/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170313.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 13, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 51 Headlines A & L HOLDINGS: "Bustillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Regular Wages ABM ONSITE: "Brinkmann" Sues Over Late Wages ABSOLUTE WEST: Faces "Jackson" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations ADVANCED CRITICAL: Faces "Buckley" Suit Over False Promotion AMERICAN DG: "Vardakas" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Tecogen AMERICAN AIRLINES: Larkin Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code AMERICAN PARA: "Sanchez" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violations AQ TEXTILES: Faces Suit Over Incorrect Thread Counts in Products ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: "Dezi" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Credit Union Sues Over Alleged Data Breach ARBY'S RESTUARANT: Faces Multiple Suits Over Data Breach ARCTIC CAT: "Parshall" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Textron ARJO FOOD CORP: "Caishpal" Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay BANK OF AMERICA: "Culpepper" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay BAYER CORP: Partial Settlement Reached in Cipro Class Action BEACH COMPANY: Faces "Williams" Suit Over TCPA Violation BLUE CROSS: Faces "Moe" Suit Over Denied DBT 3D Mammogram BOEING: Families of Flight 370 Crash Victims File Suit in U.S. BOSLEY MEDICAL: "Campbell" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls BOW & TRUSS: Smith, et al. File Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Labor Laws BRANDI'S HOPE: Overtime Pay Claimed in "Birdie" Labor Suit BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Unfair Foreign Buyers Tax BROADCOM CORP: Class Settlement Granted Final Approval BUILDER SERVICES: "Wickliffe" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA CAFE 37 INC: "Calixto" Claims Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL: Faces "Cerda" Labor Suit Under Cal. Laws CANADA: Faces Suit Over Prisoners' Solitary Confinement CAPITAL ADVANCE: Redman's 1st Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot CAPITAL ALLIANCE: "Alves" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls CASE & ASSOCIATES: "Rangel" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA CASTLE & COOKE: Settlement in "Cabrales" Gets Final Approval CATERPILLAR INC: Stock Drop Suit Filed After Federal Raid CATERPILLAR INC: May 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set CEMTREX INC: "Guerrier" Sues Over Drop in Cemtrex Share Prices CEMTREX INC: "Cullinan" Alleges Insider Trading, Hits Share Drop CENTURY REALTY: Summary Judgment Sought in "Burns" Class Suit CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Faces Another Gender Discrimination Case CHEZ JACQUELINE: "Tamay" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay CHOCOLADA BAKERY: Overtime Premium Sought in "Kalish" Labor Suit CIGNA CORP: Faces "Welp" Suit Over Blanket Exclusion in Insurance CLUB MONACO: "Anderson" Claims Website Inaccessible for the Blind COAST PROFESSIONAL: Bad Collection Practices Alleged by "Fuzaylov" CONAGRA FOODS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit That Was Denied Certification CORPS OF ENGINEERS: Settlement Assessment Letters Mailed CORPS OF ENGINEER: Claimants Dissatisfied with Settlement Amount CORRECTIONS CORP: Settles Women Prison Visitors' Tampon Suit CUPCAKE SPOT: Unpaid Overtime Pay Claimed by "Bell" CYNOSURE INC: "Ira" Contests Shadowy Merger Deal, Seeks More Info DAKOTA OF ROCKY HILL: "McDougle" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA DELRAY FOOD: "Angle" Hits Illegal Tip-Credit, Seeks Wage Payments DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Maxwell Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class ECOLAB INC: Workers Class Certification Sought in "Charlot" Suit EMERY FEDERAL: Palombaro Seeks to Certify Class of Borrowers ENTEROMEDICS INC: "Du" Sues Over Onerous Stock Plan, Cries Breach ENTERPRISE LEASING: "James" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay FAC MANAGEMENT: Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Pay Sought in "Bryant" FIAT CHRYSLER: Mistreats Older Employees, Suit Says FIREEYE INC: Judge Will Preliminarily Approve Proposed Settlement FIRST STEP: Faces "Zeznanski" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA FREDERICK-THOMPSON CO: Al-Anazi Seeks to Certify Class, Amend Suit FRESH MARKET: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action FLOOD BROS: Sued in Ill. Cir. Ct. Over Illegitimate Fees GALENA BIOPHARMA: Sued Over Securities Exchange Act Violations GENERAL CABLE: Doshi Sues Over Share Price Drop on Bribery News GEORGIO'S BAKERY: "Solarte" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA GERON CORP: Settles Securities Class Action GF-PASSAIC FOODS: Faces "Barile" Suit Over "Excessive" Sales Tax GIODARNO CONSTRUCTION: Overtime Pay Claimed in "Giron" Labor Suit GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Chruby Moves for Certification of Five Classes GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VA: Transgender Discrimination Case Pending GRAEBEL VAN: "Coronel" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Drivers GOOGLE INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss BIPA Violation Suit GRANA Y MONTERO: Faces "Peralta" Suit Over Odebrecht "Bribes" HERTZ CORP: Beach-Barrow Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code HMS HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Delay on Release of Fin'l Results HOGAN TRANSPORTS: Bid to Certify Class in "Fairfax" Suit Mooted H.O.P.E. PROGRAM: "Fillion-Frye" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls HSBC BANK: "Wolff" Suit Alleges False Ad of Referral Funds ICHIBAN GROUP: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wage Under FLSA INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: "Huang" Sues Over Drop in Innocoll Share Prices INTERLINE BRANDS: Ajose Moves to Certify Classes and Subclasses INVENSENSE INC: "Dunham" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal with TDK INVENSENSE INC: "Isaac" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal INVUITY INC: "Paciga" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations IOD INC: "Ortiz" Sues for Overcharging of Medical Record Copies J.C. PENNEY: "Anderson" Sues Over Disabled Inaccessible Stories J.T. WIMSATT: "Guevarra" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code KIDS FIRST DENTISTRY: "Jeffers" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay KOHL'S CORP: "Tran" Suit Alleges FCRA Breach KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Kohl's Cash Marketing KONA BREWING: Misleads Consumers on Beer Origin, Suit Says KRISPY KREME: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Suit KROGER CO: Sued in Cal. Over Kroger Apple Juice Misrepresentation LIBRE BY: Sued Over Lease Agreement with Migrant Detainees L'OREAL USA: Faces "Valrie" Suit for Concealing Product Defects LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Illegally Charging Excessive Fees LOVELL MACASAET: Bustillo Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gold Seeks Certification of Six Classes LYNNWOOD: Faces Suit Over Illegal Traffic Infractions MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Criticizes Serial Settlement Objector MDL 1700: ND Court Denies Bid for Emergency Injunction MDL 2599: Ford's Bid to Dismiss Airbag Suit Granted in Part METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: "Bushansky" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal MIDLAND FUNDING: NY Court Narrows Claims in "Madden" MIRACLE HOME: Faces "Tirona" Labor Suit Filed on Behalf of Nurses MONTANA: Settlement Reached in Langford v. Bullock MORGANSHOTEL GROUP: NY High Court Tosses Server Assistant's Suit MYLAN INC: Faces Suit in Pa. Over Inflated Clomipramine Prices NATURE'S ELITE: "Young" Sues Over False Ad of Skincare Products NESTLE USA: Sued in Cal. Over "Slackfill" in Candy Products NEW SEABURY: Reaches Preliminary Agreement on Class Action NEW YORK: Faces "Davydov" Labor Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages NITRO GREEN: Faces "Shaffer" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA NJ NEC INC: "Gorski" Alleges No Time-keeping, Denied OT Pay NORTHLAND GROUP: "Jones" Sues Over Vague Collection Letters NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Bid to Certify Class in "Marshall" Suit Denied NYC SUNRISE: "Casas" Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay OAKMONT MAINTENANCE: "Garza" Seeks OT Pay for Off-The-Clock Work OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER: Lawyer Evades Sanction from Court ONE SOURCE STAFFING: OT Pay Sought in "Henderson" Labor Suit ONTARIO: Deadline Set for Claimants to File in 407 Toll Suit PACWEST SOLUTIONS: Faces "Faustino" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code PARAMOUNT CARE: "Brown" Labor Suit Claims Overtime Pay PARAMOUNT PROPERTY: "Cabrera" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages PEARSON PLC: "Chupka" Sues Over Share Price Drop PENDRAGON NORTH: Chiu, et al. Sues Over Racial Discrimination PLATINUM PARI-MUTUEL: May 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Suit Over Negligent Representation Q.S. SAN LUIS OBISPO: Settlement in "ABDI" Gets Final Approval QUANTUM LEARNING: Class Settlement in "Johnson" Has Final OK QUALCOMM INC: "Rotman" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Breach QUALCOMM INC: Charged with Anti-trust for Chipset by "Crutcher" QUALCOMM INC: Charged with Anti-trust for Chipset by "Frederick" QUALITY THERAPY: "Kondati" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay RHD JR INC: Court Certifies Class of Mechanics in "Jordan" Suit RHG & COMPANY: Settlement in "Maxin" Has Preliminary Approval RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, NM: "Serna" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA SANABI INVESTMENTS: "Carrero" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay SANTA FE, NM: Needs to Change Product Labeling for Deal Compliance SAP AMERICA: Faces "Stambaugh" Suit Over Employee Stock Options SIRIUSXM: Music Organizations Join to Disapprove Suit Settlement SKYC MANAGEMENT: "Luna" Sues Over Rent Stabilization Law Breach SOLAR BEAR: Class of Installers Certified in "Izquidero" Suit SPARTAN TECHNOLOGIES: "Williams" Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Bobo's Drugs Seeks Class Certification STILLWATER MINING: Faces "Rempel" Suit Over Sibanye Merger STRAWBERRY PATCH: Faces "Harshbarger" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code SWEDISH MEDICAL: Class Action Adds PreCheck Inc. as Defendant TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Feller Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Faces "Sackin" Suit Over 2016 Data Breach TRIDENT SEAFOODS: "Guzman" Asserts Food Supplement Mislabeling UFC: MMA Fighters File Class Action Over Sherman Act Violations UNDER ARMOUR: Bloated Stock Price Hit in "Hopkins" Suit UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Allows Trump Travel Ban Case to Proceed UNITED STATES: Justice Dept Granted 2-Week Extension for Response UNITED STATES: ABA Sues Over Reduced Annual Dividend UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Decides Not to Eliminate Scholarships VCA INC: Hight Sues Over Proposed Sale to MMI Holdings WALMART DE MEXICO: NY Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Fogel" Suit YAHOO INC: General Counsel Steps Down Amid Data Breach Cases * Antitrust Suits Could Face Major Hurdles With Class Action Bill * Colorado Looks to Reform Construction Defects Law * Reed Smith Atty Comments on Treatment of "Mass Actions" in Pa. * Rural Electric Cooperatives Receive Dismissals in Class Action * Sawaya Orchestrates $8,500 Donation to Non-Profit Organization * What Lawyers Need to Know About Tort Reform Push in Congress ********* A & L HOLDINGS: "Bustillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Regular Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- RONALD BUSTILLO, an individual; CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANTS, the Plaintiff, v. A & L HOLDINGS, INC., a corporation, ARIEL REYES, an individual, MA, LOURDES REYES, an individual, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC649931 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid regular wages, unpaid overtime premiums, and other compensation owed to them, plus all benefits. The Class Members, including Named Plaintiff, were employees of Defendants, as defined by California Labor Code section 350(b). However, Defendants purposely misclassified the Class Members, including Named Plaintiff, as "independent contractor" because by so doing, Defendants lowered their cost of doing business by means of, but not limited to, the following: (i) Defendants did not report or pay the employer's share of federal or state payroll taxes with respect to any of funds paid to Plaintiff as required by federal and state; (ii) Defendants did not provide pay for Workers Compensation insurance for the Plaintiff; and (iii) Defendants did not provide or pay for State Disability insurance for the Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned violations of California law committed by Defendants, Named Plaintiff and Class Members suffered substantial losses related to the loss of the employer's share of payroll taxes, the use and employment of such benefits, and expenses and attorney's fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform their obligations under state law, all in an amount to be proven at trial. The Plaintiff is represented by: Caesar S. Natividad, Esq. THE NATIVIDAD LAW FIRM 3550 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 655 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 540 5800 Facsimile: (213) 387 2297 ABM ONSITE: "Brinkmann" Sues Over Late Wages -------------------------------------------- Joseph Brinkmann, both in his individual capacity and, in addition, as a collective action on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABM Onsite Services - West, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00275 (D. Or., February 16, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff complains of late issuance of paychecks, usually after the mandated pay date. Plaintiff is represented by: Jon M. Egan, Esq. JON M. EGAN, PC 547 Fifth Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009 Telephone: (503) 697-3427 Fax: (866) 311-5629 Email: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com ABSOLUTE WEST: Faces "Jackson" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Jackson and Juan Hernandez Zuniga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Absolute West, LLC dba Harbor Division, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 24, 2017), alleges wage and labor violations arising out of, among others, Defendant's misclassification of employees, failure to pay wages, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to provide meal and rest breaks to its employee drivers in violation of the California Labor Code and Industrial Wage Order. Defendant provides various transporting services throughout California. Plaintiff is a truck driver. The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realm, Esq. Michael J. Morphew, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 399-3995 Fax: (619)615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com mmorphew@markham-law.com ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- David Klein at JD Supra Advisor reports that on March 1, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that a Brooklyn- based wholesale medical supply company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The complaint, drafted by plaintiff's TCPA attorneys, alleges that Adelphia Supply USA, Inc. of Brooklyn ("Adelphia"), sent the named plaintiff at least 20 advertisements by facsimile in violation of the TCPA. Additionally, the complaint alleges that Adelphia has been dissolved and, as such, seeks to hold its two principals liable for the claimed TCPA violations. How did the Adelphia's Faxes Allegedly Violate the TCPA? According to the complaint, Adelphia allegedly sent 20 different fax advertisements to the named plaintiff. None of those fax advertisements, according to the complaint, "include the mandatory opt-out notice required" by regulations promulgated under the TCPA. The named plaintiff alleges that more than 39 other individuals received similar advertisements. As is typical in class-action litigation, the named plaintiff has already moved for class certification, despite the fact that none of the defendants has been served with process. Protect Against a Fax TCPA Lawsuit with a TCPA Attorney Perhaps the best way to avoid potential liability under the TCPA, both with respect to your company and to you as a principal of the business, is to consult with TCPA attorneys qualified to provide regulatory compliance advice. As the subject TCPA class action lawsuit against Adelphia demonstrates, companies and their principals are at risk in sending fax advertisements that may violate the statute. Accordingly, telemarketers are advised to retain experienced TCPA attorneys prior to embarking in any advertising campaign. ADVANCED CRITICAL: Faces "Buckley" Suit Over False Promotion ------------------------------------------------------------ Tristram Buckley, an individual and class representative, Plaintiff, vs. RICHARD MILLS, ADVANCED CRITICAL CARE EMERGENCY AND SPECIALTY SERVICES, LLC, CITY OF ANGELS VETERINARY SPECIALTY CENTER, LLC. AMANDA BLACKBURN, SIOBHAN O'NEILL, RICHARD PERLIS, AMBER COHN AND DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 652054 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 24, 2017), alleges that in order to fraudulently induce consumer class members to retain the Defendants' veterinary services, choosing the Defendants' services over their significantly more qualified competitors, and in order to cash in on this lucrative market, Defendant Mills, by and through his management and control over ACCESS and City of Angels Veterinary Center, has falsely promoted, represented and advertised, and continues to falsely promote, represent and advertise ACCESS and the City of Angeles Veterinary Specialty Center as the most qualified and capable "specialist" veterinary medical facility in Southern California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tristram Buckley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TRISTRAM BUCKLEY 426 S. Rexford Drive, Suite 12 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 310.980.1842 E-mail: Tristram_Buckley@yahoo.com AMERICAN DG: "Vardakas" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Tecogen --------------------------------------------------------------- LEE VARDAKAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN DG ENERGY INC., JOHN N. HATSOPOULOS, GEORGE N. HATSOPOULOS, BENJAMIN LOCKE, CHARLES T. MAXWELL, DEANNE M. PETERSEN, CHRISTINE M. KLASKIN, JOHN ROWE, JOAN GIACINTI, ELIAS SAMARAS, TECOGEN INC., TECOGEN.ADGE ACQUISITION CORP., and CASSEL SALPETER & CO., LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10247 (D. Mass., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed transaction, or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and candor and/or their violations of the Securities and Exchange Act. The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other similarly situated holders of the common stock of American DG Energy Inc., against the Defendants for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with a proposed merger between American DG Energy and Tecogen. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against the Director/Officer Defendants and George N. Hatsopoulos, the brother of John Hatsopoulos who beneficially owns more than 21% of Tecogen and 19% of American DG Energy, and claims for aiding and abetting against George N. Hatsopoulos, Tecogen, Merger Sub, and Cassel Salpeter. On November 2, 2016, American DG Energy announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into American DG Energy, with American DG Energy continuing as the surviving corporation and as a wholly owned subsidiary of Tecogen. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, American DG Energy shareholders will receive 0.092 shares of Tecogen common stock for each share of American DG Energy common stock that they own. Based on the $4.03 closing price of Tecogen common stock on November 1, 2016, the last trading day before public announcement of the Proposed Transaction, the Exchange Ratio represents approximately $0.37 in Tecogen common stock for each share of American DG Energy common stock, which is significantly below the Company's 52-week trading high of $0.65. American DG Energy is an on-site utility offering clean electricity, heat, hot water and cooling through combined heat and power (cogeneration). The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971 1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667 6200 E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com mackerman@brodskysmith.com - and - Jason M. Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398 5600 Facsimile: (617) 507 6020 E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Larkin Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN LARKIN, an individual; ROXANA PORTILLO, an individual; and DELIA RAJO, an individual; All Individual Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and as Class Representatives for All Other Similarly Situated Non-Exempt Current and Former Employees, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., an Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC650122 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to compel Defendants to fully perform their obligations under California Labor Code, all to their respective damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial, and within the jurisdiction of the Court. In violation of California law, the Defendants have knowingly and willfully refused to perform their obligations to compensate Plaintiffs and Class Members for all wages earned and all hours worked. As a proximate result, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of such wages, lost interest on such wages, and expenses and attorneys' fees The amount in controversy for each named Plaintiff individually does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000.00. Moreover, the amount in controversy for the aggregate claims of the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent is under $5,000,000.00. American Airlines operates as a passenger and cargo air carrier. It also offers freight and mail services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shoham J. Savoy, Esq. Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq. SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP 316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 814-4940 Facsimile: (213) 814-2550 E-mail: shoham@soloukisavoY.com srant@soloukisavoy.com - and - Dan B. Yakobian, Esq. DBY LAW 3250 Wilshire Boulevard, Floor 13 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 316 8844 Facsimile: (213) 618 4466 E-mail: dan@bisdlaw.com AMERICAN PARA: "Sanchez" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON SANCHEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN PARA PROFESSIONAL SYSTEMS, INC., a New York corporation; A.P.P.S OF CALIFORNIA, business entity form unknown; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, (Cal. Super., February 27, 2017), raises claims against Defendants for failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages owed, failure to provide off-duty meal periods and paid rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse all business-related expenses, failure to pay wages in a timely manner upon separation of employment, and penalties under the California Labor Code. The suit was also filed under the Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission and the California Unfair Competition Law and Business and Professions Code. American Para Professional Systems, Inc. provides paramedical service in the insurance industry. Defendants hired Plaintiff as an Examiner. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Nick Rosenthal, Esq. 2 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 7 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Phone:(831)531-4214 Fax: (831) 634-0333 AQ TEXTILES: Faces Suit Over Incorrect Thread Counts in Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado at Legal Newsline reports six consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against textile companies, alleging breach of warranty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Paulette Kremmel, Angela Barnes, Jamie Kilgore, Travis Garner, Dominique Morrison and Amy Hill filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Feb. 10 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against AQ Textiles, LLC, Creative Textile Mills PVT. Ltd., The TJX Companies Inc., doing business as TJ Maxx and Home Goods, Ross Stores Inc., Macy's Retail Holdings Inc. and Belk Inc., alleging the defendants made false claims regarding the total thread counts contained in their products. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered monetary damages from being misled into purchasing falsely advertised carpet and sheet products. The plaintiffs allege the defendants advertise their products as containing a specific amount of thread counts but they actually contain far less than what is advertised, making the products lesser in quality. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, disgorge, restitution, injunction, interest, punitive damages, all legal fees and all other relief the court deems just. They are represented by attorney Matthew H. Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm LLC in St. Louis. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Case number 3:17-cv-00147-MJR-RJD ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: "Dezi" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Dezi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aratana Therapeutics Inc., Steven St. Peter and Craig A. Tooman, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01446, (S.D. N.Y., February 27, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred, including counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aratana Therapeutics is a pet therapeutics company focused on licensing, developing and commercializing innovative biopharmaceutical products from companion animals. Its pet therapeutics segment produces Entyce also known as AT-002, an appetite stimulant for dogs. Defendants failed to disclose that it did not have sufficient manufacturing support to produce Entyce at a commercial scale and consequently, Entyce was not likely to be commercially available by first quarter 2017. On the release of the news, Aratana Therapeutics stock price fell from a closing price of $8.02 per share on February 3, 2017, to a closing price of $6.58 per share on February 6, 2017, a drop of approximately 18%. Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Credit Union Sues Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION OF MONTANA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ARBY'S RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00715-ODE (N.D. Ga., February 27, 2017), arises out of a data breach at Arby's point- of-sale systems at locations throughout the United States. In this data breach, the computer hackers stole data consisting of customers' debit and credit card information, including card numbers. This information was compromised because of Arby's alleged acts and omissions and its overall failure to properly protect the payment card data of its customers. Defendant Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. operates more than 3,300 company-owned restaurants and franchisee locations across the US and worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq. DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC 1355 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 1900 Atlanta, GA 30309-3238 Phone: 404-881-8900 E-mail: kcanfield@dsckd.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Swathi Bojedla, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K. Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-540-7200 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com sbojedla@hausfeld.com - and - W. Pitts Carr, Esq. W PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES 10 North Parkway Square 4200 Northside Parkway Atlanta, GA 30327 Phone: 404-442-9000 E-mail: pcarr@wpcarr.com ARBY'S RESTUARANT: Faces Multiple Suits Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Linn Freedman at JD Supra Business Advisor reports that Arby's has announced that its point-of-sale system had been compromised by intruders over a four month period between October of 2016 and January of 2017, exposing the credit and debit card information of 355,000 customers. It is unknown at the present time which Arby's restaurants were included in the incident, but it is estimated that 1,000 corporate locations were affected. In record time, Arby's has been hit with multiple class action lawsuits involving the data breach. One is spearheaded by customers. They allege that Arby's had lax data security, which caused the breach. A second was filed by four credit unions and the Michigan Credit Union League alleging that the breach caused the credit unions and others to incur costs to cancel and reissue credit and debit cards, change or close accounts, notify members that the cards were compromised, investigate claims of fraud, refund consumers fraudulent charges, and implement detection and mitigation measures for consumers. There is also an allegation that "the charges associated with this breach at Arby's have been more concentrated than in other recent data breaches . . . ." which caused the plaintiffs to suffer greater losses. ARCTIC CAT: "Parshall" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Textron -------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ARCTIC CAT INC., CHRISTOPHER T. METZ, KENNETH J. ROERING, JOSEPH F. PUISHYS, KIM A. BRINK, TONY J. CHRISTIANSON, ANDREW S. DUFF, SUSAN E. LESTER, TEXTRON INC., and ACES ACQUISITION CORP, the Defendants, Case No. 27-CV-17-2073 (D. Minn., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to block a Proposed Transaction or, alternatively, rescission of the Proposed Transaction in the event defendants are able to consummate it. The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 25, 2017 (the Proposed Transaction), pursuant to which Arctic Cat Inc. will be acquired by Textron Inc. and Aces Acquisition Corp. On January 24, 2017, Arctic Cat's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the Merger Agreement). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Arctic Cat will receive only $18.50 per share in cash. The Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process and deprives Arctic Cat's public stockholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects. Furthermore, in approving the Merger Agreement, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the Class. Moreover, as alleged herein, Arctic Cat and Textron aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties. Compounding the unfairness of the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Solicitation Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on February 2, 2017. The Solicitation Statement is deficient and misleading in that it fails to provide adequate disclosure of all material information related to the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint. Arctic Cat is a North American manufacturer of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles. The company was formed in 1960 and was originally based in Thief River Falls, Minnesota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Altman, Esq. ALTMAN & IZEK 901 North Third Street, Suite 140 Minneapolis, MN 55402 - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324 6800 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com ARJO FOOD CORP: "Caishpal" Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Cristian Caishpal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arjo Food Corp., Rubani Bueno and Jose Doe last name being fictitious and unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00883, (E.D.N.Y, February 14, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, unpaid overtime compensation, a service award in recognition of the services rendered, unpaid spread of hours compensation, statutory penalties, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Defendants own and operate Met Food, a supermarket in Brooklyn, where Caishpal was employed as a supermarket employee. Defendant is represented by: William Cafaro, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Tel. (212) 583-7400 BANK OF AMERICA: "Culpepper" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Aileen Culpepper, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Bank Of America, National Association, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00264, (D. Conn., February 16, 2017), seeks unpaid compensation, an equal amount of liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, penalty damages under Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other available and appropriate relief. Bank of America, National Association, is a National Banking Association with a principal place of business located at 100 North Tryon Street, Suite 170, Charlotte, North Carolina. Culpepper was employed by the Defendant as an inbound specialist in Connecticut, responsible for taking inbound calls from customers of Defendant. She claims overtime for pre-shift and post-shift work and was only paid from login to logout. Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Tel: (860) 522-8888 Fax: (860) 218-9555 Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com BAYER CORP: Partial Settlement Reached in Cipro Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ If You Paid for the Antibiotic Cipro in California you Could Get Money from a Class Action Settlement A partial Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving the antibiotic drug Cipro. The lawsuit claims that Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Rugby Group, Inc. (the "Defendants") violated antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing not to compete with each other and keeping lower cost generic versions of Cipro off the market. The Defendants deny this. No one is claiming that Cipro is unsafe or ineffective. What Does The Settlement Provide? Barr Laboratories, Inc. has agreed to pay $225 million into a Settlement Fund (the "Fund"). After deducting attorneys' fees, costs, and other fees and expenses, the Fund will be distributed to Class members who file valid claims. Payments will be based on the number of valid claims filed and how much you paid for Cipro. It is estimated that consumers will receive at least $25 each. The Settlement Agreement, available at the website www.CiproSettlement.com, contains more details. The Settlement Agreement involves only Barr Laboratories, Inc. The Other Defendants previously settled. Who Is Included? Generally you are included if you paid a pharmacy, doctor's office, or hospital for some or all of a Cipro prescription in California between January 8, 1997 and December 31, 2005. Excluded from the Class are all persons who obtained Cipro through MediCal Prescription Drug Program, anyone who purchased Cipro in order to resell it, governmental entities, the Defendants and their related entities, all purchasers of Cipro who paid a flat co-payment and who would have paid the same co-payment for a generic substitute under the terms of their health insurance policy, and all persons or parties that have excluded themselves from the Class. How To Get A Payment Class Members must submit a Claim Form to get a payment. If you previously submitted a Claim Form, visit the website www.CiproSettlement.com for information regarding whether you need to file anything else in order to receive a share of this settlement. If you have not yet filed a Claim Form, instructions on how to complete and submit a Claim Form are available at www.CiproSettlement.com or by calling 1-866-404-0135. The deadline to submit a Claim Form is May 31, 2017. Your Other Rights And Options If you are a Class Member, your right to exclude yourself from the Class (to opt out) expired in 2004, when the Class was certified and the original notice was disseminated. You may comment on or object to the proposed Settlement. To do so, you must act by April 5, 2017. Details on how to comment or object are at www.CiproSettlement.com. The Court will hold a hearing on April 21, 2017 to consider whether to finally approve the Settlement and whether to approve Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees of up to one third of the Settlement Fund, plus expenses, and service awards for the Class Representatives. BEACH COMPANY: Faces "Williams" Suit Over TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- LEEROY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE BEACH COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 1:17- at-00168 (E.D. Cal., February 24, 2017), alleges that Defendants negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacted Plaintiff using an "automatic telephone dialing system" in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection. The Defendant is engaged in the business of beachside real estate development. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com BLUE CROSS: Faces "Moe" Suit Over Denied DBT 3D Mammogram --------------------------------------------------------- DARLA J. MOE an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA dba ANTHEM BLUE CROSS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 650027 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks compensatory damages for reimbursable value of the medical expenses related to the Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) 3D Mammogram. For at least four years prior to the filing of this action continuing to the present, the Defendants have wrongfully refused to provide Plaintiff and all members of the Proposed Classes with DBT or "DBT 3D Mammogram" for breast cancer screening purposes. The Plaintiff and the members of the Proposed Classes were wrongfully denied DBT after Defendants claimed it was "investigational" and "not medically necessary", thus wrongfully denying the appropriate resources for early and accurate breast cancer detection. Blue Shield of California is a health plan provider founded in 1939 and based in San Francisco. