave to amend their complaint to modify their RESPA claim and add several entirely new claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Judge Stengel granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to modify their RESPA claims. The judge found that, assuming the veracity of the plaintiffs' allegations, the defendants violated RESPA each time an allegedly illegal kickback, fee, or referral was given or received. The judge held that the captive reinsurance scheme, as pled, constitutes a continuing violation of RESPA. Judge Stengel thus concluded that, because the continuing violations doctrine was applicable, the statute of limitations runs from the date of the last RESPA violation rather than the first. The judge found that the amendment with respect to RESPA was not unduly delayed and would not prejudice the defendants. Unlike with their RESPA claims, however, Judge Stengel found that the plaintiffs have unduly delayed moving to amend to add claims under RICO. The judge also found that the new RICO claims do not relate back to the original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(c). For both of these reasons, Judge Stengel denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add new RICO claims. A full-text copy of Judge Stengel's January 10, 2017 memorandum is available at https://is.gd/8PRZcc from Leagle.com. NELSON WHITE, JR., LISA WHITE, CHARLES HIGHTOWER, COLLEEN HIGHTOWER, Plaintiffs, represented by EDWARD W. CIOLKO -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, JOSEPH H. MELTZER -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, AMANDA TRASK -- atrask@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF -- myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, NATALIE LESSER -- nlesser@ktmc.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER -- tziegler@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. GEORGE G. DONALD, LUZ GARCIA, MICHELLE B. JOHNSTON, KEVIN ZIELINSKI, DAN B. JOHNSTON, JILL CRUMPLER, Plaintiffs, represented by JOSEPH H. MELTZER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, EDWARD W. CIOLKO, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, NATALIE LESSER, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW J. SOVEN -- asoven@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH, LLP, DANIEL I. BOOKER -- dbooker@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP, JOSEPH J. MAHADY -- jmahady@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP, LOUIS W. SCHACK -- lschack@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP & ROBERT A. NICHOLAS -- rnicholas@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP. PRIMARY CARE: "George" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Centeria George, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Primary Care Holdings, Inc., doing business as Humana, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-16-022625, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-60217-BB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Beth Bloom. Primary Care Holdings operates as a subsidiary of Humana Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337 7992 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sean Alan Douthard, Esq. Angelique Groza Lyons, Esq. CONSTANGY, Brooks, Smith, Prophete, LLP 100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3350 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223 7166 Facsimile: (813) 223 2515 E-mail: alyons@constangy.com REGUS MANAGEMENT: Circle Click Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Circle Click Media LLC and CTNY Insurance Group filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Circle Click Media, LLC, et al. v. Regus Management Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04000-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. Regus is in the business of leasing fully equipped commercial office space using an Office Service Agreement (OSA). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against the Defendants alleging that the actual monthly payment amount exceed the monthly amount stated on the OSA because Regus charges mandatory fees that are not adequately disclosed until after the lease is signed. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs brought claims for: (1) violations of California Business & Professions Code section 17200 (Unfair Competition Law) (UCL); (2) violations of California Business & Professions Code section 17500 (California False Advertising Law) (FAL), and (3) unjust enrichment. The appellate case is captioned as Circle Click Media, LLC, et al. v. Regus Management Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-15088, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by February 13, 2017; -- Transcript is due on March 13, 2017; -- Appellants CTNY Insurance Group, LLC and Circle Click Media, LLC's opening brief is due on April 24, 2017; -- Answering brief of Appellees HQ Global Workplaces, LLC, Regus Business Centre, LLC, Regus Management Group, LLC and Regus, PLC, is due on May 24, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA, LLC, a California limited liability company, and CTNY INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ali Ari Aalaei, Esq. Ari Law, P.C. 90 New Montgomery St., Suite 905 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 357-3600 E-mail: aaalaei@psalaw.com - and - S. Chandler Visher, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER 44 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 901-0500 E-mail: chandler@visherlaw.com Defendants-Appellees REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; REGUS BUSINESS CENTRE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; REGUS, PLC, a Jersey, Channel Islands, public limited company; and HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, are represented by: Stephanie A. Blazewicz, Esq. Meryl Macklin, Esq. K. Lee Marshall, Esq. Tracy M. Talbot, Esq. Daniel T. Rockey, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 375-3400 E-mail: stephanie.blazewicz@bryancave.com meryl.macklin@bryancave.com kenneth.marshall@bryancave.com tracy.talbot@bryancave.com daniel.rockey@bryancave.com - and - Darci F. Madden, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP 211 North Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2366 E-mail: darci.madden@bryancave.com RESTAURANT.COM INC: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of "Shelton" Suit Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Restaurant.Com Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Larissa Shelton, et al. v. Restaurant.Com Inc., Case No. 3-10-cv-00824, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs purchased gift certificates from Restaurant.com that allegedly violated several New Jersey statutes. Restaurant.com sold gift certificates online that provided a credit for the holder for purchases of food and beverages at the restaurant named on the certificate. The amount paid did not always coincide with the face amount of the certificate with standard terms and conditions that the certificate expired one (1) year from date of issue, except in California and where otherwise provided by law and the certificate was void to the extent prohibited by law. The Plaintiffs filed a purported class action against Restaurant.com in New Jersey state court, and the case was later removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The appellate case is captioned as Larissa Shelton, et al. v. Restaurant.Com Inc., Case No. 17-1078, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellees LARISSA SHELTON and GREGORY BOHUS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com - and - Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Christopher J. McGinn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCGINN 79 Paterson Street New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Telephone: (732) 937-9400 Facsimile: (800) 931-2408 E-mail: mcginn.chris@gmail.com - and - Henry P. Wolfe, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 Defendant-Appellant RESTAURANT.COM INC. is represented by: Michael R. McDonald, Esq. Caroline E. Oks, Esq. Jennifer M. Thibodaux, Esq. GIBBONS PC One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4827 Facsimile: (973) 639-6295 E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com coks@gibbonslaw.com jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com ROCKET FUEL: Bid to Amend Complaint in Securities Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the case captioned IN RE ROCKET FUEL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. 14-cv-03998-PJH (N.D. Cal.). A putative class action was filed against Rocket Fuel and several of its officers for securities violations. Rocket Fuel is an Internet advertising company, offering technological solutions to find, sell, and optimize digital advertising using its automated ad-buying platform. The plaintiffs, who were purchasers of Rocket Fuel stock during the relevant period, alleged that Rocket Fuel's directors and officers made false and misleading statements (and omissions) regarding the technology's effectiveness at combatting ad fraud, which artificially inflated its stock price. Despite knowing of the true extent of the bot problem, the defendants allegedly continued to tout their technology's capabilities. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants made a secondary stock offering that was timed to allow company insiders to unload their stock at artificially inflated prices. Ultimately, the defendants were forced to announce poor earnings performances and to admit that customers were taking their business elsewhere because of the bot problem. These announcements caused Rocket Fuel's stock price to drop, precipitating the lawsuit. The amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 27, 2015, bringing claims based on the Securities Act and Exchange Act. On December 23, 2015, the Court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. All of the Securities Act claims were dismissed without leave to amend. Rocket Fuel's underwriters and directors who were named as defendants only with respect to the Securities Act claims, were also dismissed as defendants entirely. However, the Court found that statements made in a November 2013 blog post were potentially actionable, and allowed the Exchange Act claims to proceed against Rocket Fuel and the insiders, only with respect to those statements. The plaintiffs sought leave to file a proposed amended complaint which would add Mohr Davidow Ventures (MDV) as a new defendant, as well as reinstating some claims against the former underwriter defendants and William Ericson. MDV is a "venture capital institutional investor" whose affiliates at one time controlled approximately one-third of Rocket Fuel's shares. Ericson was both a Director of Rocket Fuel and the managing general partner of MDV. The proposed amended complaint also adds new factual allegations, based on materials unearthed in discovery. Judge Hamilton found that the plaintiffs have not shown "good cause" for their request for leave to amend. The judge found that the plaintiffs nowhere justify the reinstatement of dismissed claims and parties, or the addition of new parties to the case. Moreover, the judge found that the plaintiffs were not diligent in pursuing amendment, and that permitting amendment would substantially prejudice the defendants. For all these reasons, Judge Hamilton denied the motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The parties have filed several motions to file materials under seal. The plaintiffs' motions were based on the defendants' confidentiality designations, which the defendants have sought to justify with several supporting declarations. Judge Hamilton held that the defendants have not met their burden to show that the material designated as "confidential" is sealable. Under the Local Rules, sealing must be narrowly tailored and limited to information that is privileged, a trade secret, or otherwise protected by law. With a few exceptions, the judge found that the information sought to be sealed, while perhaps embarrassing to Rocket Fuel, is not information that, if made public, would reveal Rocket Fuel's trade secrets or give their competitors an unfair advantage. Judge Hamilton, therefore, denied all of the pending motions to file material under seal. However, the judge granted the parties leave to redact: (1) specific third-party customer names; (2) the names of Rocket Fuel employees who are not officers, directors, or named defendants; and (3) the technical portion of Exhibit 24 to the Abadou Declaration. In addition, Judge Hamilton permitted one document, Exhibit 20 to Abadou Declaration, to be filed under seal in its entirety. A full-text copy of Judge Hamilton's January 24, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/ucGPuW from Leagle.com. Nipu Shah, Plaintiff, represented by Ramzi Abadou -- ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti LLP. Institutional Investor Group, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Mario Man-Lung Choi -- mchoi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick Foti LLP & Alexander Louis Burns -- alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti LLC. Rocket Fuel Inc., George H. John, J. Peter Bardwick, Richard Frankel, Defendants, represented by Evan L. Seite -- eseite@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati PC, Joni L. Ostler -- jostler@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Nina F. Locker -- nlocker@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Rodney Grant Strickland, Jr. -- rstrickland@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Harry Quan, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.. Ajay Goel, Victor Veloso, Movants, represented by Patrice L. Bishop -- pbishop@ssbla.com -- Stull, Stull & Brody. Thirukumaran Velayudhan, Bernie Bowden, Movants, represented by David E. Azar -- dazar@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP. James Summers, Movant, represented by Evan Jason Smith -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsky & Smith LLC. Sanjiv Mehrotra, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. State-Boston Retirement System, Movant, represented by Bruce W. Leppla, Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Browder Capital, LLC, Patrick Browder, Movants, represented by Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Donald R. Hall, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer, Joel B. Strauss, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Scott St. John, Kahn Swick Foti LLC, Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick Foti LLP. William Pack, Movant, represented by Frank James Johnson, Johnson & Weaver, LLP. Michael McCawley, Movant, represented by Michael Stuart Strimling, Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP. Mohr David Ventures, Objector, represented by Heather Annette Dunn Navarro, Five Palo Alto Square. SAZERAC CO: Misrepresents Age of Bourbon, "Penrose" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that a federal class action in St. Louis, accuses Buffalo Trace Distillery, Old Charter Distillery and Sazerac Co. of misrepresenting Old Charter bourbon as aged for eight years, though they stopped aging it for that long in 2014. The case is captioned, STEPHEN PENROSE, JAMES THOMAS, JOSEPH GUARDINO, and DANIEL POPE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO TRACE DISTILLERY, INC., OLD CHARTER DISTILLERY CO., and SAZERAC COMPANY, INC. Defendants, Case: 4:17-cv-00294 (E.D. Mo., January 27, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: ykopel@bursor.com SCOUT ANALYTICS: "Weller" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., dismissed with leave to amend a shareholder class action accusing Scout Analytics of goosing the "cloud-based customer lifecycle management solution" company's stock price through omissions and misrepresentations. The case is captioned, SCOTT WELLER, Individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. SCOUT ANALYTICS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case 5:15-cv-03170-EJD (N.D. Cal.). SEATTLE GENETICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Seattle Genetics, Inc. ("Seattle Genetics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SGEN) and certain of its officers, and is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Seattle Genetics securities between October 27, 2016 through December 23, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are advised to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/sgen. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Seattle Genetics is a biotechnology company focused on developing and commercializing innovative, empowered monoclonal antibody- based therapies for the treatment of cancer. One of the Company's leading products in development is SGN-CD33A (vadastuximab talirine). Throughout the Class Period, vadastuximab talirine was in clinical trials for various applications, including: (1) a Phase 1/2 trial in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) as a pre-conditioning regimen prior to an allogenic stem cell transplant and as a maintenance therapy following transplant; (2) a Phase 1 trial evaluating vadastuximab talirine monotherapy, including a subset of older AML patients in combination with hypomethylating agents; and (3) a Phase 1 trial evaluating vadastuximab talirine combination treatment with 7+3 chemotherapy in newly diagnosed younger AML patients. The Complaint alleges that 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' cancer drugs, presents a serious 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) consequently, 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 revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had placed a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on some early stage trials of vadastuximab talirine, its experimental cancer drug, to evaluate the potential risk of hepatotoxicity. Seattle Genetics affirmed that six acute myeloid leukemia patients had been identified with liver toxicity and that four had died. Following this news, Seattle Genetics stock dropped $9.50 per share, or 15.36%, to close at $52.36 on December 27, 2016. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/sgenor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Seattle Genetics you have until March 13, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. SEE'S CANDY: Cal. Appeals Court Tweaks Judgment in "Silva" ---------------------------------------------------------- Justice Judith L. Haller of the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One, ruled on plaintiff's appeal, in the case PAMELA SILVA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SEE'S CANDY SHOPS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. D068136 (Cal. App.) Pamela Silva filed an action against her former employer, See's Candy Shops, Inc., alleging wage and hour violations. Silva brought the action in her individual capacity, on behalf of a class of See's Candy employees, and on behalf of aggrieved workers under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). See's Candy denied Silva's allegations and asserted numerous affirmative defenses, including that its employees were fully and fairly compensated under its rounding policy and grace-period policy, and that these policies were consistent with state and federal laws. The court certified a class on Silva's claims challenging two of See's Candy's policies pertaining to the calculation of employee work time: (1) a rounding policy, which calculates timeclock punches to the nearest tenth of an hour; and (2) a grace-period policy, which permits employees to clock in 10 minutes before and after a shift, but calculates work time from the employee's scheduled start/end times. Silva moved for summary adjudication on See's Candy's rounding- policy affirmative defense. Silva argued See's Candy's rounding policy violates California law requiring an employer to fully compensate an employee every two weeks and pay premium wages for overtime work. The court agreed, granted the motion, and dismissed See's Candy's rounding defense. See's Candy successfully petitioned for a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District. The Court of Appeals held that an employer is entitled to use a rounding policy if the policy is fair and neutral on its face and is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked. After remand, See's Candy successfully moved for summary adjudication on Silva's PAGA cause of action. In a later proceeding, the court granted summary judgment in See's Candy's favor on all of Silva's remaining claims. Silva appeals and challenges the summary adjudication order on her PAGA claim and the summary judgment on all remaining causes of action. She raises numerous contentions. Justice Haller affirmed the summary adjudication on the PAGA claim, reversed the summary judgment on the first and second causes of action with directions to the trial court to enter a new order: (1) granting summary adjudication in See's Candy's favor on the class and individual claims based on Silva's challenges to See's Candy's rounding and grace-period policies; and (2) denying summary adjudication on Silva's individual claims alleging See's Candy violated Silva's rights with respect to rest and meal periods, and business expense reimbursement. The court shall dismiss the class-certified claims and the PAGA claims in their entirety. A copy of Justice Haller's opinion dated January 5, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/AFkOYQ from Leagle.com. For Plaintiff and Appellant: William B. Sullivan, Esq. Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Sullivan Law Group 2330 3rd Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-702-6760 Facsimile: 619-702-6761 David S. Bradshaw -- BradshawD@jacksonlewis.com -- James T. Jones -- JonesJ@jacksonlewis.com -- Evan D. Beecher -- Evan.Beecher@jacksonlewis.com -- Paul F. Sorrentino -- SorrentinoP@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis, for Defendant and Respondent The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Patricia D. Benke and Justices Judith L. Haller and Cynthia Aaron. SHARKNINJA OPERATING: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Rosenthal" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Mordechai Rosenthal filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Mordechai Rosenthal v. Sharkninja Operating LLC, Case No. 3-16-cv-01048, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff purchased one of the Defendant's vacuums in part due to the Defendant's pervasive advertising of the vacuum as a quality and reliable product. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant was aware of the vacuum's electrical defects and tendency to malfunction but failed to disclose these facts to the Plaintiff and other vacuum purchasers. Consequently, on February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendant, claiming that it violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The appellate case is captioned as Mordechai Rosenthal v. Sharkninja Operating LLC, Case No. 17-1155, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant MORDECHAI ROSENTHAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by: Natalie F. Bennett, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (610) 891-9883 E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com - and - James C. Shah, Esq. Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 475 White Horse Pike Collingswood, NJ 08107 Telephone: (856) 858-1770 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com nzipperian@sfmslaw.com Defendant-Appellee SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC is represented by: Lorna A. Dotro, Esq. COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP 350 Mount Kemble Avenue P.O. Box 1917 Morristown, NJ 07962 Telephone: (973) 267-0058 Facsimile: (973) 267-6442 E-mail: ldotro@coughlinduffy.com SOUTH DAKOTA: Fleming Seeks Review of Judgment in Tribes' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Lisa Fleming and Lynne A. Valenti filed an appeal from a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction both dated December 15, 2016, entered in the lawsuit titled Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v. Lisa Fleming, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-05020-JLV, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City. Lisa Fleming is the head of the Pennington County Child Protection Services while Lynne A. Valenti is the secretary of the South Dakota Department of Social Services. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs accused state officials of violating the Indian Child Welfare Act by holding improper hearings after children were removed from homes, according to the complaint filed March 21, 2013. The appellate case is captioned as Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v. Lisa Fleming, et al., Case No. 17-1137, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before February 28, 2017; -- Appendix is due on March 10, 2017; -- Brief of Appellants Mark Vargo, Craig Pfeifle, Lisa Fleming and Lynne A. Valenti is due on March 10, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellants; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. Plaintiffs-Appellees Oglala Sioux Tribe; Rosebud Sioux Tribe, as parens patriae, to protect the rights of their tribal members; Madonna Pappan; and Lisa Young, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, are represented by: Dana L. Hanna, Esq. HANNA LAW OFFICE PC P.O. Box 3080 Rapid City, SD 57709 Telephone: (605) 791-1832 E-mail: dhanna@midconetwork.com - and - Stephen L. Pevar, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION 765 Asylum Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 Telephone: (860) 570-9830 E-mail: Pevaraclu@aol.com Defendants-Appellants Lisa Fleming, in her official capacity, and Lynne A. Valenti, in her official capacity, are represented by: Robert L. Morris, II, Esq. MORRIS LAW FIRM 704 Seventh Avenue, Second Floor - Suite 2 P.O. Box 370 Belle Fourche, SD 57717-0370 Telephone: (605) 723-7777 SOUTH DAKOTA: Judge Pfeifle Appeals Judgment in Tribes' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Craig Pfeifle filed an appeal from a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction both dated December 15, 2016, entered in the lawsuit titled Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v. Honorable Craig Pfeifle, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-05020-JLV, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City. Craig A. Pfeifle serves in South Dakota's Seventh Judicial Circuit in South Dakota as a circuit court judge. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs accused state officials of violating the Indian Child Welfare Act by holding improper hearings after children were removed from homes, according to the complaint filed March 21, 2013. The appellate case is captioned as Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v. Honorable Craig Pfeifle, Case No. 17-1136, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before February 28, 2017; -- Appendix is due on March 10, 2017; -- Brief of Appellants Mark Vargo, Craig Pfeifle, Lisa Fleming and Lynne A. Valenti is due on March 10, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellants; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. Plaintiffs-Appellees Oglala Sioux Tribe; Rosebud Sioux Tribe, as parens patriae, to protect the rights of their tribal members; Madonna Pappan; and Lisa Young, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, are represented by: Dana L. Hanna, Esq. HANNA LAW OFFICE PC P.O. Box 3080 Rapid City, SD 57709 Telephone: (605) 791-1832 E-mail: dhanna@midconetwork.com - and - Stephen L. Pevar, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION 765 Asylum Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 Telephone: (860) 570-9830 E-mail: Pevaraclu@aol.com Defendant-Appellant Honorable Craig Pfeifle, in his official capacity, is represented by: Jeffrey G. Hurd, Esq. BANGS & MCCULLEN 333 West Boulevard P.O. Box 2670 Rapid City, SD 57709-0000 Telephone: (605) 343-1040 E-mail: jhurd@bangsmccullen.com SOUTH DAKOTA: Vargo Seeks Review of Judgment in Tribes' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Mark Vargo filed an appeal from a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction both dated December 15, 2016, entered in the lawsuit titled Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v. Mark Vargo, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-05020-JLV, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City. Mark Vargo is Pennington County State's Attorney. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs accused state officials of violating the Indian Child Welfare Act by holding improper hearings after children were removed from homes, according to the complaint filed March 21, 2013. The appellate case is captioned as Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v. Mark Vargo, Case No. 17-1135, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The appellate case is captioned as Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v. Honorable Craig Pfeifle, Case No. 17-1136, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before February 28, 2017; -- Appendix is due on March 10, 2017; -- Brief of Appellants Mark Vargo, Craig Pfeifle, Lisa Fleming and Lynne A. Valenti is due on March 10, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellants; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. Plaintiffs-Appellees Oglala Sioux Tribe; Rosebud Sioux Tribe, as parens patriae, to protect the rights of their tribal members; and Madonna Pappan; and Lisa Young, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, are represented by: Dana L. Hanna, Esq. HANNA LAW OFFICE PC P.O. Box 3080 Rapid City, SD 57709 Telephone: (605) 791-1832 E-mail: dhanna@midconetwork.com - and - Stephen L. Pevar, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION 765 Asylum Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 Telephone: (860) 570-9830 E-mail: Pevaraclu@aol.com Defendant-Appellant Mark Vargo, in his official capacity, is represented by: Rebecca L. Mann, Esq. J. Crisman Palmer, Esq. GUNDERSON & PALMER LLP 506 Sixth Street P.O. Box 8045 Rapid City, SD 57709-8045 Telephone: (605) 342-1078 Facsimile: (605) 342-9503 E-mail: RMann@gpna.com CPalmer@gpna.com SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stuppiello" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Matthew Stuppiello filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit styled Matthew Stuppiello v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., Case No. 3:16-cv-01811-H-JMA, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff sought to stop the Defendant's alleged unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. operates a debt collection firm in California. The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Stuppiello v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., Case No. 17-55061, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by February 10, 2017; -- Transcript is due on March 13, 2017; -- Appellant Matthew Stuppiello's opening brief is due on April 21, 2017; -- Appellee Southwest Credit Systems, L.P.'s answering brief is due on May 22, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant MATTHEW STUPPIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jared M. Hartman, Esq. HARTMAN LAW OFFICE 400 South Melrose Drive Vista, CA 92081 Telephone: (951) 837-9183 Facsimile: (888) 819-8230 E-mail: jaredhartman@jmhattorney.com - and - Asil Mashiri, Esq. MASHIRI LAW FIRM, APC 11251 Rancho Carmel Drive San Diego, CA 92150 Telephone: (858) 348-4938 E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com Defendant-Appellee SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, L.P., is represented by: Brett Goodman, Esq. YU MOHANDESI LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 375-3543 Facsimile: (213) 377-5501 E-mail: bgoodman@yumollp.com SPEEDWAY LLC: Faces "Brodie" Suit in Western Dist. of Pa. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SPEEDWAY LLC. The case is captioned as CAROLINE BRODIE, ANGELA HUNTER, and ACCESS NOW, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SPEEDWAY LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00133-RCM (W.D. Pa., Jan. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell. Speedway is the operator of a combination gas station/convenience stores that is based in Enon, Ohio, United States, with locations operating under its namesake brand along the Midwestern and East Coast of the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322 9243 Facsimile: (412) 231 0246 E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com ST. ANTHONY'S MEDICAL: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hern" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Dana R. Hern filed an appeal from a court memorandum and order and judgment, both dated December 12, 2016, entered in the lawsuit titled Dana Hern v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, Case No. 4:16-cv-01296-JAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The appellate case is captioned as Dana Hern v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, Case No. 17-1086, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on February 21, 2017; -- Brief of Appellant Dana R. Hern is due on February 21, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. Plaintiff-Appellant Dana R. Hern, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Damick, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. DAMICK 211 N. Broadway Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 231-0570 E-mail: DND@Cat2.com - and - Blake Green, Esq. BG LAW 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 350 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 463-9930 Facsimile: (816) 463-2815 E-mail: blake@bglawkc.com Defendant-Appellee St. Anthony's Medical Center is represented by: Robert Taylor Matthews, III, Esq. Edward T. Pivin, Esq. Winthrop Blackstone Reed, III, Esq. Oliver H. Thomas, Esq. LEWIS & RICE LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 444-1372 Facsimile: (314) 612-1372 E-mail: tmatthews@lewisrice.com epivin@lewisrice.com wreed@lewisrice.com othomas@lewisrice.com STILLWATER MINING: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Assad" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that directors are selling Stillwater Mining Co. too cheaply through an unfair process to Sibanye Gold Ltd., for $18 a share or $2.2 billion, shareholders say in a federal class action in Denver. The case is captioned, GEORGE ASSAD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. STILLWATER MINING COMPANY, BRIAN D. SCHWEITZER, MICHAEL J. MCMULLEN, GEORGE M. BEE, PATRICE E. MERRIN, LAWRENCE PETER O'HAGAN, MICHAEL S. PARRETT, GARY A. SUGAR, SIBANYE GOLD LIMITED, THOR US HOLDCO INC., and THOR MERGCO INC., Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-00267-CBS (D. Colo., January 27, 2017). Local Counsel for Plaintiff: Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 536-7849 Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Kip B. Shuman, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM Post-Montgomery Ctr. One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 536-7849 Email: kip@shumanlawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff: RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 RM LAW, P.C. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Tel: (484) 588-5516 SUGAR TRANSPORT: Plaintiff May Amend "Guinn" FLSA Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge William B. Shubb granted Ryan Guinn's motion for leave to amend his complaint in the case captioned RYAN GUINN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SUGAR TRANSPORT OF THE NORTHWEST, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendant, Civ. No. 2:16-325 WBS EFB (E.D. Cal.). On October 23, 2015, Guinn brought a class action against Sugar Transport of the Northwest in the California Superior Court, alleging that Sugar Transport failed to pay him and other truck drivers overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and failed to provide uninterrupted meal and break periods in violation of California law. Sugar Transport removed the action to the District Court for the Eastern District of California on February 17, 2016. After the deposition of John Riella, an employee of Sugar Transport, plaintiff undertook further investigation and "learned that . . . Bronco Wine . . . and Classic Wines . . . had significant input on the discipline of [defendant's] drivers," and that Classic Wines "provided direction and instruction directly to [defendant's] drivers regarding the performance of their jobs, including how to address particular deliveries." On December 23, 2016, Guinn filed a motion seeking leave to amend his complaint to add Bronco Wine Company and Classic Wines as defendants to the action. Guinn alleged that Bronco Wine and Classic Wines are, along with defendant, are his "joint employers," and that of the putative class, for liability purposes in the action. He argued that "good cause" exists to add Bronco Wine and Classic Wines because "he acted diligently" in discovering the facts necessary "to state 'joint employer' allegations against [them]" and adding them once he had enough facts. Sugar Transport opposed the motion, contending that Guinn did not act diligently in adding Bronco Wine and Classic Wines to the action because the facts he cites in support of adding them as joint employers -- that Bronco Wine and Classic Wines monitored, instructed, and provided trucks and facilities to him and other truck drivers -- are ones that, as a former employee of Sugar Transport, he knew or should have known from the start of the action. While Judge Shubb agreed with Sugar Transport, the judge also found that it is likewise plausible that Guinn would not have been aware, from working as a truck driver, that: (1) Bronco Wine owns the warehouses he worked out of and is affiliated with the company that leased the trucks he drove, (2) Classic Wines monitored him and other truck drivers through "electronic logs and hand held tracking devices," and (3) Bronco Wine and Classic Wines had "input on [employee] discipline." Because Sugar Transport has not presented any evidence indicating that Guinn was or should have been aware of such facts prior to the Riella deposition, Judge Shubb assumed, for purposes of the motion, that Guinn was not aware of such facts prior to the Riella deposition. Judge Shubb found that Guinn was diligent in discovering facts and adding Bronco Wine and Classic Wines to the action. The judge also found that Sugar Transport will not be prejudiced by Guinn's motion. The judge thus found that Guinn has demonstrated "good cause" for his motion. Judge Shubb also stated that futility is not a concern because the facts presented in Guinn's motion indicate that Guinn has a colorable argument that Bronco Wine and Classic Wines are joint employers in the action. Accordingly, the Guinn's motion was granted. A full-text copy of Judge Shubb's January 24, 2017 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/UqGrBa from Leagle.com. Ryan Guinn, Plaintiff, represented by Ian A. Kass, Law Offices of James L Pagano, James L. Pagano, Law Offices of James L Pagano. Sugar Transport of the Northwest, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cassandra M. Ferrannini -- cferrannini@downeybrand.com -- Downey Brand LLP & Alexandra K. LaFountain -- amurphy@downeybrand.com -- Downey Brand LLP. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Van Dusen" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Swift Transportation Company Incorporated, Interstate Equipment Leasing Incorporated, Chad Killibrew and Jerry Moyes filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Virginia Van Dusen, et al. v. Swift Transportation Company I, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-00899-JWS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix. The appellate case is captioned as Virginia Van Dusen, et al. v. Swift Transportation Company I, et al., Case No. 17-15102, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Virginia Van Dusen and Joseph Sheer are interstate truck drivers, who entered into contracts with Swift Transportation Company, Inc. and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc. The contracts designated Van Dusen and Sheer as independent contractors, not employees. Each contract also contained a clause to arbitrate all disputes and claims arising under, arising out of or relating to the agreement. The complaint alleged that Swift misclassified Van Dusen and others as independent contractors. The complaint also alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, New York labor laws, state and federal minimum wage laws, and laws prohibiting forced labor, among other claims. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by February 13, 2017; -- Transcript is due on March 13, 2017; -- Opening brief of Appellants Interstate Equipment Leasing Incorporated, Chad Killibrew, Jerry Moyes and Swift Transportation Company Incorporated is due on April 24, 2017; -- Appellees John Doe and Virginia Van Dusen' answering brief is due on May 24, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellees VIRGINIA VAN DUSEN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, and JOHN DOE, 1, are represented by: Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Susan Joan Martin, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC 1850 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com smartin@martinbonnett.com - and - Dan Getman, Esq. GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC 9 Paradise Lane New Paltz, NY 12561 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com - and - Edward Tuddenham, Esq. 228 W. 137th Street New York, NY 10030 Telephone: (512) 413-4863 E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com Defendants-Appellants SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED, INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT LEASING INCORPORATED, CHAD KILLIBREW and JERRY MOYES are represented by: Paul Scott Cowie, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 4 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4106 Telephone: (415) 774-3182 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com - and - Anna Stancu, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448 Telephone: (213) 617-5479 E-mail: astancu@sheppardmullin.com SYSCO CORP: Calif. Court Refuses to Remand "Hernandez" ------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the motion to remand the case captioned, HENRY HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. SYSCO CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-06723-JSC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Henry Hernandez, a former non-exempt employee of Defendants Sysco Corporation and Sysco San Francisco, filed the putative class action complaint in Alameda Superior Court on October 18, 2016. He asserts seven claims for relief under state law including: (1) failure to provide rest periods in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 and Wage Order 7; (2) failure to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512, and Wage Order 7; (3) failure to pay overtime in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, 1194.2, and Wage Order No. 7; (4) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1197, 1194(a), 1194.2; (5) failure to pay wages at termination in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203; (6) failure to issue accurate and itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226(b), 1174, 1175, and Wage Order No. 7); and (7) violation of unfair competition law in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sec 17200 et seq. The Defendants filed their answer in state court on November 21, 2016, and simultaneously removed the complaint to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. In the Notice of Removal, the Defendants allege that removal is proper under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d)(2), because the case has more than 100 putative class members, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and the Plaintiff is a citizen of California whereas the Defendants are citizens of Delaware and Texas. In the motion to remand, the Plaintiffs contend that remand is appropriate under the "local controversy" exception to CAFA removal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(A). In her Order dated January 25, 2017 available at https://is.gd/R0elo2 from Leagle.com, Judge Corley found that the Plaintiff has not met the burden of showing that the local controversy exception applies because he has not shown that during the three years preceding the filing of this action no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar claims against the same defendants. Henry Hernandez is represented by: Joseph Donald Sutton, Esq. Eric Sebastian Trabucco, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Marco A. Palau, Esq. Stanley S. Mallison, Esq. MALLISON AND MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison St # 730, Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510)832-9999 Sysco Corporation is represented by Vartan Serge Madoyan, Esq. -- vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- Jeffrey Charles Bils, Esq. -- jbils@baklerlaw.com -- Margaret Rosenthal, Esq. -- mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com -- and -- Sabrina Layne Shadi, Esq. -- sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP TOBACK BERNSTEIN: Directed to Pay Counsel Fees in "Torres" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, LEILANI TORRES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOBACK, BERNSTEIN & REISS LLP, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 11-CV-1368 (VVP) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the plaintiff's counsel's motion for an order approving an agreed upon award of attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff's amended complaint alleged various violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with the defendants' conduct in seeking to collect various student loan debts. The alleged transgressions included improperly calculating the interest owed, assessing excessive collection fees, and engaging in collection activities in New York City without being licensed to do so. After a period of discovery and the amendment of the original complaint, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations that achieved a settlement of all claims on behalf of two sub-classes, one comprising student loan debtors who were overcharged for interest and fees and the other comprising student loan debtors who were subject to the defendants' unlicensed collection efforts. The settlement received conditional approval and final approval after a hearing. The settlement includes separate payments of maximum statutory damages to each sub-class, as well as a recalculation of interest and fees for the members of the overcharged sub-class. Thus the members of each sub-class received approximately $80 in statutory damages. More importantly, the members of the overcharged sub- class received reductions in their indebtedness totaling approximately $2.4 million. The included repayments totaling more than $59,000 to 21 class members who had overpaid their accounts. The Plaintiff's counsel seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs of no more than $195,000 as agreed by the parties. In his Memorandum and Order dated January 23, 2017, available at https://is.gd/2uVuvv from Leagle.com, Judge Pohorelsky concluded that the award sought by the counsel is fair and reasonable, and is entirely appropriate. Accordingly, Judge Pohorelsky directed the defendants to pay that amount to the plaintiff's counsel. Leilani Torres is represented by: Brian L. Bromberg, Esq. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C. 26 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212)248-7906 -- and -- Ahmad Keshavarz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AHMAD KESHAVARZ 16 Court St.26th Floor 11241 Brooklyn, NY 78701-3660 Tel: (718) 522-7900 Toback, Bernstein & Reiss LLP, et al. are represented by Marian C. Rice, Esq. -- mrice@lbcclaw.com -- and -- Matthew J. Bizzaro, Esq. -- mbizzaro@lbcclaw.com -- L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA & CONTINI, LLP -- and -- Ahmad Keshavarz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AHMAD KESHAVARZ 16 Court St.26th Floor 11241 Brooklyn, NY 78701-3660 Tel: (718) 522-7900 TTC AMERIDIAL: Oliver's Bid to Certify Withdrawn as Stipulated -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on January 22, 2017, in the case entitled Kristina Oliver v. TTC Ameridial, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05177 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly. The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's placeholder motion for class certification is withdrawn based on the parties' stipulation. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mOUcIh9k UNARCO INDUSTRIES: Court Partly Dismisses "Hernandez" ----------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted in part the Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MARTHA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNARCO INDUSTRIES, a foreign Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. CIV-15-001-KEW (E.D. Okla.). Plaintiff Martha Hernandez initiated the action on September 2, 2014, in the District Court in and for Wagoner County, Oklahoma. Defendant Unarco Industries removed the case to the District Court on January 2, 2015. After Unarco filed a Motion to Dismiss, Hernandez filed an Amended Complaint. Unarco then filed a Motion to Dismiss related to the allegations and claims asserted in the Amended Complaint. On March 30, 2016, the District Court entered an Opinion and Order on Unarco's Motion, finding (1) Hernandez's discrimination claims based in Title VII lacked factual foundation in the Amended Complaint; (2) Hernandez's claim based in 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 was not supported in the facts as a race-based claim; (3) Hernandez failed to exhaust her administrative remedies on the class-based claims; and (4) Hernandez had sufficiently exhausted her administrative remedies with regard to her racial and sexual discrimination claims. As a result, Hernandez's class claims were dismissed and she was given an opportunity to amend the Complaint to cure the deficiencies in the factual allegations supporting the discrimination claims. Hernandez filed a Second Amended Complaint. Hernandez asserts in the Second Amended Complaint that Unarco has begun hiring temporary service employees without benefits in lieu of full time employees with benefits and permitting non-Hispanic workers to be given permanent status after a year but not Hispanic workers. Hernandez brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e, et seq.) and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (Okla. Stat. tit. 25 Section 1301 et seq.). She expressly states that the action is based upon discrimination in employment on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national origin. Hernandez seeks (1) declaratory relief finding Unarco in violation of Title VII and Oklahoma law; (2) a permanent injunction prohibiting Unarco from continuing discriminatory practices; (3) Unarco to "make whole those persons adversely affected by the policies and practices" which were discriminatory to the female, Hispanic employees, including back pay and reimbursement for lost benefits; (4) damages for mental distress; (5) punitive damages;(6) retention of jurisdiction for enforcement of the injunctive relief; and (7) attorney's fees and costs In the motion to dismiss, Unarco urges that the Court should dismiss any claims which Hernandez may be asserting on behalf of others. Unarco centers on the fact that the factual allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are too vague and do not relate to actions taken against Hernandez herself. In her Opinion and Order dated January 23, 2017, available at https://is.gd/IC22KN from Leagle.com, Judge West granted Unarco's motion to dismiss as to Hernandez's claim asserting on behalf of others because they represent mere background to the allegations supporting Hernandez's individual claims. Judge West denied dismissal as to remaining claims because Hernandez has set forth facts actionable under Title VII. Martha Hernandez is represented by: James G. Wilcoxen, Esq. WILCOXEN & WILCOXEN Wilcoxen Callaham LLP 2114 K Street Sacramento, CA 95816 Tel: (916) 442-2777 Unarco Industries is represented by: Jacob S. Crawford, Esq. W. Kirk Turner, Esq. NEWTON O'CONNOR TURNER & KETCHUM 2700 Bank of America Center 15 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119-5423 Tel:(918)587-0101 UNITED STATES: "Al Saeedi" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against US President Donald J. Trump. The case is titled as Hamdiyah Al Saeedi, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Petitioner, v. Donald J. Trump President of the United States; John Kelly, Secretary of DHS; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP; Jamea T. Madden, New York Field Director, CBP; U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Respondents, Case No. 1:17-cv-00484-KAM (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto. Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States. The Petitioner is represented by: Tahanie A. Aboushi, Esq. THE ABOUSHI LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Ste. 5036 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 391 8500 Facsimile: (212) 391 8508 E-mail: tahanie@aboushi.com UNITED STATES: "Emamjomeh" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against US President Donald Trump. The case is captioned as Zahra Emamjomeh and Mohammed Houshmand, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Petitioners, v. Donald Trump, President of the United States; Secretary US Department of Homeland Security; US Customs and Border Protection; John Kelly, Secretary of DHS; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP; and James Madden, New York Field Director CBP; the Respondents, Case No. 1:17-cv-00494-CBA (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Carol Bagley Amon. Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States. The Petitioner is represented by: Thais Maria Paschoal Saad, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THAIS P. SAAD 21-12 Broadway Astoria, NY 11106 Telephone: (347) 463 2513 Facsimile: (718) 425 0665 E-mail: thais.saad@hotmail.com UNITED STATES: "Rashekhi" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against US President Donald Trump. The case is entitled as Vahideh Rashekhi, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Petitioner, v. Donald Trump, President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP; James T. Madden, New York Field Director CBP; and John Kelly, Secretary of DHS, the Respondents, Case No. 1:17-cv-00489-CBA (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Carol Bagley Amon. Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States. The Petitioner is represented by: Thais Maria Paschoal Saad, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THAIS P. SAAD 21-12 Broadway Astoria, NY 11106 Telephone: (347) 463 2513 Facsimile: (718) 425 0665 E-mail: thais.saad@hotmail.com UNITED STATES: Flint, Mich. Residents Sue over EPA Inaction ----------------------------------------------------------- Andy Olesko, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that with $722 million in administrative claims pending against the Environmental Protection Agency, more than 1,700 people from Flint, Michigan filed a federal class action in Detroit, against the United States on January 30, after what they say is months of inaction. Lead plaintiff Jan Burgess says the EPA "failed to follow several specific agency mandates and directives governing its conduct which resulted in injury." Among those mandates and directives are providing "advice and technical assistance to states and local providers" that did not comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Burgess claims that upon learning of the severity of Flint's lead poisoning, the EPA was required to bring an emergency action but failed to do so until January 2016. In the 37-page federal complaint, Burgess says she became increasingly concerned about the taste and smell of Flint's tap water in the summer of 2014, and requested an investigation through the EPA's Enforcement web page in October 2014. Lead poisoning from old corroded pipes that carry tap water for Flint, pop. 102,000, has made world news for more than two years. The city is 63 percent nonwhite; 57 percent are black. Flint switched its water source this year from Lake Huron via the Detroit water system to the Flint River. "Since this change, our drinking water has tripled in cost and the quality varies daily," Burgess says in the complaint. "Some days it smells like an over-chlorinated swimming pool; other days, like pond scum. It is often brown in color and frequently has visible particles floating in it. . . . Just this morning our local paper reports that General Motors Engine plant has shut off Flint River water to the plant due to the over-chlorination and the fears that the water will cause corrosion." Burgess says residents of Flint no longer trust their local government. "There is reasonable suspicion that reports have been falsified. Some residents have had water tested privately and the results are not even close to those reported by the city," the complaint states. "Calls to the city and state have resulted in no action whatsoever." After asking the EPA to investigate, in October 2014, Burgess says in the complaint, she received an email from EPA representative Jennifer Crooks, who tried to assuage her fears and said the water quality problems were temporary. "The Flint River water is a different quality than the Lake Huron raw water, and requires additional treatment to ensure an acceptable quality drinking water," Crooks wrote, according to the complaint. Using the abbreviation for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, she added: "MDEQ is aware of the multiple complaints from citizens and is working closely with the Flint Water Department to ensure the distribution system and the water treatment processes work more efficiently and more effectively." Burgess says she did not hear from the EPA again until April 2016, when she was contacted by investigators. She says an EPA agent told her then that more than 120 complaints about the water had not yet been addressed. In January 2015, another Flint resident called the EPA to say "that she and her family members were becoming physically ill from exposure to the water coming from her tap," according to the complaint. The lawsuit then quotes a number of damning statements it attributes to a Feb.26 email from Crooks to other EPA officials and the MDEQ. "Crooks noted that the iron contamination was so high that the testing instrumentation could not measure it. She went on to say: "'But, because the iron levels were so high [Michael Glasgow, Flint Utilities Administrator], suggested testing for lead and copper. WOW!!!! Did he find the LEAD! 104 ppb [parts per billion] She has 2 children under the age of 3. . . . Big worries here . . . "'I think lead is a good indication that other contaminants are also present in the tap water that obviously were not present in the compliance samples taken at the plant. . . . "'We also talked about Dr. Joan Rose from Michigan State being on the Flint Tech Advisory committee . . . would want to dive further into this . . . she and her family are also exhibiting the rashes when exposed to the water, and her daughter's hair is falling out in clumps.'" By September 2015, newspapers around the world were reporting a massive health crisis in Flint, particularly for children, as lead poisoning can cause developmental disabilities and mental retardation. "The media reported that the highly corrosive Flint River water was causing lead contamination in Flint homes. The media reported that the corrosion control plan would be implemented in January 2016," according to the complaint. Yet on Sept. 9, 2015, EPA spokesman Peter Cassell "misleadingly" told ABC News "that the 'lead monitoring shows Flint has not exceeded the lead action level,'" according to the complaint. Burgess and the other residents seek damages for negligence, failure to take mandatory actions required by the Safe Water Drinking Act, including failure to issue an emergency order, failure to provide technical assistance, negligent failure to warn, and emotional and physical injuries, including "lead poisoning, dermatological disorders, loss of hair, gastrointestinal disorders, out of pocket economic losses . . . pain and suffering, emotional distress, deprivation of a quality of life . . . [and] property damage to real estate and personal property." The 1,703 claimants seek at least $722.4 million. An EPA spokesperson said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. The case is, JAN BURGESS, and all 1,703 individuals identified in the Burgess FTCA administrative Complaint, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-10291-LVP-RSW (E.D. Mich., Jan. 30, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Michael L. Pitt, Esq. Cary S. McGehee, Esq. Beth M. Rivers, Esq. Peggy G. Pitt, Esq. Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers, PC 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: mpitt@pittlawpc.com cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com brivers@pittlawpc.com ppitt@pittlawpc.com - and - William Goodman, Esq. Julie H. Hurwitz, Esq. Goodman & Hurwitz, PC 1394 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Tel: (313) 567-6170 E-mail: bgoodman@goodmanhurwitz.com - and - Brian McKeen, Esq. Salvatore Amodeo, Esq. McKEEN & ASSOCIATES, PC 645 Griswold Street, Suite 4200 Detroit, MI 48226 Tel: (313) 961-4400 E-mail: BjMcKeen@mckeenassociates.com Samodeo@mckeenassociates.com - and - Trachelle C. Young, Esq. Trachelle C Young & Associates PLLC 2501 N Saginaw St Flint, MI 48505-4443 Tel: (810) 239-6302 E-mail: trachelleyoung@gmail.com - and - Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq. Law Offices of Deborah A. LaBelle 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Tel: (734) 996-5620 E-mail: deblabeIle@aol.com - and - Teresa Caine Bingman, Esq. The Law Offices of Teresa A. Bingman 1425 Ambassador Drive Okemos, MI 48864 Tel: (877) 957-7077 E-mail: tbingman@gmail.com - and - Shermane Sealey, Esq. RSB Law Firm PLLC 30300 Northwestern Hwy Suite 142 Farmington Hills, MI 48334-3350 Tel: (844) 772-2700 E-mail: stsea403@gmail.com - and - Cynthia M. Lindsey, Esq. Cynthia M. Lindsey & Associates 8900 E. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 612 Detroit, MI 48214 Tel: (248) 766-0797 E-mail: cmlind6439@gmail.com UNITED STATES: Turpeinen Brothers, et al. Claims Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned TURPEINEN BROTHERS INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 15-584L (Fed. Cl.), the United States Court of Federal Claims granted without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the claims of Turpeinen Brothers, Inc., Jason Quinn, Wayne Solberg, and Lee and Shirley Jackson. The plaintiffs have moved under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), to voluntarily dismiss from the rails-to-trails takings case, without prejudice, the claims of five plaintiffs. The motion noted that each of these claims are defective, either because the railroad obtained a fee simple interest in the adjacent land, the property owners' land is not adjacent to the railroad corridor, or the property allegedly taken was obtained after the date of the taking. The government consented to the dismissal of the claims, but argued this should be with prejudice. The government argued that, unless the dismissal is with prejudice, it is burdened with "the uncertainty of future litigation" over the dismissed claims. The defendant contended that it expended time and resources to discover the invalidity of these claims, and that it is being deprived of the ability to obtain summary judgment concerning them. The Court, however, found that, despite having purportedly taken the time to investigate the merits of these claims, the government neglected to provide the Court with the specific reason or reasons why each is believed to be invalid, nor identified any reason why it would be more burdensome to use this information to seek the dismissal of any subsequent lawsuit filed on behalf of the dismissed claimants than to move for summary judgment in this proceeding. Moreover, the Court noted that it is not clear that class action tolling would apply to the claims of named parties in a class action. Thus, the six years that have elapsed since the date of the alleged taking or from the issuance of the Notice of Interim Trail Use should dramatically reduce the prospect of any future litigation over these claims. The Court thus concluded that a dismissal of the claims without prejudice is appropriate. A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' January 9, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/TUusN7 from Leagle.com. Turpeinen Brothers Inc., Robert Wagner, Sarah Mase, Cheryl Mathers, Richard Horon, Iii, David F. Smydra, Sr., Jason Quinn, Wayne Solberg, Lee Jackson, Shirley Jackson, Bruno Baron, Barbara Baron, Japheth Baron, Leona Marie T'niemi, Harvey Peterson, Bertha V. Peterson, Robert A. Peterson, Edla Ylonen, Ina Laitala, Taini Laitala, Ernest Laitala, Joseph Laitala, Elvie E. Mannikko, Margaret Lutz, David R. Kekke, Plaintiffs, represented by John Robert Sears -- sears@bscr-law.com -- Baker Sterchi Cowden and Rice, LLC. USA, Defendant, represented by Daniela Alejandra Arregui Labarca, U.S. Department of Justice. US XPRESS: Ayala Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Anthony Ayala filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-GW-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 11, 2017, the Hon. George H. Wu denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, in light of the oral argument at the December 22, 2016 hearing. In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the California Labor Code and California Industrial Commission Wage Orders, including failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of the Labor Code. The proposed Class consists of: [A]ll truck drivers who worked or work in California for U.S. Express after the completion of training at any time since four years from the filing of this legal action until such time as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit. The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80004, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff-Petitioner ANTHONY AYALA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Borgen, Esq. James Kan, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com jkan@gbdhlegal.com - and - James M. Sitkin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN 1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 318-1048 Facsimile: (415) 362-3268 E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com - and - Justin Lee Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 North Kings Highway Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com Defendants-Respondents U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., and U.S. XPRESS, INC., is represented by: James Harold Hanson, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 492-9205 Facsimile: (317) 687-2414 E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com - and - Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 2 North Lake Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com - and - Adam Carl Smedstad, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 30 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 255-7181 Facsimile: (312) 422-1224 E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Judge Rejects Bid for Interlocutory Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Pauley, III of the Southern District of New York, denied defendants' motion to certify an interlocutory appeal, in the case MARK YOUNGERS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VIRTUS INVESTMENT PARTNERS INC., et al., Defendants, No. 15cv8262 (S.D.N.Y.) Plaintiffs allege that appendices to Virtus Trust registration statements and prospectuses were false and misleading because indices contained performance data that did not reflect trades with live assets. Plaintiffs plead loss of causation with two separate theories. First, a loss of value in the mutual fund shares resulting from defendants' alleged misrepresentation, irrespective of any effect on the funds' of the net asset value (NAV). Plaintiffs' second theory of loss causation is that the misstatements caused a direct loss to the mutual funds' value because investors paid higher fees than they would have if they were informed of the true performance history of the AlphaSector Indices. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and alleged that the statement in the prospectus did not affect the NAV and therefore, as a matter of law, Plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation. District Judge William H. Pauley granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants move to certify an interlocutory appeal from the opinion and order. Specifically, they contend that the case presents an opportunity to obtain appellate clarity on the threshold question of pleading loss causation in the context of mutual funds. Judge Pauley concludes that plaintiffs adequately plead loss causation and believes that the issue of loss causation is best addressed on a more fulsome record after discovery is complete. Defendants' motion to certify an interlocutory appeal is denied. A copy of Judge Pauley's opinion and order dated January 6, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/pbLcW1 from Leagle.com. Mark Youngers, Alfred Tolli, Brendan Hoffman, Joseph D. Mitchell, Kimball Lloyd, Frances Briggs, Plaintiffs, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Gonen Haklay -- ghaklay@rosenlegal.com -- Jonathan Stern -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. William Echols and Louise Quigley, Plaintiffs, represented by Jonathan Stern -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Virtus Group, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm PA Virtus Investment Partners Inc., Defendant, represented by George S. Wang -- gwang@stblaw.com -- Joseph Michael McLaughlin -- jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- Michael David Kibler -- mkibler@stblaw.com -- Daniel Joseph Stujenske -- dstujenske@stblaw.com -- Meredith Dawn Karp -- meredith.karp@stblaw.com -- Shannon Kyle McGovern -- smcgovern@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Virtus Investment Advisers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Michael McLaughlin -- jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- Michael David Kibler -- mkibler@stblaw.com -- Daniel Joseph Stujenske -- dstujenske@stblaw.com -- Meredith Dawn Karp -- meredith.karp@stblaw.com -- Shannon Kyle McGovern -- smcgovern@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Amy Robinson, Michael A. Angerthal, Mark S. Flynn, Francis G. Waltman, W. Patrick Bradley, Euclid Advisors, LLC, and Virtus Opportunities Trust, Defendant, represented by Joseph Michael McLaughlin -- jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- Michael David Kibler -- mkibler@stblaw.com -- Daniel Joseph Stujenske -- dstujenske@stblaw.com -- Shannon Kyle McGovern -- smcgovern@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP F-Squared Investments, Inc., -Squared Alternative Advisors, LLC, F-Squared Institutional Advisors, LLC, and F-Squared Investment Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aric Hugo Wu -- awu@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP George R. Aylward, Defendant, represented by George S. Wang -- gwang@stblaw.com -- Joseph Michael McLaughlin -- jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- Michael David Kibler -- mkibler@stblaw.com -- Daniel Joseph Stujenske -- dstujenske@stblaw.com -- Meredith Dawn Karp -- meredith.karp@stblaw.com -- Shannon Kyle McGovern -- smcgovern@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; Aric Hugo Wu -- awu@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP Ferdinand L. J. Vredonck, Richard E. Segerson, James M. Oates, Geraldine M. McNamara Philip R. McLoughlin, and Leroy Keith, Jr., Defendants, represented by Geoffrey Hunter Coll -- gcoll@bakerlaw.com -- Michael R. Matthias -- mmatthias@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker & Hostetler LLP Howard Present, Defendant, represented by Alexandra G. Watson -- awatson@collorallp.com -- Anthony E. Fuller -- afuller@collorallp.com -- Justin P. O'Brien -- jobrien@collorallp.com -- at Collora LLP; Beth Kressel Itkin -- Paul W. Ryan -- pryan@serperyan.com -- at Serpe Ryan LLC VISTA OUTDOOR: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Vista Outdoor, Inc. and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Vista securities between August 11, 2016, and January 13, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts including that: (1) Vista was suffering an acceleration in the softening of the retail environment and an acceleration in its own promotional activity; (2) Vista was facing both revenue and gross margin declines; (3) Vista would have to start the impairment assessment for its Outdoor Products segment's reporting units in the third quarter of 2017, rather than with the preparation of the Company's fiscal year 2017 ("FY17") annual financial statements; and (4) as a result, Vista would have to identify an impairment charge in the range of $400 million to $450 million; and (5) consequently, Defendants' statements regarding Vista's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/vstoor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Vista you have until March 27, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. WAL-MART STORES: Judge Won't Add $86MM to Award for Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge said Jan. 24 she is unlikely to add $86 million to a $54 million jury award for Wal-Mart truck drivers because the retail giant showed "good faith" in trying to follow labor laws. In November, a seven-member jury found Wal-Mart intentionally failed to pay hundreds of California drivers for time spent inspecting and washing trucks and for layovers and mandatory rest breaks from October 2005 to October 2015. The truckers filed a motion last month seeking an extra $86 million -- $25.6 million in penalties, $54.6 million in liquidated damages, and $5.8 million in restitution -- on top of the $54 million jury award. During a hearing Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said she was inclined to grant the request for $5.8 million in restitution but not the other $80 million in damages and penalties. Class attorneys appeared dumbfounded by Illston's reliance on a post-trial declaration by a Wal-Mart human resources director touting the company's efforts to comply with labor laws and to offer competitive pay to drivers. Finding that Wal-Mart acted in "good faith" is a conclusion directly contradicted by the jury's unanimous verdict that the company intentionally violated minimum wage laws, class attorney Nicholas "Butch" Wagner argued. Wagner said considering a corporate Wal-Mart manager's post-trial declaration would violate his clients' rights because that evidence was not presented at trial and not subject to cross- examination. But Wal-Mart attorney Scott Edelman said it was unreasonable to argue Wal-Mart should have presented evidence at trial on the law and his client's understanding of it, given that matters of law are to be resolved by a judge, not a jury. Illston also pointed out that Wal-Mart did present witnesses at trial who testified about the company's "good faith" efforts to adequately compensate drivers. "You did have witnesses very supportive of how Wal-Mart was paying their truckers -- that it was very generous and toward the top of the industry," Illston said. The judge also concluded California labor laws do not authorize giving employees penalties paid for wage violations. She rebuked a class attorney for adding an extra word to a California statute cited in his brief. "The only way I can see you win the argument is if I rewrite the statute as you did," Illston told the attorney. The law states any employer who pays a person less than minimum wage "shall be subject to a civil penalty, restitution of wages, liquidated damages payable to the employee, and any applicable penalties." Illston said class attorney Lawrence Artenian added an "and" before "liquidated damages" in his brief, implying that civil penalties, restitution and liquidated damages were all payable to the employee. Artenian called the mistake inadvertent and said he would never intentionally try to mislead the court. He argued the California Legislature specifically wrote that language to make sure employers who intentionally stiff workers on minimum wage would be liable for