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. Arj J. Stiller, Esq. Lyubov Lerner, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990 2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com liane@kingsleykingsley.com ari@kingsleykingsley.com luba@kingsleykingsley.com BOEING: Families of Flight 370 Crash Victims File Suit in U.S. -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Collins, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a series of catastrophic electrical and other failures may have led to the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 over the Indian Ocean, according to a lawsuit filed in the U.S. on behalf of the families of 44 people on board the still missing plane. The lawsuit, filed on March 3 against Boeing in U.S. District Court in South Carolina, names seven malfunctions, from an electrical fire to depressurization of the plane's cabin, that could have led to the crew losing consciousness, the plane's transponder stopping its transmission and the plane flying undetected until it crashed after running out of fuel. The suit was filed by Gregory Keith, a special administrator for families who lost loved ones on the flight. It names 44 victims as plaintiffs. The lawsuit was filed in South Carolina because Boeing has built a massive new plant in the state to build the 787 Dreamliner. Flight 370 was a Boeing 777 and the lawsuit doesn't say where it was made. Boeing doesn't comment on pending lawsuits, but the company's thoughts continue to be with the people who died on Flight 370, Boeing spokesman Tom Kim said in a statement. One lawyer representing the Flight 370 families is Mary Schiavo, former inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation. She did not respond to an email seeking comment. The jet disappeared March 8, 2014, while flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board. Malaysia, Australia and China suspended a nearly three-year search in the southern Indian Ocean on Jan. 17 after failing to find any trace of the plane. The lawsuit notes that search efforts for the plane have ended and says the lack of finality has led to unprecedented levels of "economic and non-economic losses, emotional and physical pain, distress and mental pain and suffering" for the people on the airliner and their families. It does not ask for a specific amount of damages. Boeing also didn't use available technology on its 777 planes that would have allowed them to be tracked at all times and made the flight and cockpit voice recorders easier to find, the lawsuit says. Boeing knew of design flaws on the aircraft, including defective wiring near combustible sources like the emergency oxygen supply to the plane's crew, it says. "The defects caused and/or allowed a massive and cascading sequence of electrical failures onboard the lost plane which disabled vital systems . . . making it impossible for the crew to navigate the plane or for the plane to communicate with the ground stations leaving the aircraft to fly without the ability to communicate or control the aircraft until the plane ran out of fuel," lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. Victims' families have filed other lawsuits as well. Among them, in March last year, a day before the deadline for litigation against Malaysia Airlines, 12 Chinese families whose relatives were aboard the flight filed a lawsuit in Beijing. It also named Boeing and jet engine manufacturer Rolls-Roys among the defendants. Another lawsuit on behalf of the families of 32 passengers was filed in Kuala Lumpur. A month before, a Malaysian woman and her two young sons sued the airline seeking damages of $7.6 million for the loss of her husband, S.Puspanathan. An Australian-based woman, Jennifer Chong, whose husband Chong Ling Tan was on the flight, filed similar claims in Australia, alleging the airline was negligent in failing to ensure passengers' safety. The families of four more Australian passengers are seeking $200,000 compensation from Malaysia Airlines, according to documents filed in the Federal Court of Australia in April 2016. In June 2016, two Malaysian boys whose father, Jee Jing Hang, was a passenger secured an out-of-court settlement in the first legal case against Malaysia Airlines and the government. BOSLEY MEDICAL: "Campbell" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Campbell, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. d/b/a Bosley, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01555, (C.D. Cal., February 26, 2017), seeks damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, disgorgement of any ill-gotten funds acquired as a result of unlawful telephone calling practices, injunction to cease all unsolicited text messaging, all expenses of this action and such other and further relief. Bosley is into medical hair restoration and hair loss solutions. It regularly sends text message advertisements to consumers' cellular telephones, including the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is represented by: Jon Roger Moss, Esq. 348 33rd Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Tel: (310) 318-5841 Email: dad4477@aol.com - and - William H. Beaumont, Esq. Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 Facsimile: (504) 272-2956 BOW & TRUSS: Smith, et al. File Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Labor Laws ---------------------------------------------------------------- KRYSTAL SMITH, TRUMAINE HARDY, BRYCE LUCAS, BENJAMIN CREECH, JEFFREY O'MALLEY, ROBERT HENRY, ETHAN JANTZ, CHRIS COWDREY, GABR1ELA CAMPOS, and TAYLOR STEELE on behalf of themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. BOW & TRUSS, LLC, DOEJO, LLC; PHILIP TADROS, and DARREN MARSHALL, Defendants, (Ill., Circ., Cook County, February 27, 2017), alleges that Bow Truss routinely operated with a policy and practice of not paying Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated individuals, overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a work week. The suit was brought under The Fair Labor Standards Act, The Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act, The Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and The Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. Bow Truss is a chain of specialty coffee cafes where Plaintiffs are employees. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Kane Stukel, Esq. CAMERON & KANE, LLC 2864 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, 1L 60618 Phone: (872) 588-0727 Fax: (312-268-7478 Email: scott@caineronandkane.com - and - Scott Kane Stukel, Esq. Colin Cameron, Esq. 2864 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, 1L 60618 Phone: (872) 588-0727 Fax: (312-268-7478 Email: colini@cameronandkane.com BRANDI'S HOPE: Overtime Pay Claimed in "Birdie" Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Renza Birdie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brandi's Hope Community Services, LLC and Danny Cowart, Case No. 5:17-cv-00021, (S.D. Miss., February 24, 2017), seeks monetary and liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees within the applicable statutory limitations period for failure to pay proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants' facilities includes group homes providing support to disabled individuals living there. Plaintiff worked as a Direct Support worker. Defendants required Plaintiff to clock out at 10:00 PM and clock back in at 6:00 AM but Birdie remained at the workplace throughout the night, where Renza's duties required her to rise frequently during the night and aid the residents of the group home, getting only as much as five hours of uninterrupted sleep per night. Despite this, Defendants paid Plaintiff only for time that she was clocked in. Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher W. Espy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC 4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39211 Telephone: (601) 718-2087 Facsimile: (601) 718-2102 Email: cespy@forthepeople.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Unfair Foreign Buyers Tax ----------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports British Columbia's tax on foreign home buyers, introduced by the province to cool Metro Vancouver's hot housing market, violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, says a plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit. The claim argues that the 15-per-cent tax has zeroed in on people "whose national origin is from an Asian country, a class of persons that have historically suffered discrimination in British Columbia." B.C. resident Jing Li, a Chinese national who moved to Canada in 2013 to attend university, was part of a class action suit launched against the province last fall. Li, 29, was the lead plaintiff, arguing the foreign tax added $83,850 to the cost of a $559,000 Langley, B.C., townhouse, which she agreed to purchase about a week before the tax was introduced in August 2016. An amended notice of civil claim was filed in B.C. Supreme Court. Li said the tax imposed on foreign buyers was unfair and blindsided her. Tax perpetuates 'prejudice,' claim says She couldn't back out of the deal without losing her deposit. "Now, I can't go forward and also can't go back," she said at the time. Li subsequently bought the townhouse despite the extra tax. She moved to Burnaby, B.C., after completing a master's of public administration at the University of Saskatchewan, the claim says. The amended claim includes a Charter of Rights and Freedoms argument and Victoria constitutional lawyer Joe Arvay is among the lawyers representing the plaintiff. The lawsuit has not yet been certified. The strongly worded statement of claim says the tax unfairly assumes foreigners have wealth, an assumption that perpetuates "prejudice and stereotyping." In an email, Arvay said the case is about inequality and discrimination "based on race, national origin, citizenship and immigration." The tax also assumes that foreign nationals are able to outbid Canadian citizens and permanent residents in the housing market in the specified area, the claim says. Violates Treaties "Nationality and citizenship are not related to wealth," the claim says. "Many persons who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents have no more wealth than Canadian citizens or permanent residents." The premier's office did not respond to a request for an interview. The class action suit initially filed by Li argued the new tax violates more than 30 international treaties where Canada has committed to treat foreign nationals as favourably as citizens. In January, Premier Christy Clark walked back part of the law, saying the levy will be lifted for those foreigners who have a work permit and pay taxes in B.C. Clark said the change was made to encourage more people to come to the province. The B.C. government has not yet filed a response. BROADCOM CORP: Class Settlement Granted Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------ Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, approves the parties' settlement in the case titled IN RE BROADCOM CORPORATION STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS MA (Lead Case No. SA 15 CV 00979 JVS (PJWx), consolidated with No. SACV 15-01303 JVS (C.D. Calif.). Plaintiffs and defendants filed an application to the court to determine whether the terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of the Class Members for the settlement of all claims. Judge Selna certifies, for settlement purposes only, a settlement class defined as: All record and beneficial owners of Broadcom class a common stock who owned or held Broadcom class a common stock from May 27, 2015 through and including February 1, 2016, including any and all of their respective successors in interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors, administrator, heirs, assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf, or claiming under, any of them, and each of them. Excluded from the class are defendants, members of the immediate family or any defendant, any entity in which a defendant has or had a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person. The court approves the settlement and finds that the settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of class members. The second amended complaint is dismissed on the merits with prejudice as against the released parties and without costs except for the payments expressly provided for in the stipulation. Upon the effective date of the settlement, plaintiffs, all other class members and defendants shall be deemed to have released, dismissed and forever discharged the released claims against each and all of the released parties, with prejudice and on the merits, without costs to any party. The court reserves jurisdiction, without affecting in any way the finality of the order and final judgment over implementation and enforcement of the settlement, enforcing and administering the order and final judgment, enforcing and administering the stipulation, including any releases and bar orders executed in connection therewith and other matters related or ancillary to the foregoing. A copy of Judge Selna's order and final judgment dated February 27, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/s3swai from Leagle.com. Farshid Yassian, Plaintiff, represented by Leigh A. Parker -- lparker@weisslawllp.com -- Joel E. Elkins -- jelkins@weisslawllp.com -- Joseph H. Weiss -- jweiss@weisslawllp.com -- Richard A. Acocelli -- racocelli@weisslawllp.com -- at WeissLaw LLP New Jersey Laborers Statewide Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua S. Devore -- jdevore@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC Iron Workers Mid-America Pension Plan, Movant, represented by Carol V. Gilden -- cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- Joshua S. Devore - - jdevore@cohenmilstein.com -- Kenneth M. Rehns -- krehns@cohenmilstein.com -- Richard A. Speirs -- rspeirs@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC; Jeff S. Westerman -- jwesterman@jswlegal.com -- at Westerman Law Corp. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Movant, represented by Carol V. Gilden -- cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- Joshua S. Devore -- jdevore@cohenmilstein.com -- Kenneth M. Rehns -- krehns@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC; Jeff S. Westerman -- jwesterman@jswlegal.com -- at Westerman Law Corp. Scott A McGregor, Henry Samueli, Eric K Brandt, Robert E Switz, John E Major, Robert J Finocchio, Nancy H Handel, Eddy W Hartenstein, Maria M Klawe, William T Morrow, Defendants, represented by Ignacio E. Salceda -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- Boris Feldman -- lcardenas@wsgr.com -- Catherine E. Moreno -- cmoreno@wsgr.com -- at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati LLP Pavonia Limited, Safari Cayman LP, Safari Cayman LP, Defendant, Avago Technologies Cayman Finance Limited, Avago Technologies Cayman Holdings Ltd, Buffalo CS Merger Sub Inc, Buffalo UT Merger Sub Inc, Cayman Holdings Ltd, Broadcom Corporation, Defendants, represented by Brian T. Glennon -- brian.glennon@lw.com -- Sarah E. Diamond -- sarah.diamond@lw.com -- at Latham and Watkins LLP BUILDER SERVICES: "Wickliffe" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Wickliffe, individually and as the class representative of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Builder Services Group, Inc. and Robert Buck, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00481-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2017), alleges that Defendants unlawfully withheld Plaintiff's wages and failed to compensate him for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week and other wages due to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Builder Services Group, Inc., doing business as Gale Industries, Inc., installs home insulation products. Plaintiff worked as an installer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter L. Tragos, Esq. 601 Cleveland St., Suite 800 Cleawater, FL 33755 Phone: 727 441 9030 Fax: 727 441 9254 E-mail: petertragos@greeklaw.com linda@greeklaw.com CAFE 37 INC: "Calixto" Claims Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Emilio Juarez Calixto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cafe 37 Inc., Pedro Gomez and Francisco Gomez, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01400, (S.D.N.Y, February 24, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours compensation, statutory penalties, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Cafe 37 is a restaurant owned by Pedro Gomez and Francisco Gomez, located at 47 West 37th Street, New York, New York 10018. Juarez has been employed as a dishwasher, food preparer and ostensibly as a delivery worker. Defendant is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL: Faces "Cerda" Labor Suit Under Cal. Laws ------------------------------------------------------------- ALVARO CERDA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees, Plaintiffs, vs. CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION, a domestic, non- profit; and DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 651809 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, February 27, 2017), alleges that Defendants engaged in the illegal practice of requiring all non- exempt employees, including Plaintiffs, to work four or more hours without a rest period in violation of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, California Labor Code and other relevant laws, rules, orders, requirements and regulations. Defendant owns, manages and operates CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL throughout Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff ALVARO CERDA is and/or was an x-ray technician. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq. THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM, APC W 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 500 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (323) 486-2508 Fax: (747) 998-1201 - and - Gabriel Sepulveda-Sanchez, Esq. SEPULVEDA SANCHEZ LAW, PC. 555 W. 5th Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 426-1051 E-mail: mail: Gabriel@sepulvedalawgroup.com - and - Michael R. Parker, Esq. MICHAEL R. PARKER LAW, PC 21700 Oxnard St. Suite 2080 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (818) 334-5711 Fax: (818)394-6448 CANADA: Faces Suit Over Prisoners' Solitary Confinement ------------------------------------------------------- Koskie Minsky LLP and McCarthy Tetrault LLP have commenced a class action against the Attorney General of Canada alleging systemic infliction of prolonged administrative solitary confinement upon prisoners incarcerated in Federal Institutions. In prolonged administrative solitary confinement, prisoners are placed in small cells and are denied any meaningful human contact for at least 22 hours per day, for a period of at least 15 consecutive days. This treatment is imposed in instances where the prisoner has done nothing wrong and is not being punished. The Statement of Claim, issued on March 3, 2017, alleges that by virtue of this practice in federal correctional institutions, Canada has been negligent, has breached its fiduciary duties, has breached various rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has subjected class members to false imprisonment, intentional infliction of mental suffering, assault, and battery, and has been unjustly enriched. Jullian Reddock, a prisoner currently incarcerated in the Donnacona Institution in Quebec, is the proposed representative plaintiff on behalf of the class. His counsel believes that thousands of individuals will be included in this class proceeding. Kirk Baert -- kmbaert@kmlaw.ca -- co-lead counsel at Koskie Minsky LLP, has stated "Canada has repeatedly ignored calls from domestic and international groups to end the barbaric practice of prolonged administrative solitary confinement, and by doing so, has committed numerous wrongs and breached its statutory obligations owed to prisoners, for which it should be forced to account". Michael Rosenberg -- mrosenberg@mccarthy.ca -- co-lead counsel at McCarthy Tetrault LLP, has stated "This case provides a voice to these vulnerable class members who have been left to languish in prolonged administrative solitary confinement. They have suffered serious harm and they deserve access to justice." CAPITAL ADVANCE: Redman's 1st Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on February 15, 2017, in the case titled Scott D.H. Redman v. Capital Advance Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-04380 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable John Robert Blakey. The minute entry states that in light of the Plaintiff's amended motion to certify class, the Plaintiff's prior motion to certify class is denied as moot. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6XoBaMK7 CAPITAL ALLIANCE: "Alves" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Alves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital Alliance Group and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv- 01585, (C.D. Cal., February 27, 2017), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies as a result of violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant, an online marketing company, contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialling system, thus incurring charges. Her number is on the National Do-Not-Call List. Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com CASE & ASSOCIATES: "Rangel" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR RANGEL JR, MARK GAUNA, And RUBEN RAMIREZ, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CASE & ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC. D/B/A CASE PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00057 (W.D. Tex., February 27, 2017), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay its employees at time and one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked within a workweek in excess of forty hours. The Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members are all of the Defendant's current and former "Maintenance Technicians," "Lead Maintenance Technicians," and "Maintenance Supervisors" for the Defendant -- regardless of pay structure -- who worked for Defendant. CASE & ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC. -- http://www.caseusa.com/-- is a property management company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond D. Martinez, Esq. Jonathan L.R. Baeza, Esq. MARTINEZ & MARTINEZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 730 E. Yandell Dr. El Paso, TX 79902 Phone: (915) 541-1000 Fax: (915) 541-1002 E-mail: raymond@martinezlawyers.com jonathan@martinezlawyers.com CASTLE & COOKE: Settlement in "Cabrales" Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, LUIS CABRALES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CASTLE & COOKE MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, No. 1:14-cv-01138- MCE-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court notes that only five Class Members requested exclusion from the Settlement, so that 99.96% of Class Members will participate in the Settlement. The names of the Class Members who opted-out are: Nancy C. Dyas, Leobardo J. Landerso, Thomas A. Blank, Allan Sobie, and Bobby Barao. The Court consequently awards $275,000 for the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees. The Court also awards Class Counsel reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $31,716.61, which the Court finds is reasonable in amount and incurred for the prosecution of the action. The Court also grants the motion for award of service payments. The Court awards service payments in the amount of $5,000 to Luis Cabrales and in the amount of $2,500 to each of Linda Behrendt, Richard Berni, Mariano Bonilla, Sara Chik, Alex Deboma, and Todd Fandrich. Meanwhile, the Court approves the payment of administration expenses to the Claims Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., in the amount of $83,000. A copy of the Court's Order dated February 9, 2017 is available at https://is.gd/ZmIBsd from Leagle.com. Luis Cabrales, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP. Luis Cabrales, Plaintiff, represented by Zach P. Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP. Castle & Cooke Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, represented by Marc Jeremy Feldman -- mfeldman@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP & Theona Zhordania -- tzhordania@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP. CATERPILLAR INC: Stock Drop Suit Filed After Federal Raid --------------------------------------------------------- Jack Newsham at Law360 reports that quick-on-the-buzzer lawyers at Pomerantz LLP filed a potential class action against Caterpillar Inc. on March 3, seeking damages for investors who say the company misled them in the lead-up to March 2 raids by federal law enforcement that sought documents about its tax strategies. The lawsuit says the company made misrepresentations and omissions that led its stock to fall 4 percent after news of the raids broke. They took place at three Caterpillar offices in Peoria, Illinois and involved agents from the Internal Revenue Service, an export enforcement unit of the Commerce Department and the Federal Depository Insurance Corp.'s inspector general. The raids appeared to represent the zenith of years of criticism Caterpillar has faced for its relationship with its Swiss affiliate Caterpillar SARL. A Congressional committee lambasted the company in 2014 for an arrangement involving CSARL that it concluded was legal but morally questionable in cutting its U.S. tax bill by $2.4 billion. In early 2015, the company told shareholders that its cash movements overseas were being probed by a grand jury. A sealed search warrant published by media outlets focused on business between Caterpillar and CSARL. It allowed agents to look for "any and all documents regarding the movement of any products between the United States and Switzerland and/or CSARL or any other foreign country ... any and all documents regarding the relationship between Caterpillar Inc. and CSARL and/or any other non-U.S. based entities ... [and] any and all financial records involving sales, order purchases, customers, business transactions involving exports or shipments to Switzerland and/or CSARL." The class action says the misleading statements began with the company's 2012 annual report in February 2013, which said it adhered to a code of ethics that included commitments to accurate and honest bookkeeping. The complaint mentioned every quarterly and annual report thereafter, including several that detailed tax investigations by the IRS and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that involved CSARL. "Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Caterpillar unlawfully used foreign subsidiaries to avoid paying billions of dollars in U.S. taxes; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject the company to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Caterpillar's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times," the complaint said. Also named as parties were Caterpillar's CEO D. James Umpleby III, its chairman Douglas R. Oberhelman and its chief financial officer Bradley M. Halverson. Caterpillar has been hit with lawsuits over its allegedly illegal or wrong use of offshore companies to avoid taxes before. A 2009 federal lawsuit alleging wrongful termination also claimed that Caterpillar avoided over $2.4 billion in U.S. taxes by shifting profits overseas and to offshore shell companies. The man who brought the 2009 lawsuit, Daniel Schlicksup, settled it in 2012. Schlicksup, who was Caterpillar's global tax strategy manager until being moved off the job in 2008, had alleged that Caterpillar retaliated against him for telling Oberhelman and former Caterpillar Group President Ed Rapp about "serious issues of potential fraud, violations of federal law, questions of fiduciary duties to the company and shareholders," among other issues, according to documents filed with Schlicksup's 2009 complaint. In those proceedings, Schlicksup claimed that Caterpillar sold and shipped replacement parts for its machines from an Illinois warehouse, but improperly attributed $5.6 billion in profits from those sales to CSARL in Switzerland from 2000 to 2009. The suit also revealed that Caterpillar's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, helped the company with the tax-lowering offshoring scheme for a fee of $55 million. Schlicksup's suit led to the 2014 congressional report. In exchange for a small royalty, Caterpillar transferred rights to profits from its international parts distribution business to CSARL, the report said. In effect, Caterpillar redirected the profits by simply replacing its name with CSARL on its invoices, according to the report Prior to issuing its license with CSARL, Caterpillar booked 85 percent or more of its non-U.S. parts profits in the U.S., where 70 percent of those parts are made and warehoused and where the company's global parts operation was created and is managed. But the license allowed CSARL to sell the parts to Caterpillar's non- U.S. dealers and pay Caterpillar a royalty equal to only about 15 percent of the parts profits, while keeping the remaining 85 percent on its books in Switzerland, the Senate investigators found. Caterpillar was assessed a $1 billion tax increase and penalties for the years 2007 to 2009, stemming from the use of the so-called Swiss strategy. The company continues to contest the IRS penalties. A Caterpillar spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The putative class of shareholders is represented by Louis C. Ludwig, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Jeremy A. Lieberman, J. Alexander Hood II and Hui M. Chang of Pomerantz LLP. Caterpillar hasn't made an appearance in the case yet. The case is Newman v. Caterpillar Inc. et al., case number 1:17- cv-01713 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. CATERPILLAR INC: May 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Caterpillar, Inc. securities (CAT) from February 19, 2013 through March 1, 2017, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Caterpillar investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Caterpillar class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1068.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The complaint alleges that defendants during the Class Period made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Caterpillar unlawfully used foreign subsidiaries to avoid paying billions of dollars in U.S. taxes; (2) discovery of such conduct would subject Caterpillar to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; and (3) as a result, Caterpillar's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 2, 2017, law enforcement officials raided Caterpillar's facilities in Peoria, Illinois. Later that day, Caterpillar indicated that it believed the raid is related to, among other things, export filings of its Swiss subsidiary Caterpillar SARL. On this news, shares of Caterpillar fell $4.22 or 4.28% to close at $94.36 per share on March 2, 2017, damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 2, 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, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases- 1068.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CEMTREX INC: "Guerrier" Sues Over Drop in Cemtrex Share Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- Franck Guerrier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cemtrex, Inc., Saagar Govil, Renato Dela Rama and Aron Govil, Defendants., Case No. 2:17-cv- 01071, (E.D. N.Y., February 24, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Cemtrex provides electronic manufacturing services of electric system assemblies, instruments and emission monitors for industrial processes, and industrial air filtration and environmental control systems worldwide. According to the complaint, Cemtrex's supposed audit firm was determined to be fake; controlling partner was banned by SEC for multiple fraudulent audits, under multiple firm names from four countries on three continents; company is being heavily promoted by a promotion firm known as Small Cap Specialists which has repeatedly halted or delisted due to financial irregularities or outright fraud; shares held by Cemtrex insiders Aaron Govil, Saagar Govil and CFO Dela Rama have been decreasing substantially during 2016, yet have failed to disclose any sales on Form 4s during 2016 and still encouraging retail investors to buy. On this news, shares of Cemtrex fell $1.72 per share or over 33.5% from its previous closing price to close at $3.40 per share on February 22, 2017, damaging investors including the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com CEMTREX INC: "Cullinan" Alleges Insider Trading, Hits Share Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Cullinan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cemtrex, Inc., Saagar Govil, Aron Govil and Renato Dela Rama, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 01067, (E.D. N.Y., February 24, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Cemtrex is a technology company that purportedly provides solutions to meet industrial and manufacturing challenges. The Company purportedly provides electronic manufacturing services for advanced electric system assemblies, instruments and emission monitors for industrial processes, and industrial air filtration and environmental control systems. Defendants failed to disclose that the Company was utilizing paid stock promoters to artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock, Company insiders were selling their stock during the paid promotion, taking advantage of the artificially inflated stock price, that the Company's purported audit firm claimed to operate at a location that was actually vacant and that the controlling partner behind the Company's auditor was banned by the SEC for conducting fraudulent audits or reviews of public companies while performing little or no work and without being licensed and that the Company's auditor was signing off on the Company's financial disclosures without conducting a proper review. On this news, the price of Cemtrex common stock fell $0.65 per share, or 11.2%, to close at $5.12 per share on February 21, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy (LP-1941), Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 CENTURY REALTY: Summary Judgment Sought in "Burns" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled Richard Burns, Borden Deane, Leslie Jacobson, John McCloskey, Leopold Ouellette, and John Sardina, et al. v. Lawrence W. Maxwell, Lawrence T. Maxwell, Century Realty Funds, Inc., Mark Schreiber, Ronald L. Clark, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-02793-MSS-TGW (M.D. FL.), move the Court for an order granting summary judgment in their favor, as prayed for in their second amended complaint, pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Motion is brought on the grounds that there is no defense to the action, there is no triable issue as to any material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Plaintiffs contend. The Defendants conspired to trick the elderly Plaintiffs into legally compelled payment of a perpetual ever-increasing monthly fee for a contrived "System Assessment" under the control of and to the benefit of the Community developer-defendants, Larry Maxwell and Schreiber, the Plaintiffs allege. They add that the Defendants' fraudulent omissions and concealment violated the mail and wire fraud statutes, citing United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d at 1238; United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299, 1304 (11th Cir. 2013). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MRAmeT1c The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel W. Perry, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL W. PERRY 4767 New Broad St. #1007 Orlando, FL 32814-6405 Telephone: (407) 894-9003 E-mail: dan@danielperry.com CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Faces Another Gender Discrimination Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Baxter, writing for Law.com, reports that as it prepares to combine with Norton Rose Fulbright, Chadbourne & Parke is suddenly grappling with a third accuser in a $100 million gender discrimination case that has been hanging over the firm since last year. Mary Yelenick, a former chair of Chadbourne's products liability group and a longtime New York partner now working as of counsel at the firm, filed papers on Feb. 27 seeking to join the proposed class action as a plaintiff. According to Ms. Yelenick's profile on professional networking website LinkedIn, she spent more than 35 years at Chadbourne after joining the firm in 1981. "During my employment, I believe Chadbourne paid me less than men who performed similar work," Ms. Yelenick wrote in the Feb. 27 filing. She is represented by David Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- of Sanford Heisler, whose firm brought the case last August on behalf of named plaintiff Kerrie Campbell, a litigation partner at Chadbourne in Washington, D.C. A second plaintiff, former Kiev office managing partner Jaroslawa Zelinsky Johnson, joined the case in October. In an interview on Feb. 28, Mr. Sanford said that he has twice tried to settle with Chadbourne, most recently on Feb. 27, just before Ms. Yelenick filed her notice with the court. Those negotiations have been unsuccessful. Mr. Sanford is now considering whether or not to add Norton Rose Fulbright as a defendant, given the announcement by the firm of its intention to unite with Chadbourne sometime in the second quarter of this year. The merger would create a firm with just under $2 billion in annual gross revenue, and the Chadbourne & Parke name would disappear as part of the combination. Media representatives for Norton Rose Fulbright and Chadbourne did not respond to requests for comment about Ms. Yelenick's decision to join the case. Lexington Insurance Co., a Boston-based subsidiary of American International Group Inc., serves as Chadbourne's insurance carrier in the litigation. Proskauer Rose labor and employment litigation partner Kathleen McKenna -- kmckenna@proskauer.com -- and employment litigation and arbitration co-head Evandro Gigante -- egigante@proskauer.com -- are representing Chadbourne in the case. Ms. McKenna previously worked with Dechert in advising her firm on a gender discrimination settlement in 2013 with former Proskauer CFO Elly Rosenthal, also represented by Sanford. In Ms. Campbell's initial complaint, she said her case was filed on behalf of 26 current and former female Chadbourne partners. That spurred 14 of Chadbourne's female partners to write a letter to Sanford chiding him for claiming to speak on their behalf. Sanford said in response that he was barred from contacting the group under a New York law precluding lawyers from soliciting other potential clients before filing a suit. In late October, Campbell and Johnson filed an amended complaint against Chadbourne. At the time, Bloomberg Big Law Business noted that Ms. Yelenick was the only female partner at Chadbourne who hadn't signed the letter to Sanford. Margarita Oliva Sainz de Aja, a corporate and project finance partner with an international subsidiary of Chadbourne, also did not sign the letter. She told the New York Law Journal in January that she didn't know about the letter until it was already sent, but would have signed it if she had. Chadbourne has yet to file its opposition to class certification. The court also hasn't decided a key issue that could make or break the case: whether or not law firm partners can be considered employees under Title VII of the federal Equal Pay Act. Mr. Sanford said on Feb. 28 that there would be discovery on the question, with direction from the court on that and the class certification issue likely by late summer. Mr. Sanford refused to say whether he had spoken with additional current or former Chadbourne lawyers who could join the case as plaintiffs. He said that he often speaks confidentially with potential clients. "People are very concerned about economic stability, professional continuity and testing the waters for new opportunities," Mr. Sanford said of the reluctance that many lawyers feel about joining an employment action. "Many times I will hear that people are evaluating their circumstances and will let me know if they have a reason to reconsider their options." At Chadbourne, Yelenick helped defend one of the firm's largest clients, Stamford, Connecticut-based drug manufacturer Purdue Pharma, in litigation filed against the OxyContin maker over its popular pain management medication. She also once wrote an op-ed for sibling publication Law.com with Andrew Giaccia, Chadbourne's managing partner, on how companies can defend against climate change claims. In a letter last year to the editor of The New York Times, Ms. Yelenick, a Colorado native and ice-dancing aficionado, wrote about white privilege and the "imprint of racism" on U.S. society. She did not respond to a request for comment. CHEZ JACQUELINE: "Tamay" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Segundo Serafin Aucacama Tamay, Carlos Peralta and Eduardo Tapia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chez Jacqueline Rest., Inc. (d/b/a Chez Jacqueline), System D Restaurant Holdings Inc. (d/b/a Chez Jacqueline), Paul Giraldi, Madeleine Lanza Giraldi, Frank Giraldi, Philip Kempsity, Ivica Perunovic and Heidi Ruth Leiser, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01470 (S.D. N.Y., February 27, 2017) seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages, spread of hours pay and liquidated damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a French restaurant located at 72 McDougal Street, New York, New York 10012 under the name Chez Jacqueline where Plaintiffs were employed as a cook, waiter/busboy/food runner and porter. Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked thus missing out some hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CHOCOLADA BAKERY: Overtime Premium Sought in "Kalish" Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Kalish and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chocolada Bakery & Cafe, Inc. Theodora Dayan, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60422, (S.D. Fla., February 27, 2017), requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing, along with court costs, interest and any other relief that the Court finds reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours per week and was paid an average of $9.00 per hour, but was never paid the extra halftime overtime rate for hours worked above 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kalish seeks payment for the half-time overtime rate for the 10 hours of overtime she averaged each week. Plaintiff is represented by: James Loren, Esq. GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A. 100 S. Pine Island Road, Ste. 132 Plantation, FL 33324 Tel: (800) 719-1617, Ext 2107 Fax: 954-585-4886 E-mail: Jloren@goldbergloren.com CIGNA CORP: Faces "Welp" Suit Over Blanket Exclusion in Insurance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Welp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Cigna Corporation, NextEra Energy, Inc., and the Employee Benefit Plans Administrative Committee, Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80237-DMM (S.D. Fla., February 24, 2017), alleges that the blanket exclusion in the Defendants' insurance for services rendered at wilderness treatment centers, which is considered a separate treatment limitation applicable only to mental health, violates the Parity Act. Defendant NextEra Energy, Inc. is a for-profit, publicly traded electric company. Defendant Cigna Corporation, is a for-profit, publicly-traded insurance company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Phone: 954-616-8995 Fax: 954-206-0374 Email: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com - and - Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 60 State Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 573-5118 Fax: (617) 371-2950 Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com CLUB MONACO: "Anderson" Claims Website Inaccessible for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Club Monaco U.S., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01057 (E.D. N.Y., February 24, 2017) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages from unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York State Human Rights Laws. Defendant owns and operates approximately fifty stores providing clothing, shoes and accessories as well as online via Clubmonaco.com. Anderson is a blind individual and claims that Clubmonaco.com does not have accessibility provision on the said website for the visually impaired. Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 COAST PROFESSIONAL: Bad Collection Practices Alleged by "Fuzaylov" ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sergey Fuzaylov on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Coast Professional, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01085, (E.D. N.Y., February 25, 2017), seeks statutory damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant is a debt collector who tried to collect a debt that the Plaintiff allegedly owes. Coast Professional allegedly sent confusing collection letters that did not mention that the consumer can dispute in writing, did not accurately reflect the amount of the debt and insisted on illegally adding a penalty charge. Plaintiff is represented by: Igor Litvak, Esq. THE LITVAK LAW FIRM, PLLC 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Tel: (718) 989-2908 Facsimile: (718) 989-2908 E-mail: Igor@LitvakLawNY.com CONAGRA FOODS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit That Was Denied Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joyce Hanson at Law360 reports that ConAgra Foods Inc. asked a California federal judge on March 2 to toss what's left of a proposed class action brought by customers suing over trans fats in Fleischmann's-brand margarine, saying the only remaining claim after the class was denied certification is subject to state jurisdiction. The food company argued that lead plaintiff Troy Backus identified the federal Class Action Fairness Act as his sole basis for the court's jurisdiction, but now that U.S. District Judge William Alsup has denied certification, Backus can't possibly meet the $5 million threshold required for the matter in controversy and his class isn't sufficiently diverse. "Now that class certification has been denied, the court no longer has jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining individual claim," ConAgra said. "Plaintiff has asserted no federal claim, and the court lacks diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff cannot meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. Thus, the court should dismiss plaintiff's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." Backus initiated his putative class action in California federal court on Jan. 26, 2016, and amended his complaint on May 16, asserting eight claims based on California state statutes and common law, according to ConAgra's motion on March 2. The court dismissed all claims except for one mislabeling claim, the motion said. On Dec. 22, Judge Alsup denied Backus his bid for certification, concluding that his claims were not typical of the claims of his putative class and that Backus is an inadequate class representative because, among other reasons, "from testimony residing in his deposition, our jury might infer that Backus is not truly an aggrieved consumer but a hired plaintiff executing his attorney's raids on the deep pockets of food manufacturers." On Nov. 17, ConAgra urged Judge Alsup not to certify the class, saying Backus was misguided in his attempt to certify the class under California law for the products at issue, its original sticks and unsalted sticks, which it said have nothing to do with California. "The vast majority . . . . were manufactured in Indiana, and neither of those products [is] currently manufactured in California. Moreover, ConAgra sells more of the products at issue in at least eight states than it does in California," the food company said. Backus alleges he had been a longtime purchaser of Fleischmann's margarine until October 2015, when he learned that the artificial trans fat in Fleischmann's causes cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer and other ailments. The Food and Drug Administration has deemed trans fats to no longer be generally recognized as safe and gave the food industry until June 18, 2018, to come into compliance, according to the judge. Backus' legal counsel, Gregory S. Weston, told Law360 in an email that ConAgra's motion to dismiss relies on out-of-date authority. "The plain text of CAFA states jurisdiction exists for cases that are filed as class actions, and binding authority states that post-filing events do not end CAFA jurisdiction," Weston said. Representatives for ConAgra did not immediately respond on March 3 to requests for comment. Backus is represented by David Elliot -- david@westonfirm.com -- Andrew C. Hamilton -- andrew@westonfirm.com -- and Gregory Weston -- greg@westonfirm.com -- of The Weston Firm. ConAgra is represented by Allen Brooks Gresham II -- agresham@mcguirewoods.com -- Angela M. Spivey -- aspivey@mcguirewoods.com -- and Laura Coombe -- lcoombe@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP. The case is Backus v. ConAgra Inc., case number 3:16-cv-00454, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. CORPS OF ENGINEERS: Settlement Assessment Letters Mailed -------------------------------------------------------- Shelley Brown at Fox 8 reports that thousands of Katrina victims with eligible claims in a class-action levee breach settlement received letters from the court-appointed special master responsible for evaluating claims. "We named everybody who we thought feasibly could be liable for the failure of the levees at 17th Street, Industrial Canal, and all of the breaks. . . New Orleans East, Lower Nine, St. Bernard and the like," Joe Bruno said in an interview with the FOX 8 Defenders a year ago. Bruno was the lead plaintiff's attorney in the class-action lawsuit alleging failures and over-topping of levees against the Corps of Engineers, contractors and levee boards after Katrina. It resulted in a settlement in the Vodanovich vs. Boh Brothers lawsuit. The insurance companies for three levee boards -- the Orleans Levee District, East Jefferson Levee District and Lake Borgne Levee District -- will pay to settle the class-action suit. Bruno says there's roughly $11 million waiting to go out to storm victims. According to Bruno, 137,000 claim forms were filed, but that number has been whittled down to 120,000 claimants after the court-appointed special master obtained experts to verify claims with issues. Letters to the eligible 120,000 homeowners were mailed, detailing minimum awards. Bruno says actual payments range from as little as $2.50 to as much as $3,700, but money won't be disbursed until after an objection period. Claimants have until March 29 to object their assessments. Bruno says it's unclear when checks will be mailed until the court-appointed special master knows how many objections he has to review. The FOX 8 Defenders staffed with volunteers from the National Council of Jewish Women also field consumer complaints at 1-877- 670-6397 or you can fill out an online complaint form. CORPS OF ENGINEER: Claimants Dissatisfied with Settlement Amount ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Hammer at WWL reports that an 11-year-old federal class- action lawsuit for the Hurricane Katrina levee failures is finally ready to pay 120,000 claims, but a relatively small pot of money, large legal and processing costs and confounding court notices delivered this week have many storm survivors confused and angry. A committee of 35 plaintiff attorneys originally pursued claims totaling more than $10 billion from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the construction firms involved in designing, building and maintaining the floodwalls and levees and the local levee districts. They won rulings at the U.S. District Court in New Orleans, paving the way to collect billions in damages caused in two separate flooding incidents: One for flooding caused east of the Industrial Canal by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, or MRGO, and another for the failure of levees in New Orleans and Jefferson Parish. But the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed itself and declared the Corps of Engineers immune from claims related specifically to the levee failures. While the MRGO case continues against the Corps, by 2012 the only defendants left in the levee- failure case were the three local levee districts. They agreed to settle that case in 2013, but they had only $17 million in insurance proceeds to pay the claims: $10 million from the Orleans Levee District, $5 million from the East Jefferson Levee District and $2 million from the Lake Borgne Levee District. About $3 million in interest brought the pot of money for the class action to over $20 million, but costs of administering the settlement -- including sending notices, analyzing flood data and calculating awards -- have topped $2.5 million. Hilsoft Notifications, a company that made $895,000 to send out the initial notices to claimants, declined to comment. So did Greg Rigamer, a demographer who was running a firm at the time that worked on the claim payment distribution model and who testified as an expert in the case. Meanwhile, the 35 lawyers representing the class were awarded $3.5 million to cover a portion of their costs of bringing the case. Lead class counsel Joe Bruno says the lawyers suggested that amount to the court, even though he said it was dwarfed by what they spent on expert reports, investigations of government records, witness depositions and other expenses. What's more, he said the levee district's insurance companies insisted on expanding the scope of the settlement to include money for Hurricane Rita damage, non-flood property damage, money for renters and businesses and even for people who were just visiting the area during the storms. That way, the levee districts could preclude all of those types of victims from bringing any further claims for the 2005 storms. That potentially watered down awards for those who actually lost property and even those whose family members died in places where the levees and floodwalls failed. There is about $14.2 million left to pay about 120,000 claims, an average payment of $118 per claim. The payments range from as low as $3 to about $3,000. The claims checks will be sent as soon as all objections are addressed, but Bruno said it's unclear when that will be. Claimants who got letters this week have until March 29 to mail objections to the special master overseeing the settlement, Denham Springs-based Shelby Easterly III. Even with the smaller-than-expected awards, there are claimants who are getting a lot less than what court documents say they should be receiving under a court-approved model that tallies points for different kinds of claims and then uses the points to calculate payments. One of those is Marcus Jackson. His father and mother, the Rev. Royal Jackson Sr. and Elizabeth Jackson, drowned in New Orleans East during Katrina. A court notice in 2013 said each survivor would be awarded 807,000 points for a wrongful death claim. That should translate into at least $732 for two deaths alone, plus more points for survivor and property ownership claims. Instead, Jackson got a notice in the mail this week telling him he would get $44. His sister, Ivy Jackson-Flemon, is getting just $3.22 as a visitor from Houston, even though she filed her parents' death notices with her claim form and has tax forms showing she owned a portion of her parents' home. Beyond the pittance she's getting, Jackson-Flemon was insulted that the notice told her not to call the court, the disbursing agent or the special master. Bruno said the limited access to the court's agents is by design -- to save additional millions that would have been spent from the settlement fund to pay staff to handle complaints and questions. "If they're going to do this, they should do it in an orderly manner, in a way that makes sense for everybody," said David Quinn, whose family lost its home in Chalmette because of 11-foot- high rushing flood waters. "Because I'm sure everybody getting these letters are going through what we're going through right now and they're not understanding what they're looking at." Forgive Quinn's confusion. He got one letter from the court- appointed disbursing agent addressed to him that says his home wasn't in the hurricane-affected area; then another letter, addressed to his wife Sheila said she had property and contents damage that entitle her to $110; and a third letter went to their son Derek, who was 12 years old at the time, and awarded him $56. They all lived together in the same house in Chalmette that took on water up to the ceiling. A court notice in 2013 estimated a family with a home that flooded in more than 4 feet of water would qualify for at least $463. Altogether, this week's notices say they're getting $166. CORRECTIONS CORP: Settles Women Prison Visitors' Tampon Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Mattise, writing for The Associated Press, reports that an agreement has been reached in a lawsuit between the nation's largest private prison operator and women who were ordered to remove their tampons or sanitary pads to prove they were menstruating and not trying to smuggle in contraband. A federal court order on March 6 dismissed claims against Corrections Corporation of America, now named CoreCivic, and officers at South Central Correctional Facility about 85 miles southwest of Nashville. Neither side would discuss specifics. The outcome suggests a confidential settlement that leaves the larger privacy rights question unresolved. It also shields the information from having to be released under Tennessee's public records law, said Alex Friedmann, managing editor of prisoner rights publication Prison Legal News. Two female visitors alleged in the complaint that CoreCivic guards made them expose their genitals to prove they were menstruating. The Nashville-based company argued that it can require women to replace their tampons or pads in the presence of guards if they reasonably suspect visitors are bringing in contraband. It said that in this particular case, the guards had their backs turned. Mr. Friedmann said the undisclosed agreement reflects a lack of transparency in the private prison industry, which relies on contracts paid with taxpayer dollars. CoreCivic, a $4 billion company, generated $1.85 billion in revenue last year. Tennessee Department of Corrections spokeswoman Alison Randgaard referred questions about the case's resolution to the private prison company. She said the agency has no information on the settlement, since it was not named in the lawsuit. CoreCivic's spokesman, Jonathan Burns, said the company "does not comment on litigation." Unlike most of CoreCivic's other Tennessee facilities, South Central Correctional Facility is exempt from public records requests in most circumstances due to a quirk in the law, Mr. Friedmann said. It took a court ruling after Friedman sued to determine that the other facilities do fall under the public records law, he said. "While inquiring minds want to know how much CoreCivic paid the women who filed this lawsuit, and whether the company changed its policies so the conduct alleged in the complaint does not happen again, CoreCivic doesn't want people to know," Mr. Friedmann said. "And presently, the law is on their side." CUPCAKE SPOT: Unpaid Overtime Pay Claimed by "Bell" --------------------------------------------------- Wendy Bell, Kristian Kinder and Elizabeth Osteen, individually, and as class representatives of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Cupcake Spot & Sweet, Inc., a domestic corporation, and Carlos Delgado, a/k/a Miguel Delgado, a/k/a Daniel Delgado, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00484, (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2017), seeks payment of their earned unpaid wages, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a bakery where Plaintiffs worked. Plaintiffs claim to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Peter L. Tragos, Esq. TRAGOS, SARTBS & TRAGOS, PLLC 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 800 Clearwater, FL 33755 Tel: (727) 441-9030 Facsimile: (727) 441-9254 Email: petertragos@greeklaw.com linda@greeklaw.com CYNOSURE INC: "Ira" Contests Shadowy Merger Deal, Seeks More Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Rosenfeld Ira, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cynosure, Inc., Michael R. Davin, William O. Flannery, Brian M. Barefoot, Ettore V. Biagioni, Marina Hatsopoulos, And Thomas H. Robinson, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 10309, (D. Mass., February 24, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from consummating and/or closing the acquisition of Cynosure by Hologic. The lawsuit also seeks rescissory damages, reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Cynosure and Hologic announced that they had entered into a plan of merger dated February 14, 2017 to sell Cynosure to Hologic for $66.00 per share in cash where the deal is approximately $1.44 billion. Plaintiffs allege that this deal was brokered without the proper disclosure of the details of such transaction for the shareholder to make an informed decision and vote on it. Cynosure develops, manufactures and markets aesthetic treatment systems that enable plastic surgeons, dermatologists and other medical practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally invasive procedures. It also markets radiofrequency energy sourced medical devices for precision surgical applications such as facial plastic and general surgery, gynecology, ear, nose and throat procedures, ophthalmology, and oral and maxillofacial surgery. Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAWOFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Tel: (781) 453-0100 Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 DAKOTA OF ROCKY HILL: "McDougle" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS T. McDOUGLE, and ROSEMARIE TAYLOR, for themselves and other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. DAKOTA OF ROCKY HILL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00245 (D. Conn., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover damages calculated as twice the full amount of the minimum wage, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive and equitable relief under Fair Labor Standards Act. From October 2015 through the present date, Defendant has employed Plaintiff Taylor as a server at Dakota Steakhouse located at 1489 Silas Deane Highway, Rocky Hill, Connecticut. In this capacity, Plaintiff Taylor serves food and beverages to persons at tables and booths in the restaurant area. Defendant requires and required Plaintiffs and other similarly situated servers to perform significant amounts of non-service duties without the possibility for earning tips for such work and failed to pay them a wage differential. Defendant posted lists of the non-service duties, or "side-work" performed by Plaintiffs and similarly situated servers in plastic sleeves at the various server stations throughout the restaurant. The Defendant is engaged in the restaurant business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER LAW FIRM 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 522 8888 Facsimile: (860) 218 9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com DELRAY FOOD: "Angle" Hits Illegal Tip-Credit, Seeks Wage Payments ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Angle, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Delray Food Services, Inc., a Florida corporation and Constantine Nicholas, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80235, (S.D. Fla., February 24, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages, damages and relief under the FLSA, including but not limited to liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs and expenses and all equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate Johnnie Brown's Restaurant, a bar and restaurant located in Delray Beach, Florida where Plaintiff was employed from December 16, 2015 to October 17, 2016. Defendants illegally took out a tip-credit thus rendering Angle's pay below minimum wage rates. Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Beutler, Esq. Law Offices of Mark J. Beutler, P.A. One Datran Center, Suite 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (786) 497-7710 Fax: (786) 513-4651 E-mail: mjb@mjbpa.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Maxwell Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled Shelley Maxwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, and Pendrick Capital Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:17-cv-01224 (N.D. Ill.), moves for class certification, and asks that the Court allow her to represent a class of: all persons similarly situated in the State of Illinois from whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent, time-barred consumer debt, allegedly owed for a Windy City Emergency Physicians account, via the same form collection letter that Defendants sent to Plaintiff, from one year before the date of this Complaint to the present. Ms. Maxwell's complaint, filed on February 15, 2017, sets forth that the Defendants' form debt collection letter, attempting to collect a time-barred debt, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pqEiikqg The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 Facsimile: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com angiekrobertson@aol.com ECOLAB INC: Workers Class Certification Sought in "Charlot" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ANTHONY CHARLOT, ALAN REMACHE, JOSE TEJADA, GREGORY GERMUSKA, GARWYN RICHMOND, MATT RIGGS, KRISTOFFER WRIGHT, and CHRISTOPHER HENDLEY, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. ECOLAB, INC., Case No. 2:12-cv-04543-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class consisting of: all persons who have worked for Ecolab, Inc. in New Jersey between September 11, 2010 and the date of final judgment in this matter in a non-supervisory capacity, who regularly performed maintenance, installation and repair services on commercial dishwashing equipment on the premises of Ecolab's customers, including but not limited to Route Managers, Route Sales Managers, and Service and Sales Route Managers. Anthony Charlot, et al., also ask the Court to designate the Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and to appoint their Counsel as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZxQEcwPP The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Molly A. Brooks, Esq. Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2057 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com mb@outtengolden.com sabrahamson@outtengolden.com - and - Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq. Artemio Guerra, Esq. GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC 9 Paradies Lane New Paltz, NY 12561 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com aguerra@getmansweeney.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Ybarra, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 372-5520 Facsimile: (312) 372-7880 E-mail: jybarra@littler.com EMERY FEDERAL: Palombaro Seeks to Certify Class of Borrowers ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned FRANK A. AND SHELLY PALOMBARO, JR., et al. v. EMERY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:15-cv-00792-SJD-KLL (S.D. Ohio), filed their amended motion to certify the class (the "Emery Class") defined as: All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 2602) originated or brokered by Emery Federal Credit Union for which Genuine Title provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014. Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period of January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2014, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of Defendant Emery Federal Credit Union, Genuine Title, LLC, Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Competitive Advantage Media Group LLC, and/or Dog Days Marketing, LLC. The Emery Class are victims of the same illegal kickback scheme, suffered the same injuries, have identical claims against Emery and are entitled to the same statutory measure of damages, says the complaint. As such, the Emery Class satisfies the four elements of Rule 23(a) - numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation - and Rule 23(b)(3), as the common class issues related to Emery's liability predominate over any individual issues and a class action is the superior means of adjudicating the Emery Class' claims. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LIebgG2Q The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory M. Utter, Esq. KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL One East 4th Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 579-6540 Facsimile: (513) 579-6457 E-mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com - and - Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Veronica B. Nannis, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE PA 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com vnannis@jgllaw.com - and - Michael Paul Smith, Esq. Melissa L. English, Esq. SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 821-0070 Facsimile: (410) 821-0071 E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com menglish@sgs-law.com ENTEROMEDICS INC: "Du" Sues Over Onerous Stock Plan, Cries Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vinh Du, derivatively on behalf of Enteromedics, Inc. and individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Enteromedics, Inc. Plaintiff, v. Gary Blackford, Dan W. Gladney, Carl Goldfischer, Bobby I. Griffin, Lori C. Mcdougal, Nicholas L. Teti Jr., Jon T. Tremmel, Nageeb A. Ansari, Peter M. Delange, Paul F. Hickey, Scott Youngstrom, And Enteromedics, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00194, (D. Del., February 24, 2017), seeks to rescind an amended stock plan that reserved 40,000,000 shares of common stock for equity awards to the Company's executive officers, non-employee directors and other insiders, disgorgement of any awards made under such plan, costs and disbursements of this action including reasonable allowance of fees and costs for Plaintiff's attorneys, experts and accountants and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff brings this action to address fiduciary misconduct in connection with a stockholder vote and a stock plan purportedly to implement a reverse stock split at any ratio between 1:20 and 1:70, and to reserve 40,000,000 shares of common stock for equity awards to the Company's executive officers, non-employee directors and other insiders. The Company's public stockholders, including the Plaintiff have suffered a massive dilution of their interest in EnteroMedics. Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Farnan, Esq. Brian E. Farnan, Esq. 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 777-0300 Fax: (302) 777-0301 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com ENTERPRISE LEASING: "James" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Alesia James, Plaintiff, v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Indianapolis LLC and Kerry Johnson, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00609, (S.D. Ind., February 27, 2017), seeks unpaid back wages due with corresponding liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant leases vehicles to customers throughout Indiana where James was employed by Defendants as an Account Executive and/or Sales Consultant from September 16, 2014 to January 30, 2017. Defendants have failed to pay James and those similarly situated her overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW G. JONES 9465 Counselors Row, Suite 200 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Telephone: (317) 616-3671 E-Mail: ajones@andrewgjoneslaw.com FAC MANAGEMENT: Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Pay Sought in "Bryant" --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bryant and Marvin Myers On behalf of themselves and All others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. FAC Management Group LLC and TBG FAC VA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-CV-00061, (W.D. Va., February 17, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest both pre- and post- judgment, attorney's fees and the costs of this action and any other and further relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants engage in the business as sellers of donuts and other baked goods in the City of Salem, doing business as Dunkin Donuts. Plaintiffs were formerly employed by Defendants as assistant managers at the Dunkin Donuts location on Main Street in Salem, Virginia. Plaintiff is represented by: Johneal M. White, Esq. Risa S. Katz, Esq. GLENN ROBINSON & CATHEY PLC Fulton Motor Lofts 400 Salem Avenue, S.W. - Suite 100 Roanoke, VA 24016 Tel: (540) 767-2200 Fax: (540) 767-2220 Email: jwhite@glennrob.com rkatz@glennrob.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Mistreats Older Employees, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------- Tresa Baldas at Detroit Free Press reports that for the second time in two months, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has been hit with a discrimination class action, this one alleging it mistreats older employees during their performance evaluations and as a result, gives them lower pay and fewer promotions than their younger counterparts. Among the allegations: That employees' photographs are used during the performance review process at FCA. According to the lawsuit filed Feb. 27 in U.S. District Court, FCA's upper-level managers who rarely work with the employees they are evaluating have the workers' photo displayed in front of them when they are rating their performance. The lawsuit claims that upper-level managers too often give employees ages 55 and over lower scores, even when the employees' immediate supervisors have given them glowing reviews. This ultimately results in lower pay and fewer promotions for older employees, who, the lawsuit claims, are the victims of a review process that's stacked against them. For plaintiff's attorney Shereef Akeel of Akeel And Valentine, PLC, the use of a worker's picture during an evaluation process is especially startling, "The use of a photograph in reviews is a first for me," Akeel said. "The use of a photograph has no value in determining how well someone performed for a year. Someone can be judged by appearance rather than their performance ... This process is fraught with danger." FCA US said that it had not yet been served with the lawsuit so it could not comment on the allegations. "However, the company does not tolerate discrimination of any kind in the workplace based on a person's age, race, color, sex, sexual orientation, etc.," FCA said in a statement. "All claims of discrimination are investigated thoroughly and in a timely manner, and all violations are punishable up to and including termination." At issue for FCA are claims by a former diversity manager who alleges that while working at FCA she discovered its review process adversely affected older employees and African Americans for at least the years 2014-17. Both groups were disproportionately getting lower scores than their white and younger counterparts. Among those allegedly hurt by FCA's review process is Dan Cerjanec, a 59-year-old midlevel professional who earned a six- figure salary at FCA and worked there for 26 years until he was fired on Feb. 21. According to his age discrimination lawsuit, which is seeking class action status for older employees like himself, he received low scores for three years in a row when he didn't deserve them. On Feb. 21, he was "terminated and escorted out of the building in front of his peers." "He feels betrayed," Akeel said of Cerjanec. "He feels the company let him down." Cerjanec's lawsuit came almost two months after the diversity manager revealed her alleged findings in her own lawsuit. That plaintiff is former FCA Diversity Manager Marlin Williams, who says that part of her job at FCA was to look for potential pay and promotion disparities involving minorities. Her lawsuit claims that after discovering irregularities in pay, she filed a complaint with the company but it cost her. She was fired a year ago following a 30-year career promoting diversity at places such as Compuware, Knowledge Brokers and the City of Detroit. According to Akeel, who is handling the race discrimination lawsuit, that class action could affect 800-1,000 African-American managers at all levels. To date, he said he has heard from about 60 potential class members in that case. FCA has denied the race discrimination claims. "The allegations contained in this lawsuit are without merit," FCA has previously stated. "FCA US does not tolerate harassment or discrimination of any kind in the workplace ... FCA US will pursue a vigorous defense of this challenge to its record and reputation." FIREEYE INC: Judge Will Preliminarily Approve Proposed Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dorothy Atkins at Law360 reports that a California judge indicated on March 3 he'll preliminarily approve FireEye Inc.'s proposed $10.25 million deal resolving class action claims that the cybersecurity company and its executives misled investors about its malware software's effectiveness, causing its stock to plummet, saying the parties only need to tweak the class notice. Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan said during a hearing in San Jose, California, that the parties need to include the proposed attorneys' fees in the notice sent out to the class, as well as "rough estimates" of the settlement administrator's fees. The parties also need to ensure they're not making it overly burdensome for class members to opt out of the deal by requiring them to submit documentation of their stock transactions, the judge said. Those changes aside, Judge Kirwan said he's "happy to hear" the parties have reached a deal, and wants it to move forward. "[I'm] certainly not trying to stand in the way of what appears to be an arm's-length negotiated settlement," he said. The dispute dates back to 2014, when FireEye shareholders launched multiple securities class actions that June and July against the company, its executives and nine investment banks that acted as underwriters for FireEye's second public offering, collectively seeking more than $68 million in damages. The suits allege the defendants made misleading public statements in violation of the Securities Act about FireEye's malware that caused the company's stock price to balloon and then rapidly decline after two public offerings. FireEye first went public in September 2013, opening at $20 per share, according to a consolidated complaint. By 2014, the company had made a host of positive statements about its prospects and products, and FireEye was being touted as a "darling" of Wall Street, the complaint said. In March 2014, FireEye executives and its largest shareholders released more than 14 million shares, selling FireEye stock for $82 per share in a second public offering. But following the second offering, media reports revealed FireEye's malware was disabling nonthreatening computer functions, and as a result, FireEye's corporate clients, including retail giant Target, were disabling FireEye's software altogether, according to the suit. Target claimed that that was one reason hackers were able to attack its data in 2013, which led to a class action and a $10 million settlement, the suit said. FireEye's stock fell, closing in May 2014 at approximately $28 per share, and the plaintiffs filed their class actions. The actions were consolidated in October 2014, and in July, the court certified a class of FireEye common stock purchasers who bought stock during the company's March 6, 2014, secondary public offering. In February, the investors filed a notice that the parties had reached a $10.25 million nonreversionary cash settlement under which the attorneys would receive just over $3.41 million in fees. The plaintiffs argued at the time that the settlement was notable because it is the second-largest recovery ever achieved in a case brought in California state court under the Securities Act of 1933. During a hearing on March 3, Judge Kirwan said he would grant preliminary approval after the parties made his requested changes. A fairness hearing is scheduled for June 9, according to the docket. In November, a California federal judge dismissed another stock drop class action against FireEye that alleged the company didn't adequately warn its investors that it was changing to a high-cost business model. The investors are represented by John T. Jasnoch -- jjasnoch@scott-scott.com -- of Scott & Scott Attorneys At Law LLP and Francis A. Bottini Jr. -- fbottini@bottinilaw.com -- Albert Y. Chang -- achang@bottinilaw.com -- and Yury A. Kolesnikov ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com -- of Bottini & Bottini Inc. FireEye is represented by Boris Feldman -- bfeldman@wsgr.com Ignacio E. Salceda -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- Benjamin M. Crosson -- bcrosson@wsgr.com -- and Doru Gavril -- dgavril@wsgr.com -- of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC. The case is In re. FireEye, Inc., Securities Litigation, case number 2014-1-CV-266866, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. FIRST STEP: Faces "Zeznanski" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Zeznanski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. First Step, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-06023- SOH (W.D. Ark., February 24, 2017), alleges that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for the hours worked in excess of forty hours in a single week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant provides in-home care to disabled or infirm persons in Arkansas. The Plaintiff is employed as a caregiver. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve Rauls, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com FREDERICK-THOMPSON CO: Al-Anazi Seeks to Certify Class, Amend Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ABDALLAH AL-ANAZI and SADAQA NATIONAL, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FREDERICK-THOMPSON COMPANY d/b/a FTI, and BILL THOMPSON TRANSPORT INC., Case No. 5:15-CV-12928-JEL-RSW (E.D. Mich.), moves the Court for an order granting: (1) leave to file a second amended complaint adding additional plaintiffs; and (2) class certification and appointment of class representatives. The Plaintiff Class is defined as: All independent owner-operators who leased a vehicle/tractor to Bill Thompson Transport, Inc. and/or FTI pursuant to a Lease Agreement and whose agreements were in effect at any time within 4 years prior to the date this action was filed or any time after this action was filed. The Plaintiff further moves the Court to appoint the Plaintiff as class representative and to appoint the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HS2PB8es The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack W. Schulz, Esq. Elizabeth A. Gotham, Esq. SCHULZ GOTHAM PLC PO Box 44855 Detroit, MI 48244 Telephone: (313) 246-3590 E-mail: jackwschulz@gmail.com - and - John C. Philo, Esq. Anthony D. Paris, Esq. SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE 4605 Cass Ave., 2nd Floor Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 993-4505 Facsimile: (313) 887-8470 E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org tparis@sugarlaw.org - and - Martin J. Leavitt, Esq. Paul E. Robinson, Esq. SULLIVAN & LEAVITT, P.C. PO. Box 5490 Northville, MI 48167 Telephone: (248) 349-3980 E-mail: mjl@sullivanleavitt.com pr@sullivanleavitt.com FRESH MARKET: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed it has commenced a class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of those who held the common stock of The Fresh Market, Inc. Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have 60 days to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the Class in the action. Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14d-9 against The Fresh Market's board of directors, Pomegranate Holdings, Inc., an affiliate of Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo Global"), Apollo Management VIII, L.P. (together with Apollo Global, "Apollo"), and Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), in connection with the acquisition of The Fresh Market by Apollo ("Transaction"). The complaint alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed with the SEC provided materially incomplete and false and misleading information about the Transaction, in violation of the Exchange Act. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the false and misleading statements and material omissions, which concealed Defendants' manipulation of the sales process for the Company, The Fresh Market shareholders received inadequate consideration for their Company shares. If you were a shareholder of The Fresh Market and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html.You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415- 6616. Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. Charles J. Piven Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Tel: 410-415-6616 E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com FLOOD BROS: Sued in Ill. Cir. Ct. Over Illegitimate Fees -------------------------------------------------------- BBJL PROPERTIES, LLC, for itself and on behalf of all other Illinois Citizens similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FLOOD BROS DISPOSAL CO., d/b/a FLOOD BROTHERS, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-02318 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover fees paid by Plaintiff and members of each class. Defendant provides services to its customers in exchange for an agreed upon service rate. Often, Defendant enters into written agreements for these services. These agreements are uniform and effectively identical. Defendant has breached the terms of its uniform service agreements by requiring Plaintiff and class members to pay the Fees which it force-placed on customer invoices in violation of the pre-printed, uniform agreements entered into between Defendant and its customers. The case presents a prototypical situation for class treatment, says the complaint. Defendant's conduct is uniform among all its customers. The contracts and invoices are identical in all relevant respects. The application of Illinois law to a shared course of conduct will determine liability for each class as a whole, ensuring that the rights of hundreds of small businesses and individuals are vindicated through the efficiency of a single trial. The Plaintiff and members of each putative class have been damaged by Defendant's wrongful conduct by paying the illegitimate fees. The Defendant provides waste disposal and recycling services to customers such as Plaintiff throughout Chicago and its surrounding suburbs. The Plaintiff is represented by: BRANDT LAW LLC P.O. Box 487 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone:(618) 307 6116 Facsimile:(618)307 6161 E-mail: derek@brandtlawllc.com GALENA BIOPHARMA: Sued Over Securities Exchange Act Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- SUE KATTUAH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC., MARK J. AHN, MARK W. SCHWARTZ, RYAN M. DUNLAP, and JOHN T. BURNS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01039 (D.N.J., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Galena's securities between August 11, 2014, and January 31, 2017. On November 20, 2015, the Company announced that it had sold its Abstral product to a private company in a deal valued at up to $12 million, with $8 million cash up-front, and up to $4 million in additional cash upon the achievement of certain sales milestones, effective as of November 19, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the Company announced the departure of the Company's then Chief Financial Officer, Ryan Dunlap, and effective December 31, 2015. On December 22, 2015, the Company announced that it received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey requesting the production of a broad range of documents pertaining to marketing and promotional practices related to Abstral. The price of Galena common stock fell $0.06 per share, or 3.6%, to close at $1.57 per share on December 23, 2015. On January 31, 2017, the Company announced the resignation of Mark W. Schwartz as President, Chief Executive Officer, and a member of the Board of Directors. On this news, the price of Galena common stock fell $0.37 per share, or 22.4%, to close at $1.28 per share on February 1, 2017.2. The stock price continued to decline, falling another $0.16 per share, or 12.5%, to close at $1.12 on February 2, 2017. Throughout the Class Period, says the complaint, the 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 failed to disclose: (1) that the Company violated various statutes in connection with its sales of Abstral; (2) that, as such, the Company was exposed to civil and criminal liability; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Galena's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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. Galena is a biopharmaceutical company that develops hematology and oncology therapeutics. The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994 1700 Facsimile: (973) 994 1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com GENERAL CABLE: Doshi Sues Over Share Price Drop on Bribery News --------------------------------------------------------------- Satish Doshi, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Cable Corporation, Gregory B. Kenny and Brian J. Robinson, Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-00025 (S.D. N.Y.) seeks damages sustained, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and all such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. General Cable is in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets. The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and installation on a turn-key basis for products such as high and extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. Defendants failed to disclose that General Cable paid millions of dollars in bribes to government officials in foreign countries, including Angola, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Indonesia, India and Thailand, in order to secure business in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997, and accrued $33 million in potential FCPA settlement. Plaintiff owns shares of stock of General Cable and lost substantially when share prices dropped after news of this development. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com Defendants are represented by Bernard J. Garbutt, III, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP (NY) 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Tel: (212) 309-6000 Fax: (212) 309-6273 - and - David F. Fessler, Esq. FESSLER, SCHNEIDER & GRIMME 14 N. Grand Avenue Ft. Thomas, KY 41075 Tel: (859) 291-9075 Fax: (859) 291-9165 Email: dfessler@fsgattorneys.com GEORGIO'S BAKERY: "Solarte" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- DIEGO FERNANDO PEREZ SOLARTE and all others similarly situate, the Plaintiff, v. GEORGIO'S BAKERY MARKET, INC., a/k/a GEORGIOS BAKERY & BISTRO, PETER TSIALIAMANIS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 20513-JAL (S.D. Fla., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and/or minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The action arises under the laws of the United States. The case is brought as a collective action. It is believed that the Defendants have employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiffs who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of the complaint back three years. The complaint says the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the FLSA as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSA. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865 6766 Facsimile: (305) 865 7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM GERON CORP: Settles Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that Geron Corp said on March 2 parties to securities class action executed a stipulation and agreement of settlement to settle securities class action Geron Corp said settlement does not constitute any admission of fault or wrongdoing by company or any of individual defendants Geron Corp said expects $6.0 million of settlement amount to be paid by the company's insurance providers and remaining $250,000 to be paid by company. Geron said in exchange for dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants in lawsuit, co to settle securities class action for $6.25 million in cash. GF-PASSAIC FOODS: Faces "Barile" Suit Over "Excessive" Sales Tax ---------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK BARILE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GF-PASSAIC FOODS, LLC and GF-EAST PATTERSON FOODS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. PAS-L 659-17(N.J. Super., Passaic County, February 27, 2017), accuses Defendants of charging excess sales tax and pocketing the overcharges in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and other consumer protection laws. Defendant GF-Passaic Foods, LLC is a New Jersey entity operating a supermarket under the name Gala Fresh Farms. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Oorbeek, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Phone: (732) 545-7900 Fax: (732) 545-1030 - and - David C. Ricci, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC 51 JFK Parkway, First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone: (973) 218-2627 Fax: (973) 206-6955 GIODARNO CONSTRUCTION: Overtime Pay Claimed in "Giron" Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erwin Giron, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Giodarno Construction, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00623, (S.D. Tex., February 26, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-judgment interest for failure to pay overtime wages and compensation for hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant operates a construction firm where Giron worked for the Defendant as a concrete finisher and manual laborer, delivering tools and materials to various locations, construction work, debris removal and cleaning. Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Chruby Moves for Certification of Five Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled WALTER CHRUBY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, Case No. 5:15-cv-05136-TLB (W.D. Ark.), ask the Court to approve their class notice in accordance with a notice program and to certify two unjust enrichment classes: UE CLASS 1: All persons who, while in Arkansas, California, Indiana, or Vermont, at any time on or after April 24, 2011, paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the intrastate calls; and UE CLASS 2: All persons who, while in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, South Dakota, or Virginia, at any time on or after April 24, 2011, paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the intrastate calls. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to certify the action to proceed as specific state class actions on behalf of three state statutory Classes asserting, respectively, claims under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Arkansas, California Unfair Competition Law, and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law: The Arkansas Statutory Class: All persons who, while in Arkansas, at any time on or after June 12, 2010: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the intrastate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any intrastate calls; The California Statutory Class: All persons who, while in California at any time on or after August 28, 2011: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the intrastate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any intrastate calls; and The Pennsylvania Statutory Class: All persons who, while in Pennsylvania, at any time on or after April 24, 2008: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any interstate calls. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint: -- Plaintiffs Jacqueline Mills Jacobs and Shondra Caldwell together as the representatives of UE Class 1 and respectively, as the representatives of the Arkansas Statutory Class and California Statutory Class; -- Plaintiffs Walter Chruby, Earl Reese, Stephen Orosz, Jr., Stephen Orosz, Sr., Michael Veon, Stefanie Veon, and Lewis Brooks as the representatives of UE Class 2 and the Pennsylvania Statutory Class; and -- the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Berger & Montague, P.C., Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky P.C., and Cohen Milstein Seller & Toll, PLLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel serving on a Co-Lead Class Counsel Committee, with KTMC serving as the Chair of such Committee, and Amy C. Martin P.A. as Liaison Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u3muILny The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter A. Muhic, Esq. Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. Amanda R. Trask, Esq. Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com dmoffa@ktmc.com atrask@ktmc.com mgalloway@ktmc.com - and - Amy C. Martin, Esq. AMY C. MARTIN P.A. P.O. Box 765 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Telephone: (479) 422-4611 E-mail: theamymartin@gmail.com - and - Daniel Berger, Esq. Peter R. Kahana, Esq. Barbara A. Podell, Esq. Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: danberger@bm.net pkahana@bm.net bpodell@bm.net mitwersky@bm.net - and - Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Robert Braun, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com RBraun@cohenmilstein.com elevens@cohenmilstein.com - and - Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VA: Transgender Discrimination Case Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that major technology companies and other businesses, warning of the negative business consequences of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against a transgender boy's sex discrimination claim, on March 2 stepped into a simmering controversy that pits them against the Trump administration. More than 50 companies -- including Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Microsoft Corp., Airbnb Inc. and Twitter Inc. -- are taking a stand on whether Title IX's ban on sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of gender identify. The companies, including non-tech businesses such as Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance, The Gap and Williams-Sonoma, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court backing discrimination claims brought by a Virginia teenager. "This was an easy one for us," Michael O'Connor, general counsel to MassMutual Financial Group, said on March 2. "We've believed for a long time in the diversity, inclusion and equality that impact people, whether they are our employees, agents or customers. It's not a political issue; it's about people." Many of the companies on the brief less than a month ago weighed in against the Trump administration's travel restrictions targeting immigrants from seven majority Muslim countries. Their argument then, as reflected in the transgender litigation, boils down to this: Government efforts to curtail rights is bad for business. The Trump administration has yet to file a brief in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. But on Feb. 22, the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Education Department withdrew statements of guidance protecting transgender students' use of bathrooms associated with their gender identity. The guidance formed the basis of a Fourth Circuit decision in favor of Virginia student Gavin Grimm, whose case is now pending in the Supreme Court. Oral argument is set for March 28. The amicus brief filed on March 2 by the 53 companies came together through the efforts of the Human Rights Campaign and the law firm Baker & Hostetler. Deborah Renner -- drenner@bakerlaw.com -- head of Baker & Hostetler's class action practice and the New York's office's pro bono coordinator, is counsel of record on the brief. Sarah Warbelow, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign, said the brief was the product of "relationships that we developed with corporations" over the last 10 years. "We ask corporations to step up and protect their LGBTQ employees. Now we asking them to take the next step and advocate outside the walls of their own workplace," she said. "This particular brief is a significant step for these corporations in no small part because the people directly and immediately affected by the Supreme Court decision are transgender students who are not really in the workforce." Human Rights Campaign typically reaches out to corporations to let them know far in advance that the advocacy group is preparing a brief, Ms. Warbelow said. "We host a webinar and invite all of the corporations we work with to participate," she said. "We lay out the case for the corporations and invite the counsel who is working with us to participate." Ms. Warbelow, her colleagues and the counsel follow up with individual corporations. "We answer lots of technical questions, take feedback and work with the law firm to incorporate the feedback into the brief," she added. Baker & Hostetler, she said, had let Human Rights Campaign know that it was very interested in supporting the LGBTQ community. Ms. Warbelow said the companies that participated in the brief "are open to the general public in terms of their facilities and that's critically important." A Supreme Court ruling against Grimm, the companies on the brief argued, will harm the recruitment and retention of employees, harm transgender employees and the employee parents of transgender children, and bring adverse effects on commerce, as evident from business withdrawals and avoidance of North Carolina because of its anti-transgender policies. GRAEBEL VAN: "Coronel" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- FIDEL CORONEL, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GRAEBEL VAN LINES, LLC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 651805 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 27, 2017), arises out of Defendants' alleged misclassification of its truck and moving drivers as independent contractors, and other labor violations, including but not limited to, failure to pay wages, unlawful deductions of business expenses, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and other labor code violations and unfair business practices. Go By Truck reports that California labor law requires drivers who work shifts lasting more than four hours receive a 10-minute rest break and drivers who work shifts longer than five or 10 hours must be provided 30-minute meal breaks. Fidel Coronel worked for Graebel and was classified, incorrectly according to the lawsuit, as an independent contractor. The suit seeks class action status for drivers who worked or lived in California and were employed by the company within the last four years. "Defendants (Graebel Van Lines) have engaged in a pattern and practice of misclassifying their employees as independent contractors to avoid the taxes, insurance and other costs that accompany employees," the complaint states. Defendants provide various shipping, moving, and delivery services throughout California and the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Graham G. Lambert, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 514-5681 Fax: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: Ghh@haffiierlawyers.com gl@haffiierlawyers.com GOOGLE INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss BIPA Violation Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Neuburger at JD Supra Business Advisor said that "we've closely followed the numerous biometric privacy disputes and legislative developments surrounding the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which precludes the unauthorized collection and storing of some types of biometric data. In the latest ruling, an Illinois district court refused to dismiss a putative class action alleging that the cloud-based Google Photos service violated BIPA by automatically uploading plaintiffs' mobile photos and allegedly scanning them to create unique face templates (or "faceprints") for subsequent photo-tagging without consent. (Rivera v. Google, Inc., No. 16-02714 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2017))." This is the third instance where a district court refused, at an early stage of a litigation, to dismiss BIPA claims relating to the online collection of facial templates for photo-tagging purposes. Unlike those prior courts' relatively cursory interpretations, however, the Rivera court's expansive 30-page opinion is the deepest dive yet into the statutory scheme (and purported vagaries) of the Illinois statute. The decision is the latest must-read for mobile or online services that collect and store biometric data from users as to what extent their activities might fall under the Illinois biometric privacy statute. It may well turn out that the plaintiffs' claims in Rivera (as well as the ongoing biometric privacy litigation going on in California) may prove unsuccessful on procedural or statutory grounds, yet, these initial takes on the scope of BIPA stress the importance of examining current practices and rollouts of new services that feature biometrics. The plaintiffs in Rivera claimed that Google's creation of faceprints in Google Photos and subsequent storage of "biometric identifiers" was performed without consent in violation of BIPA. The plaintiffs also alleged that Google did not make publicly available a biometric data retention and destruction schedule as required by the Act. In response, Google filed a motion to dismiss, principally arguing that BIPA only covers in-person scans of facial geometry and does not cover photographs or information derived from photographs. In addition, among other contentions, Google advanced a jurisdictional argument that BIPA does not regulate behavior outside of Illinois and that the creation and storage of facial scans in its cloud-based service did not occur "primarily and substantially" in the forum. The court denied the motion. The Illinois statute, generally speaking, prohibits an entity from collecting, capturing, purchasing, or otherwise obtaining a person's "biometric identifier" or "biometric information," unless it satisfies certain notice and consent and data retention requirements. The statute contains defined terms and limitations, and parties in ongoing suits are currently litigating what "biometric identifiers" and "biometric information" mean under the statute and whether the collection of facial templates from uploaded photographs using sophisticated facial recognition technology fits within the ambit of the statute. The relevant definitions are as follows: "Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry. Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, photographs . . .. "Biometric information" means any information, regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual's biometric identifier used to identify an individual. Biometric information does not include information derived from items or procedures excluded under the definition of biometric identifiers. In the court's thinking, the definition of biometric identifier is "simply a list of specified things that does not distinguish the manner in which the identifier is generated," and "biometric information" is simply a qualifier that ensures that "private entities cannot do an end-around [BIPA] by converting biometric identifiers into some other format." In denying the motion, the court rejected Google's argument that face-scan measurements derived from a photograph do not qualify as biometric identifiers, holding that "nothing in the text of [BIPA] directly supports this interpretation." The court states this proposition in several passages in its decision: "Nothing in the statute says, one way or the other, how the biometric measurements must be obtained (or stored, for that matter) in order to meet the definition of 'biometric identifier.' The definition simply lists the specific identifiers that are covered. And the particular biometric identifiers can, in fact, be collected in various ways without altering the fact that the measurements still are biometric identifiers." "Indeed, because advances in technology are what drove the Illinois legislature to enact [BIPA] in the first place, it is unlikely that the statute sought to limit the definition of biometric identifier by limiting how the measurements are taken. Who knows how iris scans, retina scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, and scans of faces and hands will be taken in the future? It is not the how that is important to the Privacy Act; what's important is the potential intrusion on privacy posed by the unrestricted gathering of biometric information. The bottom line is that a 'biometric identifier' is not the underlying medium itself, or a way of taking measurements, but instead is a set of measurements of a specified physical component (eye, finger, voice, hand, face) used to identify a person." [emphasis added] The court noted that the plaintiffs are not claiming that the photographs themselves were biometric identifiers, rather the faceprints captured from them. In fact, the court commented that had Google "simply captured and stored the photographs and did not measure and generate scans of face geometry, then there would be no violation of the Act." Still, while ruling that the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim under BIPA at this early stage, the court remarked that Google might eventually prevail on its argument that the statute does not cover what Google collects from user photos once the factual record is further developed in discovery. Secondary Argument: Extraterritorial Effect In addition to its statutory-based arguments, Google contended that its photo tagging activities occurred outside of Illinois and therefore fell beyond the reach of BIPA -- that is, the plaintiffs' claims were an extraterritorial (and therefore non- actionable) application of BIPA. While the court held that BIPA does not have extraterritorial effect outside Illinois, and any asserted violations must take place in Illinois to be actionable, the court concluded that discovery was required to determine the locations of any alleged violations as a matter of law. Illinois law applies a "totality of the circumstances" test to determine whether a transaction occurs within the state, and the court noted that given the novel technology at issue in this dispute, there was little guidance concerning such cloud-based transactions of this type. While the plaintiffs alleged that they were Illinois residents and the injury involved photos automatically uploaded in Illinois from an Illinois-based IP address, Google countered that the plaintiffs failed to pinpoint where any supposed lack of consent occurred or a location for the actual scanning of face geometry (which in Google's thinking, would be the determinative "situs" of the alleged BIPA violation). While the court left the issue for another day, it stated that even if it could definitely determine that the actual facial scanning took place outside of Illinois, that fact "would not necessarily be dispositive." GRANA Y MONTERO: Faces "Peralta" Suit Over Odebrecht "Bribes" ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CARLOS VALENCIA PERALTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. GRANA Y MONTERO S.A.A., MARIO ALVARADO PFLUCKER, and MONICA MILOSLAVICH, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01105 (E.D.N.Y., February 27, 2017), alleges that Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company was aware that its Brazilian partner Odebrecht S.A. paid bribes to former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo to win construction work on a road traveling from Peru to Brazil. Defendant Grana y Montero is a Peruvian corporation that is headquartered at Lima, Peru. Grana y Montero provides engineering and construction, infrastructure, real estate, and technical services in Latin America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com HERTZ CORP: Beach-Barrow Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ DUANE BEACH-BARROW on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. RG17848833 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest period compensation, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Labor Code and IWC Wage Order. The Defendants and/or DOES are and were aware that Plaintiff and members of the proposed Plaintiff Class were not paid all straight time and overtime wages owed, nor provided meal and rest periods. Defendants' and/or DOES denial of wages and other compensation due to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Plaintiff class was willful and deliberate, says the complaint. The Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings Inc., is an American car rental company with international locations in 150 countries worldwide. Hertz is the largest U.S. car rental company by sales. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 4048 HMS HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Delay on Release of Fin'l Results --------------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP, a national securities litigation firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against HMS Holdings Corp. ("HMS or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HMSY) and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the federal securities laws. The deadline to move the court for lead plaintiff status is May 2, 2017. If you purchased or otherwise acquired HMS securities between May 10, 2016 and March 2, 2017 (the "Class Period") and wish to learn more about your options, you are encouraged to contact attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, by email at bradley@blockesq.com, or visit www.blockesq.com/hms. In November of 2016, HMS revealed that there "could be a material negative impact on our future revenue in future periods" in connection with disputes over the Company's Medicare Recovery Audit Contractor, owned by HMS, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. On this news, HMS shares fell 21.5%, causing tens of millions in losses to investors. On March 2, 2017, HMS announced it would be unable to timely file its full-year 2016 financial results, revealing that the Company had identified a "material weakness in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting," resulting in a stock drop of another 2.5%. The case, brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise HMS securities during the Class Period, alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) HMS lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; and (2) as a result, HMS's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, and that when the truth was revealed, investors suffered damages. Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with relevant information is assured. Block & Leviton LLP is a Boston-based law firm representing investors nationwide. The firm's lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases on behalf of individual and institutional investors for over 50 years, and have recovered billions of dollars on their behalf. Block & Leviton's investigations into corporate wrongdoing were recently covered by the New York Times. The case, filed March 3, 2017, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and is captioned Danahar v. HMS Holdings Corp., et al., Ca No. 3:17-cv-01494 (D.N.J.). The court is located at 4th & Cooper Streets, Camden, New Jersey 08101. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. Bradley J. Vettraino Block & Leviton LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Tel No: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: bradley@blockesq.com HOGAN TRANSPORTS: Bid to Certify Class in "Fairfax" Suit Mooted --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. George C. Smith ruled that the Plaintiff's initial motion to certify class filed in the lawsuit entitled DON FAIRFAX v. HOGAN TRANSPORTS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00680-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), is now moot. The Plaintiff initiated the action on July 14, 2016, and on the same day filed a motion to certify class. On August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff requested leave to file a second amended complaint naming two additional Defendants. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion and the second amended complaint was placed on the docket on August 25, 2016. Therefore, Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion to Certify Class. "In light of the filing of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and the Renewed Motion to Certify Class, Plaintiff's initial Motion to Certify is now MOOT," Judge Smith ruled. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gwu9zZ4F H.O.P.E. PROGRAM: "Fillion-Frye" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Fillion-Frye, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The H.O.P.E. Program, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00118, (M.D. Fla., February 24, 2017), seeks damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, disgorgement of any ill-gotten funds acquired as a result of unlawful telephone calling practices, injunction to cease all unsolicited text messaging, all expenses of this action and such other and further relief. Defendant runs and operates several services that assist consumers in repairing their credit and assists them in finding and/or purchasing homes. More specifically, it helps consumers with bad credit buy a home or qualify for a rent-to-own homes. It combines the removal of bad credit with the addition of good credit in order to help consumers increase their credit score. Defendant uses a telemarketing campaign that uses repeated unsolicited autodialed telephone calls and/or text messages to consumers' cellular telephones without consent. Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PA. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 Email: law@stefancoleman.com HSBC BANK: "Wolff" Suit Alleges False Ad of Referral Funds ---------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR WOLFF, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01552 (C.D. Cal., February 24, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant's alleged practice of falsely advertising that they will provide consumers funds for referrals when they have no intention to provide such funds and to obtain redress for a nationwide class of consumers who were misled, within the applicable statute of limitations period, by Defendant. The case alleges violation of Unfair Competition Law and violation of Unfair Competition Law. Defendant HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION is a Foreign Stock National Association with its United States principal place of business in Virginia. Defendant is a bank that owns hundreds of locations across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com ICHIBAN GROUP: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wage Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- XUE HUI ZHANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ICHIBAN GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant and d/b/a Takara; ICHIBAN FOOD SERVICES, INC. d/b/a Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant and d/b/a Takara; CHEN & JU, INC. d/b/a Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant and d/b/a Takara; DAVID L IP; SHIOW FEI JU; SHIN SHII JU; CHWON TZU JU; LIPING JU; TYNG QUH JU; and TOMMY JU, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00148-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs under New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees at least the hourly minimum wage rate for each hour worked, says the complaint. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs their lawfully due overtime compensation of one and one half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs were not exempt under federal and state laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime. The Defendants failed to keep full and accurate records of Plaintiffs' hours and wages. Ichiban Group is a small organization in the restaurants industry located in Albany, New York. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762 1324 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: "Huang" Sues Over Drop in Innocoll Share Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jianmin Huang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company, Anthony P. Zook, Jose Carmona and Lesley Russel, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00740, (E.D. Penn., February 16, 2017), seeks damages, including interest, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Exchange Act. Innocoll is a global, specialty pharmaceutical company with late stage development programs, including proprietary, biocompatible, and biodegradable collagen products. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that its lead product XARACOLL for postsurgical pain treatment entailed undisclosed health and safety risks and it had overstated the drug's approval prospects and/or commercial viability. On this news, Innocoll's share price fell $1.08, or 61.02%, to close at $0.69 on December 30, 2016. Plaintiff purchased Innocoll shares and lost substantially. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Steven J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. Adam H. Farra, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-3640 Facsimile: (202)408-4699 Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com afarra@cohenmilstein.com - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Mark L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKI & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA Telephone: (877) 834-2590 Email: esmith@brodskismith.com mackerman@brodskismith.com INTERLINE BRANDS: Ajose Moves to Certify Classes and Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JACQUELYN D. AJOSE, KATHY SMITH, SHARON KURTZ, PATRICIA EVETT, & JAMES L. BOYLAND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. INTERLINE BRANDS, INC., Case No. 3:14-cv-01707 (M.D. Tenn.), seek certification of these nationwide class and relevant subclasses: -- Nationwide Class: Nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) Equitable Relief Class (represented by all named plaintiffs): All persons and entities in the United States who own or reside in a structure with a DuraPro Connector that has not yet failed; -- Rule 23(b)(3) Strict Liability Classes: * Arizona Subclass: Arizona Rule 23(b)(3) Strict Liability Class (represented by Patricia Evett): All persons and entities residing in Arizona who own or reside in a structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro Connector; * Colorado Subclass 1: Colorado Rule 23(b)(3) Strict Liability Class (represented by Kathy Smith): All persons and entities residing in Colorado who own or reside in a structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro Connector; * Florida Subclass 1: Florida Rule 23(b)(3) Strict Liability Class (represented by James Boyland): All persons and entities residing in Florida who own or reside in a structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro Connector; * Pennsylvania Subclass 1: Pennsylvania Rule 23(b)(3) Strict Liability Class (represented by Jacquelyn Ajose): All persons and entities residing in Pennsylvania who own or reside in a structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro Connector; * Texas Subclass 1: Texas Rule 23(b)(3) Strict Liability Class (represented by Sharon Kurtz): All persons and entities residing in Texas who own or reside in a structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro Connector. -- Rule 23(b)(3) Implied Warranty Classes: * Non-Privity Implied Warranty/MMWA Rule 23(b)(3) Class: (represented by Kathy Smith, Jacquelyn Ajose and/or Sharon Kurtz): All persons and entities residing in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, who own or reside is a structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro Connector; * Colorado Subclass 2: Colorado Rule 23(b)(3) Implied Warranty/MMWA Class (represented by Kathy Smith): All persons and entities residing in Colorado who own or reside is a structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro Connector; * Pennsylvania Subclass 2: Pennsylvania Rule 23(b)(3) Implied Warranty/MMWA Class (represented by Jacquelyn Ajose): All persons and entities residing in Pennsylvania who own or reside is a structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro Connector; * Texas Subclass 2: Texas Rule 23(b)(3) Implied Warranty/MMWA Class (represented by Sharon Kurtz): All persons and entities residing in Texas who own or reside is a structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro Connector. -- Rule 23(b)(3) Consumer Protection Class: * Florida Subclass 2: Florida Rule 23(b)(3) FDUPTA Class (represented by James Boyland): All persons who purchased an Interline Toilet Connector in Florida. Excluded for all Classes are: (i) Interline, its parent company The Home Depot, Inc., any entity either maintains a controlling interest, including any other subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees and members of said person's immediate families; (ii) the presiding judge(s) and their immediate family; and (iii) any claim for personal injury caused by a DuraPro Connector. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives of the Nationwide Class and each Plaintiff as representative of his or her respective state Subclasses. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, and Berger & Montague, P.C. as class counsel for all Plaintiffs; and appoint Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings PLLC as liaison counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KdREnc1c The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com seamusk@bsjfirm.com - and - Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3986 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT, LLP 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Glen L. Abramson, Esq. Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4656 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net gabramson@bm.net josterwise@bm.net The Defendant is represented by: John R. Tarpley, Esq. LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C. 424 Church Street, Suite 2500 P.O. Box 198615 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 259-1366 Facsimile: (615) 259-1389 E-mail: jtarpley@lewisthomason.com - and - Hilarie Bass, Esq. Mark A. Salky, Esq. Timothy A. Kolaya, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 579-0500 Facsimile: (305) 579-0717 E-mail: bassh@gtlaw.com salkym@gtlaw.com kolayat@gtlaw.com - and - David O. Batista, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 2000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4223 Telephone: (954) 765-0500 Facsimile: (954) 765-1477 E-mail: batistad@gtlaw.com INVENSENSE INC: "Dunham" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal with TDK --------------------------------------------------------------- David Dunham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi, Amir Faintuch, Emiko Higashi, Jon Olson, Amit Shah, Eric Stang, Yunbei Yu, Usama Fayyad, TDK Corporation and TDK Sensor Solutions Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00957, (N.D. Cal., February 24, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. InvenSense and TDK agreed to merge, with TDK acquiring all of the outstanding shares of InvenSense. Under the terms of the merger agreement, InvenSense public stockholders will receive $13.00 in cash for every share of InvenSense common stock held, for an approximate aggregate value of $1.3 billion. Defendants have exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock up the merger with preclusive and onerous deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making successful competing offers for the Company including a no solicitation provision that prevents the Company from negotiating with or providing confidential information to competing bidders except under extremely limited circumstances and a matching rights provision that allows TDK to match any competing proposal in the unlikely event that one emerges and up to $46,700,000 in termination fees if the Board agrees to a competing proposal, says the complaint. Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKI AND SMITH, LLP 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 INVENSENSE INC: "Isaac" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------- Atef Isaac, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi, Amir Faintuch, Emiko Higashi, Jon Olson, Amit Shah, Eric Stang, Yunbei Yu, Usama Fayyad, TDK Corporation and TDK Sensor Solutions Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01014, (N.D. Cal., February 27, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. InvenSense and TDK agreed to merge, with TDK acquiring all of the outstanding shares of InvenSense. Under the terms of the merger agreement, InvenSense public stockholders will receive $13.00 in cash for every share of InvenSense common stock held, for an approximate aggregate value of $1.3 billion. The complaint says Defendants have exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock up the merger with preclusive and onerous deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making successful competing offers for the Company including a no solicitation provision that prevents the Company from negotiating with or providing confidential information to competing bidders except under extremely limited circumstances and a matching rights provision that allows TDK to match any competing proposal in the unlikely event that one emerges and up to $46,700,000 in termination fees if the Board agrees to a competing proposal. InvenSense designs, develops, markets and sells sensor systems on a chip, including accelerometers, gyroscopes and microphones for the mobile, wearable, smart home, gaming, industrial, and automotive market segments. Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 291-2420 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 Email: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com - and - Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. BROWER PIVEN - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 501-9000 Facsimile: (212) 501-0300 Email: kuznicki@browerpiven.com INVUITY INC: "Paciga" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ MIKE PACIGA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff vs. INVUITY, INC., PHILIP SAWYER and JAMES H. MACKANESS, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01005-JSW (N.D. Cal., February 27, 2017), alleges that Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. In particular, Defendants allegedly failed to disclose: (a) that the continued opportunities for growth in mature active accounts stagnated after the initial sale of a new product; (b) that revenues per active account were actually declining; and (c) that the Company's sales force was not meeting stated revenue growth goals in mature active accounts. Invuity, Inc. is a medical technology company that develops, markets, and sells single-use and reusable medical technology for use by surgeons across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com IOD INC: "Ortiz" Sues for Overcharging of Medical Record Copies --------------------------------------------------------------- VICKY ORTIZ Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs against IOD INC. and COLUMBIA PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants, INDEX NO. 650984/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of New York, February 24, 2017), alleges that the members of the proposed class were overcharged by Defendants for copies of her hospital and/or medical records in violation of the statutory maximum charges permissible under New York Public Health Law Section 18, which is not to exceed the actual costs incurred by Defendants and, under no circumstance, to exceed a charge of seventy-five cents ($0.75) per page. The proposed class consists of any and all persons or entities who requested copies of medical records in the State of New York via an authorization either personally or by his or her legal representative. Defendants IOD INC. and COLUMBIA PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER are a hospital and/or "healthcare provider." The Plaintiff is represented by: Lowell J. Sidney, Esq. 244 Fifth Avenue - Suite 8Q278 New York, NY 10001 Phone: 888-222-0513 J.C. PENNEY: "Anderson" Sues Over Disabled Inaccessible Stories --------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., and J.C. Penney Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. RG 17850641, alleges that despite an extended period of time in which to become compliant with building requirements and despite the extensive publicity the California Disabled Persons Act and Unruh Act has received over the years, Defendants continue to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from equal access to and use of their stores. Defendants operate 25 department stores in the state of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilkshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 877 534 2590 Fax: 310 247 0160 J.T. WIMSATT: "Guevarra" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO GUEVARA, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. J.T. WIMSATT CONTRACTING CO., INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC650098 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to recover nominal damages; restitution of all monies due to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class, and disgorged profits from the unlawful business practices of Defendant; waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Labor Code; interest accrued to date; injunctive relief, enjoining Defendants from engaging in their unlawful and unfair business practices; and declaratory relief. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of Plaintiff Class, seeks relief against Defendant for the failure to reimburse employees for necessary expenditures under the Cal. Labor Code; the failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements upon payment of wages pursuant to Cal. Labor Code, and the IWC Wage Orders; and failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees pursuant to Cal. Labor Code. The Plaintiff further seeks equitable remedies in the form of declaratory relief and injunctive relief, and relief under the Bus. & Prof. Code for unfair business practices. JT Wimsatt is a structural concrete contractor from conception to completion. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590 5550 Facsimile: (562) 590 8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net KIDS FIRST DENTISTRY: "Jeffers" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Tonya Jeffers, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kids First Dentistry, Inc. and Jila J. Mahajan, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00231, (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2017), seeks declaratory relief, unpaid back wages and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a dental clinic in Duval County where Jeffers worked as a front office assistant. Plaintiff claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Paul M. Botros, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3017 E-Mail: Qbotros@forthegeogle.com KOHL'S CORP: "Tran" Suit Alleges FCRA Breach -------------------------------------------- Larry Tran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kohl's Corporation (d/b/a Kohl's), Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. (d/b/a Kohl's) and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00269, (C.D. Cal., February 27, 2017), seeks statutory and punitive damages including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses as required by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Defendants own, manage, maintain and or operate approximately 1,166 Kohl's department stores that sell, among other things, exclusive and national brand apparel, footwear, accessories, beauty and home products to their retail customers. Plaintiff alleges that his credit card expiration date was printed on his receipt, thus exposing him to credit card fraud and identity theft should anyone get hold of this receipt. Plaintiff is represented by: Chant Yedalian, Esq. CHANT & COMPANY 1010 North Central Avenue Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (877) 574-7100 FacsImile: (877) 574-9411 KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Kohl's Cash Marketing ---------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL WATERS, an individual, and TONY VALENTI, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1-100, the Defendant, Case No. BC650906 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover general damages, treble damages, special damages, and punitive damages from Defendant. The action arises from a massive fraud perpetrated by Defendants in connection with the marketing and employment of their discounts and their "rewards" program. With every purchase at Kohl's, customers earn Kohl's Cash, which can then be applied towards subsequent purchases. Although Defendants' labeling of the rewards program infers, implies, and/or represents that Kohl's Cash can be used as actual "cash," in truth, Defendants do not treat it as such. In contrast to actual cash, Defendants apply Kohl's Cash prior to applying any percent-off discounts. By deducting Kohl's Cash from the purchase price prior to applying any percent-off discounts, Defendants prevent customers from obtaining and receiving the full amount and benefit of the advertised or marketed discount and/or the full amount and benefit of Kohl's Cash. This results in the customer overpaying for the goods and Defendants retaining the amount of overpayment. Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury if Defendants are permitted to continue to engage in the conduct described herein. Plaintiffs and members of the Class are thus entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, and their agents, servants, employees and all persons acting under or in concert with them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Esensten, Esq. Jordan S. Esensten, Esq. ESENSTEN LAW 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 273 3090 Facsimile: (310) 207 5969 E-mail: resensten@esenstenlaw.com iesensten@esenstenlaw.com KONA BREWING: Misleads Consumers on Beer Origin, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Fox News reports the bottles might sport hula dancers, surfers and big waves but two California residents say the company that owns Kona Brewing Co. is misleading shoppers into believing they're buying beer brewed in Hawaii. In a lawsuit filed on February 28 in the U.S. District Court of California Northern District, Sara Cilloni and Simone Zimmer allege that Craft Brew Alliance misleads consumers about the true origin of beers bearing the Kona Brewing Co. brand, reports West Hawaii Today. In the suit, the plaintiffs say the company's use of hula dancers, surfers, the Kilauea volcano, Waikiki beach, and other images and phrases clearly associated with the Aloha State are deceiving customers into paying more for the craft ales. The names of the beers such as Big Wave Golden Ale, Castaway IPA, Fire Rock Pale Ale and Longboard Island Lager also allegedly give off a deceptively Hawaiian vibe. Despite the bottle imagery that hints at Hawaiian origin, nothing on the packaging makes it clear as to where the beer is actually brewed. According to the company's website, the fifth-largest U.S. craft brewer makes beer at facilities in New Hampshire, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington state -- and any beer sold in the upper 48 is brewed at one of these facilities. However, Kona Brewing Co. does operate a flagship brew house in Kailua-Kona on the Big Island of Hawaii, but that facility only produces around 12,000 barrels of beer annually. Although most of their beers are not brewed in Hawaii, according to Kona's website, the beer brewed at partner breweries is made with hops, malt and proprietary yeast from the island state. The mineral levels of the water used are also reportedly adjusted to replicate the water used in Hawaii. The website also claims that a sample from each batch of beer is sent to the Kailua-Kona brewery for sensory evaluation. The lawsuit is seeking class action status and unspecified damages for Kona purchasers in the state of California -- and nationwide - - over four years. Kona isn't the only beermaker to come under fire for allegedly deceptive marketing practices. In Dec. 2015, a New York City man sued Foster's beer for allegedly deceiving him into thinking the company's beer brewed in Texas was actually made in Australia. And last summer, Anheuser-Busch agreed to settle a $50 million class action suit over allegations that it fooled customers into thinking Beck's beer was from Germany when the U.S. bottles are actually made in St. Louis now. Craft Brew Alliance says it does not comment on pending litigation. KRISPY KREME: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Craver at Winston-Salem Journal reports that a federal judge has denied Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc.'s request for dismissal of a federal false-advertising lawsuit involving ingredient flavors. Judge Stephen Wilson, of the Central District of California, ruled on February 27 that the company has not proven to date it would be harmed by the lawsuit filed Nov. 9 by Jason Saidian. The lawsuit focuses on Krispy Kreme's chocolate-iced raspberry- filled, glazed raspberry-filled, maple-iced glazed, maple bar, glazed blueberry cake and donut holes sold in its doughnut shops. Saidian claims he purchased the raspberry doughnut in 2015 because raspberries "are a rich source of Vitamin C, Vitamin K, potassium and dietary fiber . . . . and help fight against cancer, heart and circulatory disease, and age-related decline." Saidian's attorneys cited other potential health benefits from premium maple and blueberry ingredients. AmLaw Litigation Daily has called the case one of the three worst consumer-protection lawsuits of 2016 However, what moves the lawsuit from being considered as potentially frivolous is that California law has a low bar for proving violations of business and professions code as well as false advertising and breach of contract. Saidian is being represented by a law firm -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP -- that specializes in consumer class-action cases. Saidian is requesting at least $5 million in damages as well as disgorging of profits made from the products. Krispy Kreme typically sells its variety doughnuts for $1.09 apiece and $8.99 for a dozen. Krispy Kreme's attorneys requested the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't be refiled. They also request it not be certified as class action. They argued that "the defendant and this court are left to wonder exactly what amount of nutritional or health benefits the plaintiff thought he was getting from the doughnuts." However, Wilson considered "the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations as true." Seidian's attorneys claim Krispy Kreme shops do not provide an ingredient list for its doughnuts. "Had the plaintiff and other consumers known that the products did not contain their premium ingredients they would not have purchased the products or would have paid significantly less for the products," according to the lawsuit. Krispy Kreme's attorneys say federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act regulations prohibit states from requiring restaurants to impose - - at point of sale -- additional labeling requirements beyond federal requirements that include number of calories per item and a statement of how the item fits within a 2,000-calorie diet. Wilson wrote that the plaintiff alleges Krispy Kreme had a duty to refrain from giving its products misleading names. "Even if plaintiff's theory were accepted, Krispy Kreme could avoid liability without making any changes to its labeling simply by renaming its products." Since Krispy Kreme doesn't advertise its doughnuts contain real fruit, its attorneys argue how can it be accused of false advertising. However, Wilson rejected Krispy Kreme's claim that no reasonable consumer would be misled by how the company labeled and marketed the flavored doughnuts cited. As the Krispy Kreme attorneys state their defense, their comments become increasingly incredulous. Some examples include: "No reasonable consumer would expect a doughnut to deliver the same level of antioxidants, for example, as green tea;" "Consumers also understand that doughnuts are desserts and contain flavoring ... that are shorthand references and are not intended to describe the ingredients of the doughnuts;" and "What exactly did he think the raspberry and blueberry doughnuts contained? Was it raw fruit? Fruit jelly? Fruit jam? Dried fruit?" KROGER CO: Sued in Cal. Over Kroger Apple Juice Misrepresentation ----------------------------------------------------------------- SONIA PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. THE KROGER CO., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. BC650000 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks reimbursement for having paid for Kroger Apple Juice in reliance on Defendants' misrepresentations; and for order enjoining Defendants from further unfair and deceptive business practices regarding the deceptive advertising, sales, and other business practices relating to the Kroger Apple Juice products. The action arises out of the unlawful "No Sugar Added" statements placed by Defendants on the labels and outer packaging of its Kroger Apple Juice. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations promulgated pursuant to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938 ("FDCA") specify the precise nutrient content claims concerning sugar that may be made on a food label. Defendants' "No Sugar Added" claims on its Kroger Apple Juice containers fail to comply with these requirements. As a result, Defendants have violated California's Sherman Law and consumer protection statutes, which wholly adopt the federal requirements. The Kroger Company, or simply Kroger, is an American retailing company founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Cirsch, Esq. Robert K. Friedl, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556 4811 Facsimile: (310) 943 0396 E-mail: Lee.Cirsch@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com LIBRE BY: Sued Over Lease Agreement with Migrant Detainees ---------------------------------------------------------- JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ and GABRIELA PERDOMO ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00755-DMR (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendants arising from their exploitation of Spanish- speaking migrant detainees with so-called "lease agreements" for GPS trackers. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains thousands of undocumented immigrants each year. Once in detention, detainees who are deemed to not pose a flight risk or a threat to public safety are afforded the opportunity to post bond. Bond is typically set at an amount that well exceeds the detainees' ability to pay, forcing them to obtain third-party financing or remain in detention. Through its false and deceptive advertising and pricing scheme, LBN violated (and continues to violate) California law prohibiting misleading sales practices, says the complaint. Specifically, LBN violated (and continues to violate) California's Unfair Competition and False Advertising Laws, Business & Professions, and the California Consumers' Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code. From its use of an English-language rental agreement with only selective Spanish-language disclosures, LBN violated the California Translation Act, California Civil Code. LBN violates the Federal Prohibition on Peonage, and the Federal Prohibition on Forced Labor, adds the complaints. Libre By Nexus is a Virginia-based bail bond company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 483 Ninth Street, Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone (510) 254 6808 Facsimile (202) 973 0950 E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com L'OREAL USA: Faces "Valrie" Suit for Concealing Product Defects --------------------------------------------------------------- ELLA B. VALRIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL USA, INC., and SOFT HEEN-CARSON, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00306-JEO (N.D. Ala., February 24, 2017), alleges that an inherent design and/or manufacturing defect in Defendants' Soft Sheen-Carson Optimum Salon Haircare(R) brand Amla Legend Rejuvenating Ritual Relaxer Kit causes significant hair loss and skin and scalp irritation. But Defendants allegedly concealed these material facts from consumers. L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- http://www.lorealusa.com/-- manufactures and markets cosmetics for consumer and professional markets. It provides skincare, haircare, makeup, and perfume products. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205.326.3336 Fax: 205-326-3332 E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com brandy@hgdlawfirm.com - and - Joseph L. "Josh" Tucker, Esq. JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C. 2229 1st Ave. North Birmingham, AL 35203-4203 Phone: 205.252.3535 Fax: 205.252.3536 Fax: 205.252.3536 E-mail: josh@jacksonandtucker.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Illegally Charging Excessive Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the case captioned SHEILA LINDERMAN, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, the Petitioner and Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, and DOES 1 through 100, the Respondents and Defendants, Case No. BC650785 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to enjoin Respondents/Defendants from illegally charging excessive fees in connection with alarm permits required by the City of Los Angeles for residents to legally have alarm systems. She also seeks a refund of such sums and to obtain voter approval for what is a tax. Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, was passed by the people of California in November 1996. The measure stated its purpose "was intended to provide effective tax relief and to require voter approval of tax increases. However, local governments have subjected taxpayers to excessive tax, assessment, fee and charge increases that not only frustrate the purposes of voter approval for tax increases, but also threaten the economic security of all Californians and the California economy itself. This measure protects taxpayers by limiting the methods by which local government exact revenue from taxpayers without their consent." By passing Proposition 218, the California Constitution was amended to add articles XIII C and XIII D. Article XIII C dealt with voter approval for local government general taxes and special taxes. Article XIII D sets forth procedures, requirements and voter approval mechanisms for local government assessments, fees and charges. This action pertains to Article XIII D relating to fees and charges wrongly imposed by Defendants. In November 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, the Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees Act. Proposition 26 further amended Article XIII C to clarify that "[t]he local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor's burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity." The Plaintiff seeks to compel Respondents/Defendants to comply with Proposition 26. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Kearney, Esq. Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq. KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP 3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Suite 230 Glendale, CA 91208 Telephone (213) 473-1900 Facsimile (213) 473-1919 E-mail: tak@keameylittlefield.com pwl@keameylittlefield.com - and - Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. Richard D. Lambert, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone (916) 235 7140 Facsimile (916) 235 7141 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com LOVELL MACASAET: Bustillo Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- ROLDAN BUSTILLO, an individual, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANTS, The Plaintiff, v. LOVELL MACASAET, an individual, HERITAGE GLENDALE LLC, a limited liability company, doing business as Heritage Home Care Solutions, HHCS CORPORATION, a corporation, doing business as Heritage Home Care Solutions, and DOES 1-300, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC6 50 584 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks remedy for wage and hour violations by Defendants, who engaged in a pervasive and unlawful scheme to deprive their employees of the protections granted them by California wage and hour laws. The Defendants paid the Class Members, including Plaintiff, about $110 per day. The amounts paid to the Class Members by the Defendants were not even enough to cover the minimum wages, much less overtime premium wages, says the complaint. Heritage Home Care is a non-medical home care agency that provides care giving. The Plaintiff is represented by: Caesar S. Natividad, Esq. THE NATIVIDAD LAW FIRM 3550 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 655 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 540 5800 Facsimile: (213) 387 2297 LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gold Seeks Certification of Six Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DANA GOLD, TAMMY EMERY, EDWIN MENDEZ, LAURA NORRIS, DONALD FURSMAN, and JOHN TRIANA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-05373-TEH (N.D. Cal.), move for class certification of six classes of individuals, who purchased Morning Star Bamboo flooring from January 1, 2008 to present and reside in California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Dana Gold, et al., purchased Morning Star Bamboo flooring from Lumber Liquidators, Inc. ("LL"). They contend that the flooring contains a common design defect that renders it unable to stand up to normal variations in a home's ambient moisture levels. This defect causes the flooring to warp, shrink, cup, gap and splinter, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, and to appoint Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, to serve as co-lead class counsel. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to direct them to submit a proposed notice plan and form of notice within a reasonable time following entry of order. The Court will commence a hearing on May 8, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=95JrujIc The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq. Michael F. Ram, Esq. Susan Brown, Esq. Matt Malone, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 Facsimile: (415) 433-7311 E-mail: jbc@rocklawcal.com mram@rocklawcal.com sbrown@rocklawcal.com mjm@rocklawcal.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Brendan Thompson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com brendant@cuneolaw.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq. 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com amcentee@terrellmarshall.com - and - Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq. CHAIKIN LAW FIRM PLLC 1280 University Drive, Suite 600 Fort Myers, FL 33907 Telephone: (239) 470-8338 Facsimile: (239) 433-6836 E-mail: jordan@chaikinlawfirm.com - and - Michael McShane, Esq. S. Clinton Woods, Esq. Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com cwoods@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Daniel C. Calvert, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 103 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 390-1000 Facsimile: (239) 390-0055 E-mail: dcalvert@yourlawyer.com Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc., is represented by: William Lewis Stern, Esq. William Francis Tarantino, Esq. Lauren Wroblewski, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: wstern@mofo.com wtarantino@mofo.com lwroblewski@mofo.com - and - Kimberly R. Gosling, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 12531 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 720-5100 Facsimile: (858) 720-5125 E-mail: kgosling@mofo.com - and - Diane Flannery, Esq. Bethany Gayle Lukitsch, Esq. Christopher Edward Trible, Esq. McGUIREWOODS LLP 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219-3916 Telephone: (804) 775-1000 Facsimile: (804) 775-1061 E-mail: dflannery@mcguirewoods.com blukitsch@mcguirewoods.com ctrible@mcguirewoods.com LYNNWOOD: Faces Suit Over Illegal Traffic Infractions ----------------------------------------------------- Amy Clancy at Kiro7 reports that tens of thousands of people have paid millions of dollars in fines for driving through red lights in Lynnwood. Those infractions were all caught on camera. A class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Seattle seeks millions of dollars in refunds. Ian Jordan admits that he drove through the intersection of 196th Street Southwest and 36th in Lynnwood just as the light turned red. However, the engineer from Mill Creek claims that the city is operating its red light cameras illegally, so he and thousands of others should get back the money that they were fined. "If you want to say, 'If you don't want this ticket, don't break the law,' I'd say to Lynnwood, 'If you wanted to collect all that money, don't break the law,'" Jordan said from his attorney's office on March 3. Jordan and his lawyer, Jay Carlson of Carlson Legal in Seattle, filed a tort claim last year against Lynnwood. They filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court. They claim that state law requires municipalities operating red light camera systems to "post an annual report of the number of traffic accidents that occurred at each location" where a camera is located, plus "the number of notices of infraction issued for each camera." According to Jordan and Carlson, Lynnwood didn't provide those numbers for 2-1/2 years, beginning in 2013, and started posting them on the city's website only after they filed their claim. "Without communicating with us, they began slowly updating the data that they had not posted in years," Carlson told KIRO 7. "In my view, posting the data the way they did is an admission by the city that our tort claim was correct, that they were in violation of state law, and they knew they had to fix it, which is what they tried to do." Now that the data is being posted, Carlson and Jordan estimate that more than 100,000 people were illegally issued tickets during that 2-1/2 year period. Their lawsuit seeks a reimbursement to drivers of more than $12 million. "We've heard nothing from Lynnwood," Jordan said, "so we're going to continue to bring this to the next level to make sure that Lynnwood fixes the problem." In an emailed statement, Julie Moore of the city of Lynnwood told KIRO 7 that the class-action lawsuit has been forwarded to the city's attorney. Other than that, she said no one is able to comment "on the merits of the suit." MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Criticizes Serial Settlement Objector --------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a Texas lawyer known as a "professional objector" has worn out his welcome with another federal judge -- this time in New York. Christopher Bandas was criticized on Feb. 27 by U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York for a last-minute objection to a class action settlement over Major League Baseball Internet TV packages in 2016. Judge Caproni said "Bandas' behavior has been, at best, unprofessional, and at worst, an unseemly effort to extract fees from class counsel in exchange for the withdrawal of a meritless objection to the proposed class settlement." But she ultimately decided she lacked the jurisdiction to sanction him. Nevertheless, being "gravely concerned that Bandas uses attorneys as 'local counsel' without full disclosure of his track record and to shield himself from potential disciplinary action associated with frivolous objections," the judge ordered Bandas to provide a copy of her searing opinion to any local counsel he engages with in the Southern District. Mr. Bandas, of the Bandas Law Firm in Corpus Christi, Texas, has been sharply criticized by numerous judges and even sued, along with other objectors, in federal court in Chicago by plaintiff's lawyer Jay Edelson, who calls the serial objectors "extortionists." Judge Caproni took note of his history in her opinion on Feb. 27 in Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, 12-cv-3704. "This court joins the other courts throughout the country in finding that Bandas has orchestrated the filing of a frivolous objection in an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the settlement process and to extort a pay-off," she said. In the Garber case, Mr. Bandas drafted an objection for Sean Hull, who alleged excessive attorney fees. Mr. Bandas did not appear personally, and the objection was filed on the last possible day by local counsel David Stein of Samuel & Stein. The class in the case was certified only for injunctive relief, but the settlement awarded $16.5 million in fees and costs; Hull proposed reducing it to $10.6 million in fees and costs. Had that proposal been accepted, it would have yielded a payout of $1.18 to each of the roughly 5 million class members -- minus the cost of mailings. In her order, Judge Caproni referred to the possible payout as so low "it would have made little economic sense to distribute it." Mr. Stein later asked to be relieved as local counsel. The plaintiffs moved for sanctions, and lawyer Forrest Turkish agreed to defend Hull's objection, but only if Mr. Bandas agreed to indemnify him for any sanctions. Plaintiffs' class counsel, Edward Diver, Howard Langer and Peter Leckman of Langer, Grogan & Diver in Philadelphia, later targeted Turkish for sanctions as well, in part because of the indemnification provision. Before the court could rule, Mr. Bandas, Turkish and Hull agreed to drop the objection in exchange for plaintiffs counsel withdrawing their sanctions motion. Judge Caproni called them all in for a hearing anyway on why she shouldn't sua sponte impose sanctions. She noted that Mr. Bandas has represented Hull in numerous objections and that Hull has never received compensation though Bandas has collected. "That testimony, if true, is gravely concerning," Judge Caproni wrote. "It indicates that Bandas' settlement of objections has been without any benefit to his client . . ." MDL 1700: ND Court Denies Bid for Emergency Injunction ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION (MDL 1700), Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM (N.D. Ind.), Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied the Co-Lead Counsel's motion for an emergency injunction, corrective notice, and order to show cause. The case involves all seven New Jersey class representatives who objected the proposed settlement between the class and FedEx resolving claims related to the alleged misclassification of employees as independent contractors. The class representatives were campaigning for other class members to object to the settlement, and both co-lead counsel and FedEx want them to stop. The Court noted that the lack of misinformation weighs against limiting communications. The Court added that a restriction would hinder class representatives' ability to express dissatisfaction with the settlement. A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated February 9, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/tOwWaP from Leagle.com. Dean Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Beth A. Ross, Leonard Carder LLP. Dean Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn R. Faris, Leonard Carder LLP, Peter J. Agostino, Anderson Agostino & Keller PC & Susan E. Ellingstad, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP. Suzanne Andrade, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Beth A. Ross - - bross@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP, Lynn R. Faris, Leonard Carder LLP, Peter J. Agostino -- agostino@aaklaw.com -- Anderson Agostino & Keller PC & Susan E. Ellingstad -- seellingstad@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP. James Geiger, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Dmitri Iglitzin - - iglitzin@workerlaw.com -- Schwerin Campbell Barnard LLP, Martin S. Garfinkel -- garfinkel@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender & Peter J. Agostino -- agostino@aaklaw.com -- Anderson Agostino & Keller PC. FedEx Ground Package System Inc, et al., Defendants, represented by C. Victor Pyle, III, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Chris A. Hollinger -- chollinger@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Evelyn L. Becker, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Karen P. Kruse, Jackson Lewis PC, Kenneth Lee Blalack, II -- lblalack@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael J. Puma -- michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, Robert I. Harwood -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP, Robert M. Schwartz -- rschwartz@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP, pro hac vice, Steve Dennis -- sdennis@reiddennis.com -- Reid & Dennis PC, pro hac vice, Alison G. Fox -- alison.fox@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Thomas J. Brunner, Jr., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Evelyn L. Becker, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Karen P. Kruse, Jackson Lewis PC, Michael J. Puma, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Robert M. Schwartz, Irell & Manella LLP, pro hac vice, Steve Dennis, Reid & Dennis PC, pro hac vice, Alison G. Fox, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Thomas J. Brunner, Jr., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Evelyn L. Becker, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Karen P. Kruse, Jackson Lewis PC, Michael J. Puma, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Robert M. Schwartz, Irell & Manella LLP, pro hac vice, Alison G. Fox, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Lawrence J. Rosenfeld, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Thomas J. Brunner, Jr., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. MDL 2599: Ford's Bid to Dismiss Airbag Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Federico A. Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, granted in part and denied in part Ford Motor Company's motion to dismiss in the case captioned IN RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2599, Master File No. 15-2599-MD-MORENO, No. 14-24009-CV- MORENO (S.D. Fla.) Suits were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation on the allegations of economic loss and personal injury related to airbags manufactured by defendants Takata Corporation and TK Holdings and equipped in vehicles manufactured by defendants Honda, BMW, Ford, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota. Some of the named plaintiffs are Joseph Aliscio a Florida resident, who purchased a used 2004 Ford Ranger in October 2009 in Florida. Aliscio's claims were transferred into the MDL from the Southern District of Florida. Nancy Barnett, a Texas resident, who purchased a used 2007 Ford Mustang in July 2008 in Texas. Barnett's claims were direct-filed into the MDL. Alicia Benton, a South Carolina resident, who purchased a used 2010 Ford Mustang in August 2010 in South Carolina. Benton's claims were direct-filed into the MDL. John Huebner, a California resident, purchased a used 2005 Ford Mustang in March 2011 in California. Huebner's claims were transferred into the MDL from the Western District of Pennsylvania. Eugennie Sinclair, a Florida resident, who purchased a used 2007 Ford Mustang in September 2012 in Florida. Sinclair's claims were direct-filed into the MDL. Brooks Weisblat, a Florida resident, who purchased a used 2005 Ford GT in February 2011 in Florida. Weisblat's claims were transferred into the MDL from the Southern District of Florida and Teresa Woodward, a South Carolina resident, purchased a new 2005 Ford Mustang in 2005 in South Carolina. Woodard's claims were direct-filed into the MDL. Plaintiffs allege 11 counts against Ford. These 11 counts against Ford consist of the following: count 3 for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; count 20 for fraudulent concealment; count 21 for breach of Michigan's implied warranty of merchantability; count 22 for unjust enrichment; count 23 for violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act; count 24 for negligence; count 47 for violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act on behalf of a Florida sub-class; count 48 for breach of Florida's implied warranty of merchantability on behalf of a Florida sub-class; count 87 for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act on behalf of an Ohio sub-class; count 97 for violation of Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act on behalf of a Texas sub-class; and count 98 for breach of Texas's implied warranty of merchantability on behalf of a Texas sub- class. Ford's Motion asks the court to dismiss all counts alleged against it in the second amended economic loss complaint. Judge Moreno granted in part and denied in part Ford's motion to dismiss. Specifically, count 21, 23, 24, 48 and 87 are dismissed. Count 3 is dismissed as asserted by the Florida plaintiffs. Alicio, Sinclair, Weisblat purchased their used vehicles in Florida from Bev Smith Toyota, CarMax, and CNC Exotics, respectively. Plaintiffs do not allege these dealerships had any affiliation with Ford. The court cannot reasonably infer from the facts alleged that Ford ever held any money belonging to Aliscio, Sinclair, or Weisblat. Barnett purchased her used vehicle in Texas from Henna Chevrolet LP. Plaintiffs do not allege that the dealership had any affiliation with Ford. The court cannot reasonably infer from the facts alleged that Ford ever held any money belonging to Barnett. Lastly, plaintiffs only state that Huebner's used 2005 Ford Mustang was purchased in Burbank, California. It is unclear if Huebner purchased the vehicle from a Ford dealership like plaintiffs Benton and Woodard, or if he purchased it from a dealership with no affiliation to Ford, such as CarMax. Count 22 is dismissed as by Alicio, Sinclair, Weisblat, Barnett and Hyebner. A copy of Judge Moreno's order dated February 27, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/2CE01F from Leagle.com. Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, In Re, represented by Christopher K. Eppich -- ceppich@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling, LLP Daniel S. Silva, James Herron, Leslie Flaherty, Holly Ruth, M&K Used Auto Parts, Inc., Robert Barto, John Meiser, Charles & Vickie Burd Plaintiffs, Charles & Dana Talamantes, Eugennie Sinclair, Quarnos Auto Salvage, Daniel Thies, Camila G. Corteleti, Rigsby's Auto Parts & Sales, Inc., Darla Spies, Vickie Burd, Dana Talamantes, Alicia Benton, Justin S. Birdsall, Loren Petersen, Eric Rosson, Teresa Woodard, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- at Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Mary Hasley, Megan Sayre-Scibona, Pamela Wilsey, Doreen Dembeck, Helen Klemer, Lisa Peterson, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian Morrison -- bmorrison@labaton.com -- Daniel R. Leathers -- at Labaton Sucharow, LLP; Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- at Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Regina M. Reilly, Rebecca Lew, Carla Thompson, Plaintiffs, represented by W. Daniel Miles, III -- dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- Archie I. Grubb, II -- archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com -- H. Clay Barnett -- clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com -- at Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles; Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- at Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Plaintiffs Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- at Podhurst Orseck, P.A.; Curtis Bradley Miner -- curt@colson.com -- Stephanie Anne Casey -- scasey@colson.com -- at Colson Hicks Eidson Gurinder Dhillon, Plaintiff, represented by Curtis Bradley Miner - - curt@colson.com -- at Colson Hicks Eidson Craig Dunn, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst -- apodhurst@podhurst.com -- John Gravante, III -- jgravante@podhurst.com -- Matthew Weinshall -- mweinshall@podhurst.com -- Stephen Frederick Rosenthal -- srosenthal@podhurst.com -- Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- at Podhurst Orseck, P.A.; David Fernandes -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- J. Burton LeBlanc -- Mark Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Pablo Orozco -- Roland Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- at Baron & Budd, PC; Michael P. Thornton -- mthornton@tenlaw.com -- at Thornton Law Firm, LLP; Eric D. Gottlieb -- egottlieb@labaton.com -- Gregory S. Asciolla -- gasciolla@labaton.com -- Katherine R. Ryan -- Lawrence A. Sucharow -- lsucharow@labaton.com -- Martis Alex -- Michael W. Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- Robin A. van der Meulen -- rvandermeulen@labaton.com -- at Labaton Sucharow LLP FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Martin Leonard Steinberg -- marty.steinberg@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US, LLP; Mitchell Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod; Scott M. Sarason -- ssarason@rumberger.com -- at Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell Inflation Systems Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen J. Krigbaum -- skrigbaum@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Laurie Michele Riley -- lriley@joneswalker.com -- at Jones Walker LLP; Leonid Feller -- leonid.feller@kirkland.com -- Renee D. Smith -- renee.smith@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP Takata Corporation, Consol Defendant, represented by Brian O. Beverly -- bob@youngmoorelaw.com -- at Young, Moore & Henderson, PA; Giovanna Tarantino Bingham -- Kyle Harold Dreyer -- kdreyer@hdbdlaw.com -- Larry Don Grayson -- lgrayson@hdbdlaw.com - - at Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP; Keith A. Teel -- kteel@cov.com -- Kevin M. Kelly -- kkelly@cov.com -- Lanny A. Breuer -- lbreuer@cov.com -- Michael X. Imbroscio -- mimbroscio@cov.com -- Neil K. Roman -- nroman@cov.com -- Shankar Duraiswamy -- sduraiswamy@cov.com -- Emily Ullman -- eullman@cov.com -- John J. DeBoy -- jdeboy@cov.com -- Paul W. Schmidt -- pschmidt@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling, LLP; Phillippa V. Ellis -- ellis@owengleaton.com -- at Owen, Gleaton, Egan, Jones & Sweeney, LLP; T. Christopher Trent -- ctrent@johnsontrent.com -- at Johnson, Trent, West & Taylor, LLP; Mitchell Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod; Stephen J. Krigbaum -- skrigbaum@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. TK Holdings, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Alex P. Tilling -- atilling@leakeandersson.com -- Cristin Fitzgerald Bordelon -- Jerry L. Saporito -- jsaporito@leakeandersson.com -- at Leake & Anderson LLP; Benjamin W. Allen -- T. Christopher Trent -- ctrent@johnsontrent.com -- at Johnson, Trent, West & Taylor, LLP; Brian O. Beverly -- bob@youngmoorelaw.com -- at Young, Moore & Henderson, PA; Christopher K. Eppich -- ceppich@cov.com -- Keith A. Teel -- kteel@cov.com -- Kevin M. Kelly -- kkelly@cov.com -- Lanny A. Breuer -- lbreuer@cov.com -- Michael X. Imbroscio -- mimbroscio@cov.com -- Neil K. Roman -- nroman@cov.com -- Shankar Duraiswamy -- sduraiswamy@cov.com -- Emily Ullman -- eullman@cov.com -- John J. DeBoy -- jdeboy@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling, LLP; Christopher J. York -- at McGahren Gaskill & York, LLC; Cynthia A. Hawkins -- Cynthia@CynthiaHawkinsLaw.com -- at Law Office of Cynthia Hawkins; Damien Arthur Orato -- dorato@rumberger.com -- Lena Marguerite Mirilovic -- lmirilovic@rumberger.com -- Michael Daniel Begey -- mbegey@rumberger.com -- Sally Rogers Culley -- sculley@rumberger.com -- William L. Kirk, Jr. -- at Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell; Daniel John Kissan -- daniel.kissane@csklegal.com -- at Cole, Scott & Kissane; Frederick Rom -- from@wcsr.com -- at Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice; Garth Thomas Yearick -- gyearick@carltonfields.com -- Stephen J. Krigbaum -- skrigbaum@carltonfields.com -- Thomas Meeks -- tmeeks@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.; Giovanna Tarantino Bingham -- Kyle Harold Dreyer -- kdreyer@hdbdlaw.com -- Larry Don Grayson -- lgrayson@hdbdlaw.com - - at Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP; James B. Hood -- james.hood@hoodlaw.com -- John O'Connor Radeck, Jr. -- John.Radeck@hoodlaw.com -- at Hood Law Firm, LLC; Loren William Fender -- loren.fender@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Yesenia Esmeralda Cardenas-Colenso -- yesenia.cardenas@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and Brooke LLP; Matthew J. Stanczyk -- mstanczyk@plunkettcooney.com -- at Plunkett Cooney; Phillippa V. Ellis -- ellis@owengleaton.com -- at Owen, Gleaton, Egan, Jones & Sweeney, LLP; Mitchell Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod; Robert J. Hoffman -- rjhoffman@bryancave.com -- at Bryan Cave LLP; Sterling Gardner Culpepper, II -- gculpepper@rh-law.com -- at Rogers & Hardin, LLP; William W. Oxley -- at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliff Highland Industries, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Benjamin W. Allen -- T. Christopher Trent -- ctrent@johnsontrent.com -- at Johnson, Trent, West & Taylor; Frederick Rom -- from@wcsr.com -- at Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice; Giovanna Tarantino Bingham -- Kyle Harold Dreyer -- kdreyer@hdbdlaw.com -- Larry Don Grayson -- lgrayson@hdbdlaw.com - - at Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP; James B. Hood -- james.hood@hoodlaw.com -- John O'Connor Radeck, Jr. -- John.Radeck@hoodlaw.com -- at Hood Law Firm, LLC; Jerry L. Saporito -- jsaporito@leakeandersson.com -- at Leake & Anderson LLP; Lena Marguerite Mirilovic -- lmirilovic@rumberger.com -- Michael Daniel Begey -- mbegey@rumberger.com -- Sally Rogers Culley -- sculley@rumberger.com -- Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell; Robert J. Hoffman -- rjhoffman@bryancave.com -- at Bryan Cave LLP; Sterling Gardner Culpepper, II -- gculpepper@rh-law.com -- at Rogers & Hardin, LLP; William W. Oxley -- at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliff; Stephen J. Krigbaum -- skrigbaum@carltonfields.com -- Thomas Meeks -- tmeeks@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Honda Motor Company, LTD, Consol Defendant, represented by Adam P. Micale -- amicale@sidley.com -- Alexis Rollins Dunton -- adunton@sidley.com -- Amanda Farfel -- afarfel@sidley.com -- Andrew J. Chinsky -- achinsky@sidley.com -- Darlene M. Cho -- dcho@sidley.com -- Kristen E. Rau -- at Sidley Austin, LLP; Joel H. Smith -- joel.smith@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Matthew Brooks Miller -- brooks.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman & Brooke, LLP; Martin Leonard Steinberg -- marty.steinberg@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US, LLP; Kimberly A. Cook -- kimberly.cook@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP; Mitchell Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod American Honda Co., Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Courtney Crook Shytle -- courtney.shytle@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and Brooke; Daniel John Kissane -- daniel.kissane@csklegal.com -- Thomas E. Scott, Jr. -- thomas.scott@csklegal.com -- at Cole, Scott & Kissane; Ellyce R. Cooper -- ecooper@sidley.com -- Eric S. Mattson -- emattson@sidley.com -- Mark Douglas Campbell -- mcampbell@sidley.com -- Michael C. Andolina -- mandolina@sidley.com -- Michael L. Mallow -- mmallow@sidley.com -- Sean A. Commons -- scommons@sidley.com -- Catherine Valerio Barrad -- at Sidley Austin LLP Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Consol Defendant, represented by Jessica Farley -- jessica.farley@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Steven D. Jansma -- steven.jansma@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP BMW of North America, LLC and BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Consol Defendants, represented by Christopher J. Dalton -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- Rosemary Joan Bruno -- rosemary.bruno@bipc.com -- Jesse H. Diner -- jesse.diner@bipc.com -- Stephen Carey Villeneuve -- carey.villeneuve@bipc.com -- at Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC; Kimberly A. Cook -- kimberly.cook@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP; Mitchell Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod; Eric Y. Kizirian -- Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- Jeffrey Arthur Mowers -- Jeffrey.Mowers@lewisbrisbois.com -- Michael Keith Grimaldi -- Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith, LLP; Martin Leonard Steinberg - - marty.steinberg@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US, LLP; Jeffrey T. Gorcyca -- jeffrey.gorcyca@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Matthew G. Berard -- matthew.berard@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Thomas P. Branigan -- tom.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and Brooke, LLP; Philip Semprevivo, Jr. -- Philip.Semprevivo@lawbhs.com -- at Biedermann Hoenig-Semprevivo; Robert Mark Brochin -- bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com -- at Lewis & Bockius LLP Toyota Motor Corporation, Consol Defendant, represented by Mitchell Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod; Kimberly A. Cook -- kimberly.cook@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP; Derek S. Whitefield -- dwhitefield@dykema.com -- Eric C. Tew -- etew@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett, PLLC; Janet Hickson -- jhickson@shb.com -- at Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP; Michiko A. Brown -- brown@wtotrial.com -- Stephen E. Oertle -- oertle@wtotrial.com -- at Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP; Robert Mark Brochin -- bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com -- at Lewis & Bockius; John Carl Seipp, Jr. -- john.seipp@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and Brooke, LLP Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. Consol Defendants, represented by Martin Leonard Steinberg -- marty.steinberg@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US, LLP; Mitchell Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod; Kimberly A. Cook -- kimberly.cook@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP; Derek S. Whitefield -- dwhitefield@dykema.com -- Eric C. Tew -- etew@dykema.com -- Terri Steinhaus Reiskin -- treiskin@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett, PLLC; Janet Hickson -- jhickson@shb.com -- at Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP; John Carl Seipp, Jr. -- john.seipp@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Donald Arthur Blackwell - - don.blackwell@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Yesenia Esmeralda Cardenas- Colenso -- yesenia.cardenas@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and Brooke LLP; Robert Mark Brochin -- bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com - - at Lewis & Bockius LLP; Michiko A. Brown -- brown@wtotrial.com - - Stephen E. Oertle -- oertle@wtotrial.com -- at Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP; Mark N. Bodin -- mbodin@mcglinchey.com -- Sarah Elizabeth McMillan -- semcmillan@mcglinchey.com -- at McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Chrysler Group LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Armando Gustavo Hernandez -- ahernandez@rumberger.com -- Scott M. Sarason -- ssarason@rumberger.com -- at Rumberger, Kirk and Caldwell, PA; John W. Rogers -- at Coburn, LLP METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: "Bushansky" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Metaldyne Performance Group Inc., George Thanopoulos, Kevin Penn, Loren Easton, Michael Fisch, Nick Bhambri, William Jackson, Jeffrey Stafeil and John Pearson Smith, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-10508, (E.D. Mich., February 16, 2017), seeks preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a merger and any vote unless and until defendants disclose and disseminate relevant material information. The suit also seeks an award for rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger, reasonable allowance for attorneys and experts' fees, and such other and further relief for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On November 3, 2016, Metaldyne announced that it was to be sold to American Axle. Metaldyne stockholders will receive $13.50 in cash and 0.5 shares of American Axle common stock with a value of $11.75 for each share of Metaldyne common stock they own. Said transaction is valued at approximately $1.6 billion. Plaintiffs claim that the company's financial forecast was not disclosed to them prior to the merger discussion and there were offers as high as $21.00 to $22.50 to counter American Axle's offer. Metaldyne produces complex metal-formed components for engine, transmission, driveline and suspension applications for the automotive, commercial and industrial markets. American Axle is a global automotive manufacturer and supplier of driveline and drive train components and systems. Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 - and - Sara K. MacWilliams, Esq. MACWILLIAMS LAW PC 6663 Bloomfield Lane West Bloomfield, MI 48322 Tel: (248) 514-5399 MIDLAND FUNDING: NY Court Narrows Claims in "Madden" ---------------------------------------------------- Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification with modifications, in the case captioned SALIHA MADDEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, No. 11-CV-8149 (CS) (S.D.N.Y.). Midland Funding, LLC, is in the business of purchasing defaulted debts, and Midland Credit Management, Inc. is in the business of collecting those debts. Both are indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries of Encore Capital Group, Inc. and both have their principal places of business in San Diego, California. Saliha Madden opened a credit card account with Bank of America on April 23, 2005. The Cardholder Agreement provided that it was governed by applicable Arizona and federal law. Plaintiff's August 14, 2006 account statement was sent to her address in White Plains, New York and contained an important notice alerting customers that Bank of America was changing the terms of the Cardholder Agreement that governs Plaintiff's credit card account. The change in terms advised plaintiff that, beginning on the effective date of October 19, 2006, the change in terms would replace the Cardholder Agreement. It also stated that beginning on October 19, 2006, the credit card account will be issued and administered by FIA Card Services, N.A. The change in terms provided that the agreement is made in Delaware and that it is governed by the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to its conflict of laws principles and by any applicable federal laws. Midland sued plaintiff in the City Court of the City of White Plains, Westchester County on May 2, 2011 to collect on her debt of $5,291.25. The case has since been dismissed. Plaintiff filed a complaint and an amended complaint on May 7, 2012, asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section1692 et seq., based on defendants' attempt to collect interest on her debt above the rate permitted by New York's usury laws, New York General Business Law Section 349, based on defendants' representations that they were entitled to collect interest at a usurious rate and New York's civil and criminal usury laws, entitling plaintiff to a declaration that her debts are void and to disgorgement. Plaintiff moved for class certification on January 18, 2013. Defendants moved for summary judgment on January 25, 2013, arguing that plaintiff's state-law claims were preempted by the National Bank Act and thus that plaintiff's federal clam, which is predicated on the state law claims, also failed. Judge Cathy Seibel denied both motions. The parties then entered into a stipulation for entry of judgment dated May 30, 2014, agreeing that FIA assigned defendants Ms. Madden's account, and that plaintiff received the cardholder agreement and change in terms. In light of the Stipulation, Judge Seibel entered judgment for defendants on June 2, 2014. The Second Circuit reversed and remanded the suit, holding that the National Bank Act did not preempt Madden's state law usury claims, leaving Judge Seibel to address in the first instance whether the Delaware choice-of-law clause precludes Madden's claims. Defendants move for summary judgment again, arguing that Delaware law applies to plaintiff's claims, and so plaintiff's claims under New York law fail, and further argue that because governing Delaware law imposes no usury cap and plaintiff's FDCPA claims are predicated on a violation of New York's usury laws, plaintiff's FDCPA claims must also fail. Plaintiff moves again for class certification. Judge Seibel granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's Section 5-501 and Section 190.40 claims and denied as to plaintiff's FDCPA and GBL Section 349 claims. Judge Seibel agrees with plaintiff that to apply Delaware usury law would violate a fundamental public policy of the state of New York, hence New York law applies to plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted with modifications and the court certifies: A Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive and declaratory relief class comprising all persons residing in New York who were sent a letter by defendants attempting to collect interest in excess of 25% per annum regarding debts incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, whose cardholder agreements: (i) purport to be governed by the law of a state that, like Delaware's, provides for no usury cap; or (ii) select no law other than New York. The class covers only claims arising out of GBL violations from November 10, 2008 through today's date. A Rule 23(b)(3) damages class comprising all persons residing in New York who were sent a letter by defendants attempting to collect interest in excess of 25% per annum regarding debts incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, whose cardholder agreements: (i) purport to be governed by the law of a state that, like Delaware's, provides for no usury cap; or (ii) select no law other than New York. The class comprises two subclasses: (a) for claims arising out of GBL violations from November 10, 2008 through today's date; and (b) for claims arising out of FDCPA violations from November 10, 2010 through today's date. A copy of Judge Seibel's opinion and order dated February 27, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/YPViF5 from Leagle.com. Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Adam Schlanger -- dschlanger@kakalec-schlanger.com -- at Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP; Elizabeth Ann Shollenberger -- Peter Thomas Lane -- at Schlanger & Schlanger, LLP; O. Randolph Bragg -- at Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates Defendants, represented by Thomas Arthur Leghorn -- thomas.leghorn@wilsonelser.com -- Joseph Louis Francoeur -- joseph.francoeur@wilsonelser.com -- at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP MIRACLE HOME: Faces "Tirona" Labor Suit Filed on Behalf of Nurses ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN TIRONA, an individual, and all other similarly situated employees; Plaintiff, vs. MIRACLE HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 651826 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles), alleges that Defendants have engaged in, and continue to engage in, a common course of wage and hour violations against its nurses in the State of California. In particular, says the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other current and former employees their wages for all hours worked in that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all patient visits they completed during their employment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Omid Nosrati, Esq. Tatiana Toroyan, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF OMID NOSRATI 1875 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 553-5630 Fax: (310)553-5691 Email: omid@nosratilaw.com Email: tatiana@nosratilaw.com - and - Edwin Pairavi, Esq. PAIRAVI LAW, P.C. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1025 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 789-2063 Fax: (310) 789-2064 Email: Edwin@pairavilaw.com MONTANA: Settlement Reached in Langford v. Bullock -------------------------------------------------- A press release on March 2 announced that the parties involved in the class action law suit Langford v. Bullock reached a settlement agreement March 2 after filing the case back in 1991. The lawsuit was filed in 1991 on behalf of prisoners following a disturbance at the Montana State Prison that resulted in seven deaths. Some of the issues were settled years ago, but the new agreement ensures renovations throughout the prison, including significant revisions to policies to ensure equal access and non- discrimination for the prisoners with disabilities in all programs and services at the Montana State Prison. The lawsuit challenged inadequate medical and mental health care, overcrowding, and inadequate environmental and fire safety conditions, classification policy, and sex offender policies. The press release announced that attorneys for prisoners with disabilities at the Montana State Prison and the state of Montana filed the proposed settlement agreement that would bring the prison into greater compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The agreement guarantees that prisoners with physical disabilities will have greater access to facilities and programs at the prison that are available to the rest of the population, like vocational training programs and prison jobs. The agreement also requires that prisoners with mental disabilities shall be given accommodations when needed, such as in disciplinary hearings and education programs. They will also be ensured the accommodations they need to participate in work assignments. The new agreement ensures prisoners with disabilities are not disciplined for behavior that is a product of a mental illness or physical disability. "The Montana Department of Corrections is to be congratulated for working with the plaintiffs to reach this settlement," said Jon Ellingson, lead local counsel and staff attorney for the ACLU of Montana. "The department's actions demonstrate a commitment to prison reform that both helps prisoners rehabilitate and benefits the public when these prisoners reenter society after serving their terms." The class-action lawsuit, Langford v. Bullock, originated 23 years ago following riots at the Montana State Prison. The parties reached a settlement long ago, and the prison complied with all provisions with one exception: compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The agreement filed on March 2 finally resolves that issue. The ACLU National Prison Project, the ACLU of Montana, and the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center of Denver, Colorado (CREEC) participated in the final negotiations with the state. "This agreement reminds us that our prisons contain many people with physical and mental disabilities who are entitled to be treated equally and humanely under the law. This agreement helps us reach that goal," observed Amy Robertson, CREEC's co-executive director. "Without the appropriate accommodations and programs, people with physical and mental disabilities can suffer terribly in prison, and can be denied paths to earn their release by completing programs they need to be paroled," said Eric Balaban -- ebalaban@np-aclu.org --, senior staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project. "This settlement will help ensure that prisoners with disabilities at the Montana State Prison can work their way to freedom like prisoners who don't have disabilities." "The ACLU of Montana is proud to have participated in this lawsuit, the result of which brings substantial prison reform to the state of Montana," said Caitlin Borgmann, executive director of the ACLU of Montana. "It needs to be emphasized that reform inside our prisons benefits the public by better preparing the prisoners for life outside of prison." The parties have jointly filed a motion with the court requesting preliminary approval of the settlement. If the court approves, a notice will go out to prisoners at Montana State Prison, and the court will schedule a final fairness hearing for later in the year. MORGANSHOTEL GROUP: NY High Court Tosses Server Assistant's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case styled JAHANGIR AHMED, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF and OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. MORGANSHOTEL GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC; RICHARD SZYMANSKI; and ANY OTHER RELATED ENTITIES, Defendants, 153841/15 (N.Y.). Morganshotel Group Management, LLC, and Richard Szymanski employed, in furtherance of their catering business, numerous individuals, including plaintiff Jajamgir Ahmed and the putative class members, in trades including wait staff, waiters, servers, captains, bussers, bartenders, food runners, maitres d', bridal attendants, and in various other related customarily tipped trades. For each catered event, defendants employed a staff of numerous service workers to perform food and service related tasks. Ahmed worked for Morgans as a server's assistant from 2013 until March 2015 at the former Mondrian Soho. Ahmed alleged that since April 2009, Morgans has engaged in a policy and practice of charging its banquet customers a mandatory 23% service charge, without disclosing that the service charge is not a gratuity for employees. Without such a disclaimer, a reasonable customer would presume that such charge was, in fact, a gratuity, and that, because he and other employees were not paid these gratuities, defendants violated Section 196-d of the Labor Law and the Department of Labor's Hospitality Wage Order 12 NYCRR 146-2.18 and 2.19. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants violated the Labor Law by failing to pay him minimum wage, since he was paid $5.00 per hour in checks that failed to show allowances including any tip credit taken against his earnings by defendants. Plaintiff also alleges that he and other members of the putative class did not receive their portion of the service charge, and that defendants retained the service charge for themselves. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on April 17, 2015 and an amended complaint on July 8, 2015. On July 28, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 13, 2015, the court denied the motion, but recognized that there are certain, strong questions that have been raised about the veracity of plaintiff's position based on the motion presented to the court." Defendants move, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the first amended class action complaint. Defendants also move, pursuant to CPLR 2304, for an order quashing the subpoena issued to a nonparty, and, pursuant to CPLR 3103, for the grant of a protective order, as well as sanctions, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff cross-moves for partial summary judgment on the complaint and an order certifying the action as class action and granting him leave to amend the complaint to include Sharif Uddin as a named plaintiff. Judge Reed held that the Morgans did not lead its customers to believe that the "service charge" is a gratuity and, therefore, did not unlawfully withhold these purported gratuities. Instead, Morgans, in its regular course of business, makes the requisite service charge disclaimers/notifications. On the minimum wage claim, Judge Reed held that the documentary evidence demonstrates that plaintiff was always paid at least the minimum wage. Accordingly, summary judgment must also be granted dismissing the second cause of action. Plaintiff cannot be a class representative, and the action must be dismissed in its entirety, and like plaintiff, Uddin has failed to demonstrate that he suffered any injury, and thus, he is not qualified to serve as a class representative. Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and the complaint is dismissed. Defendants' motion for an order quashing the nonparty subpoena, for the grant of a protective order, and for sanctions, attorneys' fees and costs are denied. Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, for class certification and the motion to amend the complaint are all denied. A copy of Judge Robert R. Reed order dated February 227, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/ljyvCq from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Leeds Brown Law, PC 1 Old Country Rd Suite #347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Tel: 516-873-9550 Francis V. Cook -- fcook@foxrothschild.com -- at Fox Rothschild, LLP, for Defendants MYLAN INC: Faces Suit in Pa. Over Inflated Clomipramine Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- TWIN CITIES PIPE TRADES WELFARE FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MYLAN, INC., TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. and SANDOZ, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00724-CMR (E.D. Pa., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover treble damages and injunctive relief against Defendants for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the laws of the state of Minnesota. Taro, Sandoz, and Mylan inflated the price of Clomipramine between May and August 2013. On November 3, 2016, it was announced that the DOJ expected to file charges arising from its investigation by the end of 2016, and on December 14, 2016, the DOJ brought criminal charges in connection with the pricing of certain generic antibiotics and diabetes treatments. The following day, on December 15, 2016, a group of twenty state attorneys general filed suit against Mylan and five other generic-drug makers, alleging the companies conspired to fix prices and constrain competition for certain antibiotics and diabetes treatments. Further charges by the DOJ or other officials are expected in 2017. There is no reasonable justification for Defendants' abrupt and uniform shift in pricing conduct. Indeed, Defendants engaged in a broad, well-coordinated, and long-running agreement in restraint of trade to artificially raise the price of generic Clomipramine, says the complaint. Mylan is an American global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals company registered in the Netherlands, with principal executive offices in Hatfield and global headquarters Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. Adam J. Pession, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK R.P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567 6565 Facsimile: (215) 567 5872 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com - and - Karren Hanson Riebel, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Anna M. Horning, Esq. Kristen G. Martilla, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 S Washington Ave No. 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 NATURE'S ELITE: "Young" Sues Over False Ad of Skincare Products --------------------------------------------------------------- LAVERNE YOUNG and LAVONNE CARROLL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NATURE'S ELITE, INC. a Florida corporation, GOLD ELEMENTS VALENCIA, INC., a California corporation, and PREMIER RETAIL GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-at-00204 (E.D. Cal., February 24, 2017), alleges that Defendants make erroneous claims in the packaging, labeling, marketing, advertising, and promotion of skincare products they refer to as their "Gold Elements" line, such as falsely asserting that the Products are capable of providing a non-surgical facelift, and claims that any such results will last for fifteen years. Nature's Elite, Inc. is a mid-sized organization in the beauty shops industry. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. MILSTEIN FAIRCHILD JACKSON & WADE, LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 396-9600 Fax: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com savila@mjfwlaw.com mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com - and - Michael T. Fraser, Esq. THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C. 4120 Douglas Blvd., Suite 306-262 Granite Bay, CA 95746 Phone: (888) 557-5115 Fax: (866) 212-8434 E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net NESTLE USA: Sued in Cal. Over "Slackfill" in Candy Products ----------------------------------------------------------- JADE THOMAS and KETRINA GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NESTLE USA, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC649843 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks damages against Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, together with pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law on any amounts awarded; restitution and/or disgorgement in an amount; punitive damages; order enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage in the unlawful conduct and practice; and reasonable attorney fees and costs. The case is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all purchasers of Raisinets (TM), Buncha Crunch (TM), Butterfinger Bites (TM), Tollhouse Semi-Sweet Chocolate Morsels(TM), Rainbow Nerds (TM), SweeTarts (TM), Spree(TM), Gobstopper (TM), and Sno-Caps (TM) boxed candy products sold at retail outlets and movie theaters throughout California and the United States. The complaint says the Defendant intentionally misleads and shortchanges consumers by falsely and deceptively misrepresenting the amount of candy actually contained in each box of Product. The Defendant uniformly under-fills the opaque boxes by 48%. Every box is filled only 52% full with candy product. The 48% balance is empty space, or "slackfill," nearly all of which serves no legitimate or lawful function. Nestle is the world's leading Nutrition, Health and Wellness company. The Plaintiff is represented by: CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Shalini M. Dogra, Esq. 9255 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 804 Los Angeles, CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 788 4050 Facsimile: (213) 788 4070 E-mail: rdarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com sclarkson@darksonlawfirm.com sdogra@clarksonlawfirm.com NEW SEABURY: Reaches Preliminary Agreement on Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Sam Houghton at Cape News reports that members of New Seabury reached a preliminary agreement late last week with the owners and managers of the southern Mashpee resort, opening a path for closure to the year-long dispute. Judge Robert C. Rufo signed a Preliminary Settlement Approval Order in Barnstable Superior Court on February 23 that details the terms of an agreement. Members in the class action lawsuit, plaintiffs or otherwise, can object to the settlement agreement. The judge scheduled a "fairness hearing" in April for the voicing of complaints. Judge Rufo, in the ruling, states that the settlement terms would not go into effect until following the fairness hearing, so long as no objections are filed. The preliminary agreement marks a possible end to a dispute that began last March when the ownership unveiled a new system of categorizing memberships at the club. Many members argued that they were coerced into these new memberships and would be forced to forfeit certain rights previously agreed to by the club's owners. In July, four members of New Seabury as plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in Barnstable under the state Consumer Protection Act which covered all members of New Seabury that joined the club following a previous bankruptcy agreement reached in 1998. (Members who joined the club prior to 1998, known as pre- bankruptcy members, reached an agreement with New Seabury in August.) At the center of the lawsuit are what have been called "Refundability Rights." When members joined the club, many were offered a refund to their initiation fee in the event that they would leave the club. The new membership structures did not offer that right. Members could keep their old membership category and keep the right to a refund of the initiation fee, but they would face a higher annual fee compared to the new memberships, many upwards of a 20- to 30-percent increase. Based on a reading of the settlement terms on file at the court, members did not retain their original right to these refunds. The terms also dictates that individuals in the case not speak with reporters or journalists except in filed settlement approval papers and in a statement. Attorneys in the case did not wish to comment at this time. Attorneys in both parties worked on an agreement prior to a hearing scheduled for late February came to an agreement after "extensive settlement discussions," court documents reads. ". . . the parties through their counsel have negotiated at arm's length regarding their respective positions," it states. While the agreement did not allow the transfer of refundablity rights to the new membership, it allows current members to join new memberships without paying an initiation fee. "All Class Members who have not heretofore elected into a New Membership Category for which there were eligible (i.e. Diamond, Medallion, Golf or Lifestyle) may elect into any New Membership Category that is comparable or superior to their existing membership category on the same terms and conditions that were offered by the Club in 2016," the terms read. "The Club will allow any such Class Member who wishes to elect into the New Membership Category that is immediately superior to their equivalent new category (e.g. a Sports member who wish to elect into Medallion, a Gold member who wishes to elect into Diamond, etc.) to do so without paying any additional initiation fee." The agreement reads that both sides and their attorneys waive all claims to attorney's fees and expenses. All claims that have been brought are released with the passage of the agreement. Many members argued that they were coerced into new memberships and would be forced to forfeit certain rights previously agreed to by the club's owners. NEW YORK: Faces "Davydov" Labor Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------- HANNA DAVYDOV, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against THE NEW YORK COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF BROOKLYN, INC., Defendant, INDEX NO. 503906/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of Kings, February 27, 2017), accuses Defendant of a) requiring Hourly Nurses to perform work without compensation before the start of their scheduled shift; (b) requiring Hourly Nurses to perform work without compensation after the end of their scheduled shift; (c) failing to pay Hourly Nurses at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under 40 hours in a week; and (d) failing to provide accurate wage statements in violation of the New York Labor Law. THE NEW YORK COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF BROOKLYN, INC. -- http://www.nych.com/-- is a non-profit acute care hospital. The Plaintiff is represented by: THE LAW FIRM OF LOUTS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Phone: (516)625-0105 NITRO GREEN: Faces "Shaffer" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Brandy Shaffer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nitro Green Inc., a Florida corporation, and Clinton M. Woods, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00336-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff were regularly required to work in excess of 40 hours weekly but were not paid overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Moreover, Defendants allegedly failed to use the proper regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime compensation. The Defendant performs landscaping and ground maintenance services. The Plaintiff was employed as office manager/bookkeeper. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Phone: 727 822 1111 Fax: 727 898 2001 E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com shelleytheFLlawfirm.com NJ NEC INC: "Gorski" Alleges No Time-keeping, Denied OT Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Maciej Gorski, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by NJ NEC, Inc. and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by NJ NEC, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. NJ NEC, Inc., Dariusz Czyzewski, John Does 1-5 and Jane Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01092 (D.N.J., February 17, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, damages and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Act. Defendants engaged in services relating to electrical contracting work in New Jersey where Plaintiff was employed as an electrician. NJ NEC allegedly failed to keep accurate time records thus failing to pay Gorski overtime wages. Plaintiff is represented by: Darius A. Marzec, Esq. MARZEC LAW FIRM, PC 225 Broadway, Suite 3000 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 267-0200 Email: dmarzec@marzeclaw.com NORTHLAND GROUP: "Jones" Sues Over Vague Collection Letters ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott C. Jones, Plaintiff, v. Northland Group Inc., Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-06120, (W.D. N.Y., February 24, 2017), seeks statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees and such other and further relief for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This is a consumer class action brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of similarly situated consumers resulting from Defendant's issuance of collection letters with vague representations of the actual amount owed, in the guise of "other adjustments that might vary from day to day" and other similar terminology. Northland Group Inc. is organized under the laws of Minnesota engaged in the business of collecting debts in New York State, with an office at 7831 Glenroy Rd #350 Edina, MN 55439. Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Kaplan, Esq. 401 Penbrooke Dr., Bldg. 2, Ste. B Penfield, NY 14526 Tel: (585) 330-2222 Email: dmkaplan@rochester.rr.com NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Bid to Certify Class in "Marshall" Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr., entered an order in the lawsuit entitled Marshall, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-06794-AB-JC (C.D. Cal.), denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, and denying as moot their motion to consolidate cases. According to the Court's civil minutes, on February 13, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, which, therefore, supersedes the original complaint, citing Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court has also vacated the hearings set for February 27, 2017. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=coqoKUUq NYC SUNRISE: "Casas" Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Ernesto Casas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NYC Sunrise 99 Cents Store, Inc. (d/b/a Sunrise 99 Cents Store), Alex Doe, Jeremy Doe and Mei Ying Lin, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01415, (S.D.N.Y, February 24, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours compensation, statutory penalties, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Sunrise 99 Cents Store is a retail store owned by Alex Doe, Jeremy Doe, and Mei Ying Lin located at 2140 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10035. Casas was employed as a general store assistant. He worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked. Defendant is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 OAKMONT MAINTENANCE: "Garza" Seeks OT Pay for Off-The-Clock Work ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edwardo Garza on behalf of himself, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Oakmont Maintenance and Rental Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-00515, (S.D. Tex., February 16, 2017), seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-judgment interest for failure to pay overtime wages and compensation for hours worked pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Garza worked for the Defendant as a manual laborer. He seek overtime pay for off-the-clock hours rendered. Defendant is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER: Lawyer Evades Sanction from Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York did not impose a sanction to a lawyer in the case styled FERNANDA GARBER, MARC LERNER, DEREK RASMUSSEN, ROBERT SILVER, GARRETT TRAUB, and VINCENT BIRBIGLIA, representing themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, et al., Defendants, No. 12-CV-03704 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.). On the last day that he was permitted to file an objection, Sean Hull filed a class settlement objection that was drafted by Christopher Bandas of Bandas Law Firm. It asserted that the proposed settlement was not fair, adequate, or reasonable because it did not provide for monetary damages, ignoring Judge Scheindlin's decision to certify the class only for injunctive relief and plaintiffs' counsel's unsuccessful interim appeal of the decision. It also asserted that the proposed attorneys' fees award was excessive and further alleged that Hull was a class member who has timely filed a claim. The Hull objection was drafted by Bandas but was filed by local counsel, David Stein of Samuel and Stein, after Stein's associate conducted a basic review. After plaintiffs threatened Rule 11 sanctions for the Hull objection, Stein requested leave to withdraw his firm's representation of Hull because his firm did not have sufficient confidence in the Hull objection and was not sufficiently well-informed about the case. Judge Scheindlin granted Stein's request to withdraw. After the settlement was approved and while discovery and briefing relating to the Rule 11 motion was proceeding, the case was reassigned to Judge Valerie Caproni and because Stein no longer represented him, Hull himself submitted a letter to advise the court of his intent to respond substantively to class counsels' motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs then filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against Bandas, to which Bandas refused to respond. Bandas stated that he was fully aware of the Rule 11 motion against him, but that he ignored and reasoned that because he had not filed a notice of appearance, he was not before the court and, therefore, was not sanctionable. Bandas acknowledged, however, that he represented Hull, drafted the Hull objection as Hull's attorney, and also drafted Hull's opposition brief to the Rule 11 sanctions motion against Hull. Three months after the initial Rule 11 sanctions motions were filed, and while the Rule 11 motions, the motion to compel, and the motion for an appeals bond were pending before the court, and while the appeal of the settlement order was pending in the Second Circuit-Bandas, Turkish, Hull, and plaintiffs' class counsel filed a stipulation that settled the Hull objection in exchange for the withdrawal of the sanctions motions against Hull and his counsel. The court ordered plaintiffs' class counsel and Bandas, Stein, and Turkish to appear for a hearing to discuss why the Court should not sua sponte issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed upon the attorneys who represented Hull. Following the hearing, Bandas submitted a brief regarding whether the court has authority to impose sanctions against him. Judge Caproni held that despite attorney Christopher Bandas unprofessional conduct, she is not convinced the court had jurisdiction to sanction him since he never actually appeared in the case nor is he a member of the Southern District of New York, hence she declines to impose Rule 11 sanctions on Bandas. Nevertheless, because the court is gravely concerned that Bandas uses attorneys as local counsel without full disclosure of his track record and to shield himself from potential disciplinary action associated with frivolous objections, Bandas is ordered to provide a copy of the opinion to any local counsel he seeks to engage for any case pending in the Southern District of New York. A copy of Judge Caproni's opinion and order dated February 27, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/82DR7G from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Edward A. Diver -- Peter E. Leckman -- at Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C.; Adam G. Kurtz -- agkurtz@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP; Craig W. Hillwig -- Robert J. Larocca -- Steven M. Steingard -- at Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Howard I. Langer -- at Sandals, Langer & Taylor L.L.P.; Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner -- jdubner@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; John Andrew Ioannou -- Michael Morris Buchman -- mbuchman@motleyrice.com -- at Motley Rice LLC; John Douglas Richards -- Marc Ian Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP; Kevin M. Costello; Joshua D. Snyder -- JSnyder@bonizack.com -- Michael J. Boni -- MBoni@bonizack.com -- at BONI & ZACK LLC Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League Baseball Enterprises Inc, Defendant, represented by Alexandra M. Walsh -- awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- at Wilkinson Walsh & Eskovitz; Bradley I. Ruskin -- bruskin@proskauer.com -- at Proskauer Rose LLP; William Yates Durbin -- at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP MLB Advanced Media L.P., MLB Advanced Media, Inc., Athletics Investment Group, LLC, Major League Baseball Enterprises Inc., Officer of the Commissioner of Baseball, The Baseball Club of Seattle, L.P., San Francisco Baseball Associates, L.P., Chicago White Sox, Ltd., Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., The Phillies, L.P., Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc, Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, Defendants, represented by Adrian Fontecilla -- afontecilla@proskauer.com -- Bradley I. Ruskin -- bruskin@proskauer.com -- Jane Wu -- cwu@proskauer.com -- Jill Sharon Streja -- Joelle Anne Milov -- Jordan Blake Leader -- jleader@proskauer.com -- Stephen Michael Ahron -- sahron@proskauer.com -- Carl Clyde Forbes -- cforbes@proskauer.com -- Helene Debra Jaffe -- Jennifer R. Scullion -- Robert Davis Forbes -- at Proskauer Rose LLP; Alexandra M. Walsh -- awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- Beth A. Wilkinson -- bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- at Wilkinson Walsh & Eskovitz PLLC; William Yates Durbin -- Daniel John Toal -- dtoal@paulweiss.com -- Jeremy Aaron Benjamin -- jbenjamin@paulweiss.com -- at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Directv LLC and Directv Sports Networks LLC, Defendants, represented by James Howard Mutchnik -- james.mutchnik@kirkland.com -- Joseph Serino, Jr. -- joseph.serino@kirkland.com -- Melissa Dawn Ingalls -- melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com -- John Carlos Vazquez -- john.vazquez@kirkland.com -- Tammy A. Tsoumas -- tammy.tsoumas@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Louis A. Karasik -- Stephanie A. Jones -- stephanie.jones@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird LLP Root Sports Pittsburgh, Root Sports Rocky Mountain, and Root Sports Northwest, Defendants, represented by James Howard Mutchnik -- james.mutchnik@kirkland.com -- Joseph Serino, Jr. -- joseph.serino@kirkland.com -- Melissa Dawn Ingalls -- melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com -- John Carlos Vazquez -- john.vazquez@kirkland.com -- Tammy A. Tsoumas -- tammy.tsoumas@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Louis A. Karasik -- at Alston & Bird LLP Comcast Corp., Comcast Sportsnet Bay Area, L.P., Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, L.P., Comcast Sportsnet California, L.P., Comcast SportsNet California, LLC, Comcast SportsNet Chicago, LLC, and Comcast Sportsnet Chicago, L.P., Defendants, represented by Arthur J. Burke -- arthur.burke@davispolk.com -- Christopher Philip Lynch -- christopher.lynch@davispolk.com -- David Brendan Toscano -- david.toscano@davispolk.com -- James William Haldin -- james.haldin@davispolk.com -- at Davis Polk & Wardwell Yankees Entertainment and Sports Networks, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alan Borden Vickery -- avickery@bsfllp.com -- Christopher Emmanuel Duffy -- cduffy@bsfllp.com -- Jonathan David Schiller -- jschiller@bsfllp.com -- at Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP; James Harris Weingarten -- jweingarten@wc.com -- John E. Schmidtlein -- jschmidtlein@wc.com -- Kenneth Charles Smurzynski - - ksmurzynski@wc.com -- William Jefferson Vigen -- wvigen@wc.com - - at Williams & Connolly LLP New York Yankees Partnership, Defendant, represented by Alan Borden Vickery -- avickery@bsfllp.com -- Christopher Emmanuel Duffy -- cduffy@bsfllp.com -- Jonathan David Schiller -- jschiller@bsfllp.com -- David Wadi Ata -- data@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP Sean Hull, Objector, represented by Forrest Scott Turkish -- at Forrest Scott Turkish, Law Office Mr. David D Buckley, Jr., Objector, represented by Scott William Wert -- at Wert Law Chris Bandas, Esq., Interested Party, represented by Brian Edward Maas -- bmaas@fkks.com -- Tyler Maulsby -- tmaulsby@fkks.com -- at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, P.C. ONE SOURCE STAFFING: OT Pay Sought in "Henderson" Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Kiwan Henderson on behalf of himself individually, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. One Source Staffing and Labor d/b/a Catstaff, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00622, (S.D. Tex., February 26, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded and all such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a staffing company where Henderson worked as a manual laborer, supervising employees, demolition, gutting, cleaning and debris removal for Defendant's Disaster Restoration Division. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com ONTARIO: Deadline Set for Claimants to File in 407 Toll Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Buist at The Spec reports that bankrupt drivers in Ontario who had their licence plate renewals denied because of Highway 407 toll debts have just over three weeks left to submit a claim for compensation as part of a class-action lawsuit settlement. Lawyers for Hamilton's Scarfone Hawkins LLP won an $8-million settlement in late 2015 with the 407 ETR consortium that operates the toll highway. The lawsuit, which started five years ago, alleged people who declared bankruptcy and listed 407 tolls among their debts discovered the province could still refuse to issue them a vehicle permit even after they exited the bankruptcy process. The case ultimately went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that provisions of the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act trump a section of Ontario's Highway 407 Act. The country's highest court ruled only a very limited number of debts can outlive a bankruptcy -- income tax arrears, for example -- and a Highway 407 toll debt isn't one of them. Attempts were made to contact more than 8,000 potential claimants as part of the class action but so far, only about 1,000 claims have been submitted, said David Thompson, one of the Hamilton lawyers who led the lawsuit. The deadline to make a claim is March 27. Each eligible claimant will receive a base payment of $200, plus a share of additional compensation based on the amount of debts that were repaid to 407 ETR and the amount of time the plate renewal was denied. In some cases, Thompson said, the additional compensation could be hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on the final number of claims submitted. "We still have not received a robust response, shall we say, and we'd like to see it increase to as many people as possible," Thompson said, adding he has no vested interest in the number of claims submitted because a judge has already established legal fees for the case. "It's a simple form," Thompson said. "It's literally a 30-second exercise. "Even if you don't have all the information, sign it, date it, have it witnessed and return it to us." PACWEST SOLUTIONS: Faces "Faustino" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- Melania Faustino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pacwest Solutions, Inc. and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. RB 17850643 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda County, February 24, 2017), was brought for Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to furnish accurate itemized statements of their true wages earned and true hours worked in violation of the California Labor Code. The proposed class is composed of caregivers or personal attendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan A. Villanueva, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALLAN A. VILLANUEVA 1001 Bayhill Drive, Suite 200 San Bruno, CA 04066 Phone: (650) 616-4144 Fax: (650) 479-3086 PARAMOUNT CARE: "Brown" Labor Suit Claims Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Laniece Brown, on behalf of herself individually, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Paramount Care Services and Gail Ann Champagne, Defendants., Case No. 4:17-cv-00620, (S.D. Tex., February 25, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA, post-judgment interest and all such other and further relief as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Laniece Brown worked for Paramount Care Services and Gail Ann Champagne as a caregiver at its Spring, Texas location. She claims to be paid straight time instead of time and a half for hours worked above forty per week. Defendant is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com PARAMOUNT PROPERTY: "Cabrera" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Cabrera, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Paramount Property Maintenance LLC, Rafael A. Cadena and Humberto Castelan, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60349, (S.D. Fla., February 16, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Florida Statutes Section 440.205 and the Fair Labor Standards. Paramount is a maintenance company in Broward County, Florida where Plaintiff worked as a maintenance personnel. Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com PEARSON PLC: "Chupka" Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------ Daniel Chupka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pearson PLC, John Fallon, Natalie Dale and Stephen Jones, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01422, (S.D. N.Y., February 24, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Pearson is an international education company with its principal operation in the education and consumer publishing markets. Pearson is in the business of coming up with and managing intellectual property, which it sells to customers under well- known brand names. The content is delivered to customers through a variety of mediums which include books and online services. Pearson's American Depositary Receipts trade on the New York Stock Exchange NYSE under the ticker symbol PSO. The complaint says Defendants made overly optimistic projections for 2017 and 2018 regarding its U.S. education business when, in reality, students were not likely to purchase Pearson's products when more affordable alternatives were available, resulting in an excess of unsold products. On this news, Pearson's stock price declined from a closing price of $9.99 per share on January 17, 2017 to $7.13 per share on January 18, 2017, a drop of approximately 29%. Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 PENDRAGON NORTH: Chiu, et al. Sues Over Racial Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL CHIU, an Individual; YAN HUA WANG, an individual; JUN WANG, an Individual; SUN MEIZHI, an Individual; and all other members of the general public similarly situated Plaintiffs, vs. PENDRAGON NORTH AMERICA, INC. dba HORNBURG JAGUAR LAND ROVER SANTA MONICA and HORNBURG LAND ROVER HOLLYWOOD, a California Corporation; SAMI OHEB, an Individual; SERGEI KALUSTOV, an Individual; RP AUTOMOTIVE, INC. dba PENSKE JAGUAR LAND ROVER CERRITOS, a California Corporation; AKSEL SARDARYAN, an Individual; TERRY YORK MOTOR CARS, LTD. dba LAND ROVER ENCINO, a California Corporation; CARLOS DIAZ, an Individual; ANAHEIM HILLS JAGUAR LAND ROVER, INC. dba JAGUAR LAND ROVER ANAHEIM HILLS, a California Corporation; JOHN TOTARO, an Individual; PENEGON NEWPORT BEACH, INC. dba JAGUAR LANDROVER NEWPORT BEACH, a California Corporation; JENNIFER KIM, an Individual; NATASHA BIJELIC, an Individual; PENEGON MISSION VIEJO, INC. dba JAGUAR LAND ROVER MISSION VIEJO, a California Corporation; TERRENCE WILSON, an Individual; BRITISH MOTOR CARS DISTRIBUTOR LTD. dba LAND ROVER OF SAN FRANCISCO, a California Corporation; GILLIAN PENITENTI, an Individual; and DOES 1 to 750, Defendants, Case No. BC 651940 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 24, 2017), alleges that the processes and procedures allegedly imposed by the Defendants were arbitrary and meant to discriminate against Chinese nationals either visiting and/or residing in the United States of America, individuals of Chinese descent and/or individuals perceived to be of Chinese or Asian descent by prohibiting or discouraging them from purchasing or leasing a new Range Rover/Land Rover vehicle of a particular model. Defendants are dealerships authorized by Jaguar Land Rover North America to sell Range Rovers of a particular model to members of the general public. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: 562.432.8933 Fax: 562.432.8933 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com PLATINUM PARI-MUTUEL: May 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Platinum Pari-Mutuel Holdings Inc. securities (PPMH) from July 12, 2016 through February 15, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Platinum Pari- Mutuel investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Platinum Pari-Mutuel class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1063.