such penalties. But Illston disagreed with Arentian's interpretation of the statute. "In my view, civil penalties are not modified as payable to the employee," she said. Illston ended the hearing after an hour of debate, seemingly unmoved by attempts to dissuade her from her tentative ruling against awarding the extra $80 million in damages and penalties. WAL-MART STORES: Nikmanesh Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Afrouz Nikmanesh, Elvis Atencio, Anna Nguyen and Effie Spentzos filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Afrouz Nikmanesh, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00202-AG-JCG, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The appellate case is captioned as Afrouz Nikmanesh, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80005, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 12, 2017, the Hon. Andrew J. Guilford denied certification of these classes: Rest Break Class: "all current and former non-exempt employees, employed by Defendants as Pharmacists in the State of California, who did not take a 10-minute rest break during the first 4 hours of their shift, or a second 10-minute rest break for all shifts of 6-10 hours, when they were scheduled to be the only Pharmacist on duty at any time during their shift, within four years before the filing of the original complaint until the date of judgment; Wage Statement Class: "all current and former non-exempt employees, employed by Defendants as Pharmacists within the State of California, who are members of the Rest Break Class, and as a result of the rest break claims alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, were not provided with accurate, itemized wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226, within one year before the filing of the original Complaint until the date of judgment; and Waiting Time Class: "all former non-exempt employees, employed by Defendants as Pharmacists in the State of California, who are not members of the Training Course Class, but are members of the Rest Break Class, and as a result of the rest break claims alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, were not paid all wages due and owing at the time of their separation as required by California Labor Code sections 201-203, within three years from the filing of the original Complaint until the date of judgment. A copy of Judge Guilford's Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QmCfhxK9 Plaintiffs-Petitioners AFROUZ NIKMANESH, ELVIS ATENCIO, ANNA NGUYEN, and EFFIE SPENTZOS, on behalf of themselves, the general public and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Mark Russell Thierman, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK, LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: josh@thiermanlaw.com mark@thiermanbuck.com - and - Eric M. Epstein, Esq. ERIC M. EPSTEIN, APC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, #1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6002 Telephone: (310) 552-5366 E-mail: emepstein@aol.com - and - Dayton B. Parcells, III, Esq. PARCELLS LAW FIRM 1901 Avenue of the Stars, #1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9882 E-mail: dbparcells@parcellslaw.com Defendants-Respondents WAL-MART STORES, INC., and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by: Robert James Herrington, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com - and - Naomi Beer, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1200 17th Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 E-mail: beern@gtlaw.com - and - Robert M. Goldich, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2700 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-7883 Facsimile: (215) 717-5242 E-mail: goldichr@gtlaw.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: Savannah Suit Removed to N.D. Ga. --------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Savannah Oaks Condominium Association, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Waste Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2016CV284207, was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00330-SCJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Steve C Jones. Waste Management is an American waste management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services company in North America. Founded in 1971, the company is headquartered in the First City Tower in Houston, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Adam Webb, Esq. G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. Matthew C. Klase, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444 0773 E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com flemond@webbllc.com mattklase@bellsouth.net - and - Wayne Charles, Esq. WAYNE CHARLES, PC 395 Highgrove Drive Fayetteville, GA 30215 Telephone: (770) 241 8936 E-mail: wc115@bellsouth.net The Defendant is represented by: David A. Dial, Esq. Nicholas Peter Panayotopoulos, Esq. WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL, LLC-ATL 3344 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 876 2700 Facsimile: (404) 875 9433 E-mail: ddial@wwhgd.com npanayo@wwhgd.com WELLS FARGO: Noncitizen College Students Sue Over Loan Grants ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that with U.S. discrimination against immigrants making world news on January 30, noncitizen college students filed a federal class action in San Francisco, against Wells Fargo bank, accusing it of refusing them student loans though they are legally in the United States. Mitzie Perez is one of roughly 665,000 residents of the United States who has been granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The program protects qualified applicants from deportation if they were brought here as children and have clean records. They may apply for and be granted work permits good for two years, which can be renewed. "Wells Fargo, an American multinational banking and financial services holding company, outright refuses to extend loans to individuals who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents," the complaint states, adding that such practices violate federal civil rights laws. Perez is a junior at the University of California, Riverside. The California League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, signed on as co-plaintiff. Perez says she searched for student loans on Wells Fargo's website in August 2016. After answering a few questions, one of which asked whether she was a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, a denial message popped up: "Thank you for your interest in a Wells Fargo student loan. However, based on information you provided, we do not have a student loan option that meets your needs. This could be due to the school you selected, your field of study, and/or your citizenship status." Perez hit the "Back" button on her browser and changed her response to "I am a permanent resident alien." She received information about obtaining a student loan through Wells Fargo, with a note at the top of the screen saying she was required to provide a U.S. citizen co-signer. "I tried to obtain a student loan from Wells Fargo because it was a bank that said it worked with the Latino community, but they denied me a loan because of my citizenship status, not my credit history. That's wrong and I don't want others to face the same problem," Perez said. Proof of citizenship is unnecessary when applying for a loan, as banks are supposed to only verify the applicant's identity and assess their risk, according to the complaint. Perez says she could have provided Wells Fargo with any number of documents to prove her identity and fulfill the bank's Customer Identification Requirements. "There is no federal or state law or regulation that restricts banks from providing financial products to customers because the customer is an alien," the complaint states. "Under federal law, alienage is merely one factor among many used to verify enough information to confirm the true identity of the customer." Perez says she had to pay for her tuition with credit cards. Many members of co-plaintiff LULAC, like Perez, are DACA recipients. Among their attorneys is the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, or MALDEF. "All students should be treated equally in accessing the loan assistance needed to complete a university education," MALDEF president and general counsel Thomas Saenz said in a statement. "The nation and California have a dire need for educated workers, and discrimination that impedes the expansion of that educated workforce is against the public interest and should be promptly eliminated." Perez seeks to represent a nationwide class of people who since Jan. 30, 2013 were "denied the right to contract for a loan or other financial product by Wells Fargo because they were not U.S. citizens despite satisfying Wells Fargo's CIP [Customer Identification Program] requirements." In addition to class certification, Perez and LULAC seek damages for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, unfair competition, and alienage discrimination. She also wants Wells Fargo enjoined from continuing to deny student loans to non-citizens. Wells Fargo issued a statement through its spokesman Jason Vasquez: "While we respect the important role that the California League of United Latino Citizens and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund play in support of the community, we are disappointed they filed a lawsuit rather than work with us on solutions to help people realize their goals of higher education. "Wells Fargo understands the dream of pursuing higher education and we remain focused on our responsible lending practices to assist temporary and permanent residents and U.S. citizens in obtaining student financing. Wells Fargo is deeply committed to the needs of the communities we serve." Vasquez said that Wells Fargo accounts for 1 one percent of student loans in the United States, and follows guidelines set by the U.S. Department of Education, which does not have a policy on lending to DACA recipients. The numerosity of the class should be ascertainable by examining Wells Fargo's records, plaintiffs' attorney said. "We will certainly seek and believe plaintiffs are entitled to records to identify the putative class," co-counsel Ossai Miazad, of New York City, said in an email. Miazan is with Outten and Golden, of San Francisco, the lead law firm. Also representing the plaintiffs are Jahan Sagafi with Outten & Golden in San Francisco; Patrick David Lopez of Washington, D.C.; and Saenz, with MALDEF's office in Los Angeles. The case is captioned, MITZIE PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & CO. and WELLS FARGO, N.A., Defendants, Case 3:17-cv-00454-JCS (N.D. Cal., January 30, 2017). Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Katrina Eiland, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com keiland@outtengolden.com - and - Thomas Saenz, Esq. Victor Viramontes, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org vviramontes@maldef.org WESTERN UNION: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against The Western Union Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Western Union stock between February 24, 2012 and January 19, 2017, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Western Union's fraud prevention efforts did not comply with applicable laws; (2) Western Union knowingly failed to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program; (3) Western Union aided and abetted wire fraud; (4) for at least five years, Western Union knew of agents structuring transactions designed to avoid the reporting requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act; (5) Western Union was not compliant with its regulatory responsibilities; (6) between 2004 and 2012, Western Union violated U.S. laws -- the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-fraud statutes--by processing hundreds of thousands of transactions for Western Union agents and others involved in an international consumer fraud scheme; (7) Western Union knew of but failed to take corrective action against Western Union agents involved in or facilitating fraud-related transactions; (8) from January 1, 2004 and August 29, 2015, Western Union received at least 550,928 complaints about fraud-induced money transfers, totaling at least $632,721,044; and (9) consequently, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 19, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission publicized that Western Union admitted to "aiding and abetting wire fraud" by allowing scammers to process transactions even when Western Union realized its agents were disguising transactions to avoid detection and therefore settled to pay $586 million. Following this news, Western Union stock dropped 3.30% to close at $21.13 per share on January 19, 2017. 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 WESTERN UNION: Calif. Man Sues Over $586MM Deal with Gov't ---------------------------------------------------------- Suevon Lee at Law360 reports that The Western Union Co. was slapped with a putative securities class action on January 26 in California federal court after recently disclosing it agreed to pay the U.S. government $586 million to resolve an investigation it violated anti-fraud laws and aided and abetted fraud between 2004 and 2012. Martin Herman is suing the global payment service and three individual executives on behalf of a proposed class of shareholders who bought publicly traded Western Union securities between Feb. 14, 2012, and Jan. 19, 2017, and were allegedly damaged by the dip in stock price following the recent disclosure. Western Union on Jan. 19 publicly admitted to failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and to aiding and abetting wire fraud, resulting in a $586 million deal with the feds to resolve civil charges from the Federal Trade Commission and criminal charges for which it entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. Herman's complaint contends that statements the company made in SEC filings between 2012 and 2016 -- including that its fraud prevention efforts were "effective" and that it was compliant with regulatory responsibilities -- were materially false and misleading in light of the recent developments, ultimately damaging investors. "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 states. Share prices fell $0.87 per share, or over 3.9 percent, over two trading days to close at $20.98 per share on Jan. 20 in the wake of the news, according to the suit. Named in the complaint are Western Union and its CEO and President Hikmet Ersek, former CFO Scott T. Scheirman and current CFO Rajesh K. Agrawal. Herman contends that he and other potential class members relied on Western Union's statements in public filings over the four-year period and trusted the integrity of the market price of the securities which, he later realized, had been "artificially inflated." Had he known Western Union's statements were misleading, he and other proposed class members wouldn't have purchased the Western Union securities, the lawsuit alleges. The suit comes a week after the blockbuster agreement in which the financial services company admitted to violating the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-fraud laws. Federal authorities alleged that the fraud scheme involved fraudsters who would contact unwitting victims, pretending to be relatives who needed money for a job opportunity or other reason. The money would be sent through Western Union, with the help of complicit agents within the company who received a cut of payments, according to the DOJ. Western Union was aware of the activity as early as 2004 due to consumer fraud reports, but failed to implement guidelines that could have staved off further losses to victims and blocked the actions of more than 2,000 fraudulent agents worldwide between 2004 and 2012, according to prosecutors. Officials also alleged that Western Union didn't have an effective anti-money laundering program in place. The company was aware of illegal practices dating back two decades, in which people used the money transfer service to send illegal gambling transactions abroad, according to the DOJ. In a statement announcing its deal with federal investigators, Western Union said it increased compliance funding by more than 200 percent and now spends about $200 million a year on compliance measures. A company spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment in response to on January 26's suit. Herman is represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com --, Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- and Kevin Chan -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- of The Rosen Law Firm. Counsel information for Western Union wasn't immediately available on January 26. The case is Martin Herman v. The Western Union Co. et al., case number 2:17-cv-00650, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Class Action Over ISCO Stock Sale --------------------------------------------------------- Carmen Castro-Pagan at Bloomberg BNA reports Wilmington Trust N.A. is accused in a proposed class action of violating ERISA by authorizing the sale of ISCO Industries Inc.'s stock to the company's employee stock ownership plan for $59 million more than the stock was worth (Swain v. Wilmington Trust, D. Del., No. 1:17- cv-00071, complaint filed 1/25/17). The ESOP purchased the stock for $98 million, but just 11 days after the purchase, an independent appraiser revalued the company stock at $39 million, according to the lawsuit filed Jan. 25 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Two plan participants, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plan and more than 300 participants, also allege that the transaction allowed ISCO's prior owner to unload his interests in the company at an inflated price. It also saddled participants with millions of dollars of debt payable to the company to finance the transaction, they allege. This isn't the first lawsuit Wilmington Trust faces over alleged ESOP mismanagement in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Wilmington Trust went to trial in November over allegations that it mishandled an $81 million company stock purchase for an ESOP connected to government security contractor Constellis Group Inc. ISCO is a privately held company that provides customized piping solutions with more than 30 facilities in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Chile. The company adopted the ESOP in January 2012 and conducted the transaction by December 2012. As the plan trustee, Wilmington Trust caused the plan to issue a note payable to ISCO in the amount of $98 million to purchase the company stock, the complaint said. The ESOP paid for a control premium that it never got because the previous owner retained it, the participants alleged. Because the ESOP didn't receive any discount for this lack of control, the participants alleged that the plan overpaid for the stock. The participants seek to recover the difference between the price paid by the ESOP and the actual value of ISCO shares at the time of the transaction--$59 million. Wilmington Trust didn't immediately reply to Bloomberg BNA's request for comments. The participants are represented by Bailey & Glasser LLP. In December, the law firm sued Bankers Trust Co. of South Dakota over a $37.5 million stock transaction and recently reached a $19.8 million settlement in an action related to Mona Vie Inc. stock. Bailey also represents participants in an action against Reliance Trust Co. over a $100 million deal between Bradford Hammacher Group Inc. and its ESOP. WYNDHAM VACATION: Calif. Man Sues Over Collection Calls ------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado at Northern California Record reports that a Los Angeles resident has filed a class-action against a debt collector over allegations it called him after he revoked his consent to receive calls. Shawn Evelyn filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on Jan. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Wyndham Vacation Resorts Inc. and Does 1-100 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that beginning in June 2016, he suffered damages from receiving several collection calls from the defendant. The plaintiff holds Wyndham Vacation Resorts Inc. and Does 1-100 responsible because the defendants allegedly kept on calling the plaintiff using an automatic telephone dialing system despite his request to stop calling him. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory damages, $1,500 in treble damages, and any other relief as this court deems just. He is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Meghan E. George and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. in Woodland Hills. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 2:17-cv-00334-ODW-RAO WYNDHAM VACATION: Appeals Decision in "Bitner" Suit to 7th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled THOMAS BITNER and TOSHIA PARKER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., Case No. 3:13-cv-00451-wmc, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The appellate case is captioned as Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Thomas Bitner, et al., Case No. 17-8001, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 12, 2017, the Hon. William M. Conley entered an order: 1. denying Defendant's motion for decertification; 2. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: all persons who were employed by Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. in the State of Wisconsin as In-House Sales Representatives at any time from June 25, 2011, to [a date in fall of 2014 to be determined by the parties]; 3. appointing Thomas Bitner as class representative; 4. appointing Hawks Quindel, S.C., and Nichols Kaster, PLLP, as class counsel; 5. denying Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; 6. denying Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment; and 7. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss four opt-in plaintiffs who have failed to respond to discovery requests and noticed depositions. Petitioner WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., is represented by: Tony H. McGrath, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. One South Pinckney Street Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 807-5274 Facsimile: (608) 260-0058 E-mail: Tony.McGrath@jacksonlewis.com Respondents THOMAS BITNER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, and TOSHIA PARKER, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, are represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 W. Washington Avenue P.O. Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701-2155 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 Facsimile: (608) 256-0236 E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com WYOMING, OH: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Daniels" Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan J. Dlott granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment filed in the case captioned QUINCY C. DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WYOMING, ET AL., Defendants, No. 1:15-CV-00507 (S.D. Ohio). Quincy C. Daniels asserted a claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights against Tom Riggs, a police officer with the City of Wyoming, Ohio, arising from a traffic stop. Daniels asserted that the traffic stop was illegal because it was racially motivated. Officer Riggs moved for summary judgment on the grounds that he did not violate Daniels's constitutional rights and that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Judge Dlott found that the material undisputed evidence establishes that Officer Riggs had probable cause to pull over Daniels for the traffic violation of driving with an expired license plate. Thus, the judge concluded that Officer Riggs did not violate Daniels's Fourth Amendment rights. Moreover, the judge held that Officer Riggs is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. A full-text copy of Judge Schneider's January 10, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/UsnoDV from Leagle.com. Quincy C. Daniels, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Brand Newman, Newman & Meeks Co LPA. City of Wyoming, City Manager Lynn Tetley, Wyoming Police Department, Chief Gary Baldauf, Officer Tom Riggs, Officer Mike World, Officer Brian Berigan, Officer Jeffrey Banker, Unknown Officers, Defendants, represented by Gary Edward Becker -- gary.becker@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl & Nathan B. Spencer -- nathan.spencer@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP. YAHOO! INC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces a class action lawsuit against Yahoo! Inc., concerning possible violations of federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Yahoo shares between November 12, 2013 and December 14, 2016, inclusive, are encouraged to contact the firm prior to the March 27, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at -- brian@lundinlawpc.com No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. The investigation is centered on whether Yahoo and some of its officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or committed violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On December 14, 2016, Yahoo announced that it had a data breach, with data from more than 1 billion user accounts at risk during August 2013. When this news was released to the public, Yahoo's share price dropped as much 6.5% on December 15, 2016. Furthermore, it is assumed that the data breach threatens Verizon's purchase of Yahoo. Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. ********* 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 * * *