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Platinum Pari-Mutuel's press releases and financial information lacked veracity; (2) Platinum Pari-Mutuel's disclosure controls and procedures were inadequate; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 2, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1063.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767- 3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Suit Over Negligent Representation ---------------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres at Legal Newsline reports that two consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Procter & Gamble, alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Tom Takano of California and Tracy McCarthy of New York filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Feb. 21 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against The Procter & Gamble Company, alleging the defendant advertises its products as "natural" despite having synthetic and dangerous ingredients. According to the complaint, Takano and McCarthy sustained financial damages from being deceived into purchasing shampoo and conditioning products that were labeled "natural". The plaintiffs allege Procter & Gamble misleads consumers into purchasing its products despite knowing they contain unnatural and synthetic ingredients. Takano and McCarthy seek trial by jury, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution, injunctive relief, court costs and all further relief the court grants. They are represented by attorneys L. Timothy Fisher -- tfisher@bursor.com -- Joel D. Smith -- jsmith@bursor.com -- and Yeremey Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher PA in Walnut Creek, California, and by Scott Bursor of Burser & Fisher in New York. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case number 2:17-cv-00385-TLN-AC Q.S. SAN LUIS OBISPO: Settlement in "ABDI" Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LILI ORDUNA, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Q.S. SAN LUIS OBISPO, a California limited partnership; WARMINGTON HOTEL ASSOCIATES 7, L.P., a California limited partnership; WINEGARDNER & HAMMONS, INC., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 4 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-00593-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), Judge Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's motions for (1) final approval of class action settlement and (2) attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive payment. For purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class is composed of all the current and former non-exempt employees employed by the Defendants in California at any time between April 14, 2011 through July 18, 2016. Judge Staton further ordered the payment of: (a) the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency in the amount of $3,750; (b) the Class Counsel's attorney's fees in the amount of $121,500 in attorneys' fees; (c) the Class Counsel's litigation costs of $10,019.51; and (d) the Claims Administrator, CPT Group, Inc.'s fees and expenses in the amount of $10,000. The Copy of the Court's Order dated February 1, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/cE25W5 from Leagle.com. Lili Orduna, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Flores Baltodano, Baltodano and Baltodano LLP. Lili Orduna, Plaintiff, represented by Oscar Ramirez, Law Offices of Oscar Ramirez, PC & Hernaldo Jose Baltodano -- hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com -- Baltodano and Baltodano LLP. Q.S. San Luis Obispo, et al., Defendants, represented by Rachel J. Moroski -- rachel.moroski@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC & Carolyn Blecha Hall -- carolyn.hall@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC. QUANTUM LEARNING: Class Settlement in "Johnson" Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and granted in part and denied in part class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, costs and representative plaintiffs awards in the case captioned TREVOR JOHNSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. QUANTUM LEARNING NETWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-05013-LHK (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the proposed class action settlement, while class counsel filed a motion for approval of attorneys' fees, costs and representative plaintiffs awards. The class members are composed of two subclasses, the California class and the FLSA Class. The settlement will provide each class member with a proportionate share based upon the number of SuperCamp sessions worked, the class members' job titles with respect to each of those sessions worked, the location with respect to each of those sessions worked by the class member, specifically, whether the class member worked in California or outside of California. Class counsel requests 33.33% of the $400,000 settlement, or $133,333.33. Class Counsel also requests reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses incurred to prosecute the action in an amount of $13,699.10. The settlement agreement capped class administration costs at $20,000, and class counsel seeks to deduct $20,000 in class administration expenses from the common fund. Class counsel's list of costs includes $679 of additional class administration costs. Judge Lucy H. Koh granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed class action settlement and granted in part and denied in part class counsel's motion for approval of attorneys' fees, costs and service awards. The court awards $112,000 in attorney's fees to class counsel and approves $13,020.10 in litigation costs. The court also awards named plaintiffs Johnson and Harmon $5,000 each, and awards $1,000 to pre-settlement opt-in plaintiff Engle. The court will not award the $679 in additional class administration costs. A copy of Judge Koh's order dated February 27, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/eIBQjX from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Logan McMillan Starr -- logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- at Bryan Schwartz Law Quantum Learning Network, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas S. Ingrassia -- tingrassia@pettitkohn.com -- Jenna Heather Leyton- Jones -- jleyton@pettitkohn.com -- Shannon Riyana Finley -- sfinley@pettitkohn.com -- at Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz PC QUALCOMM INC: "Rotman" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Allan Rotman, Shari Cole, Phillip James Zacharias, Mary Beth Cummins, Guy Snowdy, Cynthia Bambini, Grant Hauschild, David Floyd, Kim Coughlin, Brandon Fuller, Lisa Patnode, and Nina Bartoshevich, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00260-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to recover for substantial injuries they have suffered as a result of Qualcomm's violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer laws and the common law of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary damages and all available remedies to which they are entitled for Qualcomm's unlawful conduct. Plaintiffs brought the action against Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated for Qualcomm's unlawful maintenance of a monopoly in baseband processors. Qualcomm has maintained its monopoly by engaging in anticompetitive, exclusionary conduct, including, without limitation: (a) failure to license standard- essential patents to all applicants on fair, reasonable and non- discriminatory ("FRAND") terms; (b) withholding Qualcomm's baseband processors unless a customer accepts a license to standard-essential patents on terms imposed by Qualcomm, including excessive and unlawful royalties that the customer must pay when using competitors' processors ("no license-no chips"); (c) refusing to license its cellular standard-essential patents to competitors, in violation of Qualcomm's FRAND commitments; and (d) entering into exclusive dealing arrangements, including with Apple Inc., a large and highly important cellphone manufacturer. Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400 5822 Facsimile: (619) 400 5832 E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com lindner@stuevesiegel.com - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622 1851 Facsimile: (216) 241 8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com QUALCOMM INC: Charged with Anti-trust for Chipset by "Crutcher" --------------------------------------------------------------- Dayan Crutcher and Catherine Schmidlin, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv- 00766, (N.D. Cal., February 16, 2017), seeks to recover damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of California state consumer protection statutes, state antitrust and restraint of trade laws, unfair competition law and violation of the Cartwright Act and Sherman Act. Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA technology and it incorporated into virtually every relevant cellular standard in the last several years. Plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm has not adhered to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, but has instead taken advantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and maintain monopoly control of the modem chipset market by refusing to license and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of its patents to competing chipset makers. Plaintiff is represented by: Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq. THE MEHDI FIRM, PC One Market Spear Tower, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 293-8039 Fax: (415) 293-8001 Email: azram@themehdifirm.com, QUALCOMM INC: Charged with Anti-trust for Chipset by "Frederick" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Frederick, Charles Poon, Andrea Hogan, Tina Heim, Monica Morrow, Mark Cardillo, and Allison Shipp, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00377 (S.D. Cal., February 24, 2017) seeks to recover damages, pre- and post- judgment interest, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of California state consumer protection statutes, state antitrust and restraint of trade laws, unfair competition law and violation of the Cartwright Act and Sherman Act. Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA technology and it incorporated into virtually every relevant cellular standard in the last several years. Plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm has not adhered to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, but has instead taken advantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and maintain monopoly control of the modem chipset market by refusing to license and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of its patents to competing chipset makers. Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 Facsimile: (619) 400-5832 Email: hartley@stuevesiegel.com lindner@stuevesiegel.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E1250 First National Bank Bldg. 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com QUALITY THERAPY: "Kondati" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Sumana Kondati, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated as class representative under Illinois Law and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Plaintiff, v. Quality Therapy and Consultation, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01461, (N.D. Ill., February 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime pay, injunctive and declaratory relief, compensation and credit for all uncompensated work required, liquidated and/or other damages, restitution and payment of all benefits and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Kondati worked as a clinical therapist for the Defendants, a medical provider specializing in therapy. Defendant is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin IL 60177 Tel: (630) 464-9675 Facsimile 630-206-0889 Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com RHD JR INC: Court Certifies Class of Mechanics in "Jordan" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. P.K. Holmes, III, entered an opinion and order in the lawsuit titled MARK JORDAN and BRANDON WATKINS, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RHD, JR., INC., d/b/a MAYFLOWER RV SALES & SERVICE; and ROBERT H. DUDLEY, JR., Case No. 2:16-cv-02227-PKH (W.D. Ark.), granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action, disclosure of contact information for potential opt-in plaintiffs, and to send court- approved notice. Judge Holmes conditionally certifies the case as a collective action pursuant to the FLSA and authorizes notice to be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The opt-in class will consist of all mechanics employed by Defendants at any time after September 12, 2013. RHD, Jr., Inc., doing business as Mayflower RV Sales & Services, sells and services new and used recreational vehicles at its two locations in Sherwood and Van Buren, Arkansas. Mr. Jordan began working for RHD's Van Buren location as a mechanic around November of 2011 and represents that he continues to work for RHD. Mr. Watkins worked for RHD as a mechanic for a period during 2015. The Plaintiffs allege that while they were mechanics for RHD, the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Defendants are directed to provide the names and last known home mailing addresses of all putative members. The Plaintiffs' proposed notice, consent to join, and follow-up postcard are approved subject to certain changes, including the Defendants' proposed revision to the description of the lawsuit in the proposed notice that states that the Defendants deny liability and assert that they have compensated the mechanics on a 'flat rate' basis that constitutes a commission and is compliant with federal law. In all other respects, the Motion for Conditional Certification of a collective action is denied. A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CEI4881L RHG & COMPANY: Settlement in "Maxin" Has Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, in the case HEATHER MAXIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RHG & COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16CV2625 JLS (BLM) (S.D. Cal.) Plaintiff Heather Maxin has filed a class action complaint for damages and injunctive relief, in violation of California Civil Code section 1750, et seq., California Business & Professions Code section 17533.7, California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., against RHG & Company, Inc., an American pharmaceutical grade and professional strength supplements' manufacturer that conducts business through Internet sales and mail orders, and a numerous pharmaceutical and supplement stores within the United States. Plaintiff alleged that defendant made, and continues to make, affirmative misrepresentations regarding its products, including the Vitamin D3 product purchased by plaintiff, it manufactures, markets and sells. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that "Defendant packaged, advertised, marketed, promoted, and sold its Products as `Made in the USA. In October, the parties participated in a full day of mediation before the Honorable Leo S. Papas and have agreed to settle the claims in the action on a nationwide basis under the terms and conditions memorialized in a settlement agreement. Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Judge Sammartino preliminary approved the settlement agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and the action is preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of: Settlement Class: All Persons who purchased in the United States between August 1, 2012 and the date on which the order is electronically docketed one or more of defendant's products that contained an unqualified "Made in USA" label or were otherwise represented as being "Made in USA," including on defendant's website, brochures, and/or any other marketing materials. For settlement purposes only, plaintiff Heather Maxin as the class representative, and Abbas Kazerounian of the Kazerouni Law Group, A.P.C. and Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart as class counsel. Additionally, the court approves and appoints Kurtzman Carson Consultants as the claims administrator. Within thirty days of the date of the order is electronically docketed, the parties shall disseminate the notices. Judge Sammartino shall conduct a final approval hearing on September 28, 2017 at 221 W. Broadway, Courtroom 4D, 4th Floor, San Diego, CA 92101, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement, plaintiff's request for the award of attorney fees and costs, the class representative enhancement, dismissal with prejudice of the class action with respect to Defendant and the entry of final judgment. No later than twenty-one days before the final approval hearing, the parties shall file a motion for final approval of class action settlement. Class counsel shall also file an application for attorney fees, costs, and a class representative service award. Class Counsel shall provide documentation detailing the number of hours incurred by attorneys in litigating this action, supported by detailed time records, as well as hourly compensation to which those attorneys are reasonably entitled. Class Counsel should address the appropriateness of any upward or downward departure in the lodestar calculation, as well as reasons why a percentage-of-the-fund approach to awarding attorney fees may be more preferable in this case. Class Counsel should be prepared to address any questions the Court may have regarding the application for fees at the Final Approval Hearing. Defendant to deliver class List to within 5 days of the date on which claims administrator the order is electronically docketed. Claims Administrator to establish within 28 days of the date on which Website and Toll-Free Number the order is electronically docketed. Publish notice of settlement in USA Today and send notice to class members and relevant pharmacies. Request for Exclusion, no later than 90 days from the date the order is electronically docketed. Objections to the settlement, no later than 90 days from the date the order is electronically docketed. Notice of Intention to Appear at Final Approval Hearing, no later than 100 days from the date the order is electronically docketed. Parties to file motion for final approval hearing, no later than 21 days before the final approval. Class counsel to file motion for attorney fees and costs and incentive award, September 28, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. A copy of Judge Sammartino's order dated February 17, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/GBOFKX from Leagle.com. Heather Maxin, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Andrei Armas -- andrei@kazlg.com -- Matthew M. Loker -- ml@kazlg.com -- at Kazerouni Law Group, APC RHG & Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lee S. Brenner -- lbrenner@kelleydrye.com -- at Kelley Drye and Warren LLP RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, NM: "Serna" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH SERNA, SANTANA BUSTAMANTE, GABRIEL M. BLEA, RONNIE CARILLO, JR., ALIFONSO DELEON, GERMAN JACQUEZ-TORRES, GUY J. JORDAN, DAVID WAYNE JOURDAN, ADELINE MARTINEZ, ANTHONY MARTINEZ, CHRISTOPHER M. MARTINEZ, ROMAN MARTINEZ, KENNETH MERCURE, LEA PACHECO, ELIZABETH RAMIREZ, ROSE RASCON and CHRIS VALDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00196-SCY-KBM (D.N.M., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to recover back pay, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages as a result of Defendant's failure to pay employees for all hours worked and for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages as required by law under state wage and hour laws and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs work (or worked) for Defendant as Correctional Officers at the Rio Arriba County Detention Center. Their duties include, inter alia, maintaining custody and control of inmates at the Detention Center, patrolling designated areas of the detention facility, controlling traffic to and from assigned areas, maintaining security and inspecting the facility to ensure the safety and security of inmates, taking periodic resident counts in the detention levels and arranging for and guarding work details. The Plaintiffs and other employees are generally not permitted to leave their post maintaining control over inmates until they are relieved from their shift by another employee. The Plaintiffs and other employees are scheduled and paid only for the stated length of their shift. However, Plaintiffs and other employees are consistently required to work longer than the time allotted for their scheduled shift. Plaintiffs and other employees are not compensated for this extra work time. The Defendant is aware of this extra time worked, requires that such work routinely be performed, and fails to compensate its employees for that time. Rio Arriba County is a county located in the U.S. state of New Mexico. As of the 2010 census, the population was 40,246. Its county seat is Tierra Amarilla. Its northern border is the Colorado state line. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane C. Youtz, Esq. Stephen Curtice James A. Montalbano YOUTZ & VALDEZ, P.C. 900 Gold Avenue S.W. Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 244 1200 Facsimile: (505) 244 9700 E-mail: shane@youtzvaldez.com stephen@youtzvaldez.com james@youtzvaldez.com SANABI INVESTMENTS: "Carrero" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Arwin Nicolas Zapata Carrero and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sanabi Investments LLC, Sandy Bijani and Hanin Prieto, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20608, (S.D. Fla., February 16, 2017), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney's fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing along with court costs, interest and any other relief. Sanabi Investments LLC operates as Oscar's Moving and Storage where Plaintiff worked for Defendants as mover from June 1996 through February 10, 2017. Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com SANTA FE, NM: Needs to Change Product Labeling for Deal Compliance ------------------------------------------------------------------ T.S. Last at Albuquerque Journal reports that Natural American Spirit cigarettes, which were originally made in Santa Fe, may keep its name but otherwise must remove the term "natural" along with the phrase "additive free" from its product labeling, advertising and promotional material under an agreement between its manufacturer and the Food and Drug Administration. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, which manufactures the cigarettes and is now owned by Reynolds tobacco, has until August to implement the changes. Though marked "Confidential -- Not for Public Disclosure," the Jan. 19 agreement came to light when Santa Fe Natural Tobacco on Feb. 24 filed a motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against it in U.S. District Court. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids posted a link to the agreement on its website along with a press release criticizing the deal. "The deceptive marketing for Natural American Spirit cigarettes is costing lives, and this agreement fails to stop it," Matthew L. Myers, the group's president, said. "This agreement falls woefully short of the complete prohibition needed on use of the term 'natural' and other deceptive claims that falsely imply a safer cigarette." The group also objects to a provision that allows the company to list ingredients as "Tobacco and Water" and that the agreement doesn't address the use of the word "organic" as part of the product labeling and advertising, which it says is another misleading term. A spokesman for Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company and its parent company, Reynolds American Inc., declined comment. Santa Fe Natural still has offices in Santa Fe. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company was formed more than 30 years ago. It was sold to Reynolds in 2002 for $340 million. The class-action lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in 2015, contends the product is "neither natural nor additive-free" and that it contains "a variety of harmful additives that are not disclosed to consumers," citing pesticides and fertilizer. It also claims the image of an Indian in headdress smoking from a feathered pipe "misleads consumers into believing that the cigarettes are affiliated with an Indian tribe." According to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in December, the Santa Fe Natural product was the seventh most popular cigarette sold in the U.S. in 2015. SAP AMERICA: Faces "Stambaugh" Suit Over Employee Stock Options --------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH STAMBAUGH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against SAP AMERICA, INC., Defendant, INDEX NO. 650964/2017 (N.Y., Sup., County of New York, February 24, 2017), seeks damages, or alternatively, a declaratory judgment, arising from the alleged failure of Defendant SAP America, Inc. to honor Named Plaintiff's exercise of vested employee virtual stock options, as well as Defendant's violations of applicable employment discrimination laws. SAP America, Inc. develops business software solutions for various industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer A. L. Battle, Esq. CARPENTER LIPPS AND LELAND LLP 1540 Broadway, Suite 3710 New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212 837 1110 SIRIUSXM: Music Organizations Join to Disapprove Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Christman at Billboard reports that SoundExchange, RIAA and A2IM are among several music organizations to join an amicus brief arguing that the pending class-action settlement between members of the Turtles and SiriusXM over pre-1972 recordings should not be approved in its present form. According to the filing, made March 1 in the U.S. Central District Court of California, the organizations argued that the proposed settlement could impact future rate-setting proceedings, as well as the ways pre-1972 recordings are valued and licensed. The brief was filed by Jenner & Block LLP on behalf of Sound Exchange, RIAA, A2IM, AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund, American Federation of Musicians of United States and Canada and SAG-AFTRA. The settlement, struck in December, provided that SiriusXM would pay the Turtles class action group $25-40 million dollars, depending on how the class action suit turned out in three states. The Turtles won in California and New York, but those results are under appeal. In Florida, the "Happy Together" group lost but has also appealed. The settlement provided for a ten-year license for recordings of class action participants, which would be paid at a rate of 5.5 percent of revenue if the Turtles suit prevailed in all three states. At that percentage, the settlement could result in as much as a $59 million payout. The suit came about because the U.S. had no master-recording copyright until 1972, and Sirius argued that for that reason, it had no obligation to pay for playing those recordings. Because of this loophole, they have been deducting money for the pro-rata share of performances from those recordings every year from payments made to Sound Exchange, the record labels and performers. Copyright holders, like the Turtles in their class-action suit, argue that while there is no Federal law for pre-1972 recordings, they are protected by state law, which is why so far suits have been filed against SiriusXM in those three states. After the Turtles class-action lawsuit prevailed in California, Sirius agreed to a settlement with the major labels and ABKCO to the tune of $210 million in June 2015. So, while the majors gained a windfall, the Turtles class action lawsuit still had to slug it out in court, until it finally scored the settlement in December. Even with that outcome, the suits continue because the settlement merely acts as insurance, capping out what Sirius could pay if it loses, while guaranteeing at least some kind of payment for members of the Turtles class-action suit. The amicus filing says that record labels and performer organizations have "deep misgivings about the prospective relief embedded in the Turtles settlement, including the assertion that it identifies a 'market rate,'" which could be used as evidence in future rate proceedings. The RIAA, SoundExchange, A2IM and the other organizations argue that the settlement "would impose a steep discount from the rate that Sirius XM pays for federally protected recordings -- i.e., those made after 1972 when the master recording copyright was created." Sirius pays 11 percent of gross revenue, while the settlement calls for the class to receive its pro-rata share of 5.5 percent of revenue, or half the going rate paid this year.The Copyright Royalty Board is currently holding rate court proceedings to determine what the rate should be for the 2018-2022 period. SoundExchange has proposed a rate of 23 percent of revenue, while Sirius initially proposed a rate of 8.1-11 percent, or in other words, a rate reduction. In December, major labels executives told Billboard they fear that Sirius will use the settlement market rate to their benefit in the CRB proceeding and thus win a lower rate than the radio service is currently paying. Now, sources say SiriusXM is trying to use this market rate to receive a more favorable royalty rate in the CRB proceeding. They also argue the court should not endorse the settlement as a "market" rate -- one struck between a willing buyer and willing seller. The rate set forth in the agreement calls for 5.5 percent on a going forward basis and has a mechanism to be further discounted based on whether the Turtles class action wins appeals in all three states where the litigation was ongoing. The rate declines by 2 percent if the Turtles lose in New York, which they just did; and another 1.5 percent if they lose the appeal in Florida. So with the New York loss, the going forward rate now stands at 3.5 percent. While major label executives were immediately wary of the rate- setting mechanism in the settlement, one executive on the Turtles' side of the class action said that their concerns are misplaced. That executive argued that the 5.5 percent rate covers three states with 13 percent of Sirius listeners. If that rate was extrapolated out across all 50 states, it implies a rate of 38.5 percent of revenue. The amicus filing argues that if the class actions constitute 5 percent of SiriusXM sound recording performances, in terms of gross revenues, the payout would equal less than three-tenths of one percent of SiriusXM's gross revenues, which would further be discounted by the deduction of attorney fees awarded to class counsel, Gradstein & Marzano. This is not a market rate, but well below it, according to the filing. The amicus says that the class action plaintiffs no doubt agreed to settle at reduced rates due to the costly and uncertain prospects of multiple state court litigation, not because those rates reflect what would happen in the marketplace. Most direct licenses are for a few years, while the CRB proceedings occur every five years. "Simply put a license spanning 10 years is inconceivable as the product of a transaction between a willing buyer and willing seller." That provision basically saddles "a class of copyright owners with what amounts to a 10- year compulsory license," the filing states. The filing argues that the settlement uses the class action mechanism to put in place what is fundamentally a policy solution to an industry-wide problem, not a solution appropriate for judicial adoption. While members of the class-action suit can opt out, they probably are focusing on the payday instead of the long-term implications of the deal, according to the filing. But it's possible they aren't considering that the settlement provides SiriusXM with ammunition to possibly secure lower rates in future proceeding, which will harm copyright owners and performers outside the class. That's why, they argue, the settlement should not be approved without changes to address these deficiencies SKYC MANAGEMENT: "Luna" Sues Over Rent Stabilization Law Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- ENRIQUETA LUNA, DESMOND HILL, JOSE L.S. GARCIA and STACEY SANCHEZ individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SKYC MANAGEMENT LLC a/k/a GREISMAN MANAGEMENT and a/k/a B. GREISMAN REALTY, 161 HOLDING LTD, POST LLC, ABBY ASSOCIATES, 2275 HOLDING LTD, 22 HOLDING CORP., CHAMA HOLDING CORP., 346 HOLDING CORF., STEB REALTY CORP., 674 HOLDING LTD, 666 HOLDING LLC, 116 WEST CORP., DBPB HOLDING CORP., HELBOR REALTY CORP., BRAGREIS REALTY CORP., S&S GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, BRONX RIVER ASSOC. LLC, WALTON AVENUE REALTY ASSOC LLC, TOWNSEND AVENUE REALTY LLC, 1820 HOLDING LTD., HENNESSY REALTY LLC, GLEASON LLC, 2246 HOLDING CORP., 2188 REALTY LTD, 2195 GRAND CONCOURSE REALTY LLC; 2472 WEBSTER REALTY LLC, 2281-85 REALTY LLC, 2395-97 REALTY LLC, UNIVERSITY REALTY HOLDINGS LLC, 2522 REALTY LLC, and HEIGHTS REALTY CO. LLC., Defendants, INDEX NO. 151905/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of New York, February 27, 2017), alleges that Defendants unlawfully, willfully and pervasively (1) charged and held security deposits in excess of one month's rent in blatant disregard of rent stabilization laws, (2) commingled security deposits with nonsecurity funds, and (3) charged "key money" (i.e., committing the crime known as rent gouging) as a condition to entering into a lease with new tenants. Defendants have approximately 1,872 total apartment units in the buildings that serve as residences for largely low income, immigrant families. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc A. Rapaport, Esq. RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC One Penn Plaza, Suite 2430 New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 382-1600 Fax: (212) 382-0920 E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com SOLAR BEAR: Class of Installers Certified in "Izquidero" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Darrin P. Gayles granted in part the Plaintiff's motion to authorize notice to potential class members submitted in the lawsuit titled ALEYMER IZQUIDERO, on behalf of himself and all employees similarly situated v. SOLAR BEAR SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-22790-DPG (S.D. Fla.). Judge Gayles granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification for "[a]ll current and former Solar Bear Air Conditioning Installers and Installation Helpers who worked at the company's Miami, Florida locations: 2013 NW 84th Avenue, Doral, Florida 33122 or 10125 NW 116th Way, Suite 10, Medley, Florida 33178 for any length of time since June 28, 2013." Aleymer Izquierdo brought the action against the Defendant for alleged failure to compensate him and similarly situated employees' overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Judge Gayles also approved the Plaintiff's revised proposed notice. Judge Gayles ruled that within 5 days of the date of the Order, the Plaintiff shall file a proposed amended consent form, and within 15 days, the Defendant will provide the contact information of its air conditioning installers and installation helpers, who worked for it since June 28, 2013. The Defendant is not required to provide the dates of birth of the employees nor is Defendant required to provide this information in the form of an excel spreadsheet. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bNdciTNE SPARTAN TECHNOLOGIES: "Williams" Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Williams, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Spartan Technologies, LLC, a Foreign For Profit Corporation, and Intec Communications, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00132-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss., February 27, 2017), seeks to recover from Defendants overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is a business and technology consulting firm that focuses on architecting business solutions providing IT staffing and digital services. Plaintiff is a cable technician. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher W. Espy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC 4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200 Jackson, MI 39211 Phone: 601 718 2087 Fax: 601 718 2102 E-mail: CEspy@forthepeople.com ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Bobo's Drugs Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BOBO'S DRUGS, INC. d/b/a DAVIS ISLANDS PHARMACY, a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY and GETAWAY SEMINARS, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv- 00372-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.), moves for entry of an order certifying this class: Each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages from "St. John's University & Getaway Seminars" on or after February 26, 2013 promoting continuing education vacation seminars but did not state on its first page that the fax recipient may request that the sender not send any future fax and that its failure to comply with such a request within 30 days would be unlawful. The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants' fax campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Plaintiff asserts. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fs6mhWzq The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 P.O. Box 416474 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: 312-658-5500 Facsimile: 312-658-5555 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com STILLWATER MINING: Faces "Rempel" Suit Over Sibanye Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN REMPEL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STILLWATER MINING COMPANY, BRIAN D. SCHWEITZER, MICHAEL J. MCMULLEN, MICHAEL S. PARRETT, GARY A. SUGAR, GEORGE M. BEE, PATRICIA E. MERRIN, and LAWRENCE PETER O'HAGAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00400 (D. Colo., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Securities and Exchange Act. The case is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public stockholders of Stillwater Mining Company against the Defendants in connection with the December 9, 2016 entry by Stillwater into a definitive merger agreement (Merger Agreement) with Sibanye Gold Limited (Parent), Thor US Holdco Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Sibanye (US Holdco), and Thor Mergco Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of US Holdco, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into Stillwater, with Stillwater surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (Proposed Transaction). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Stillwater shareholders will receive $18.00 for each share of Stillwater that they own (Merger Consideration). This Merger Consideration is inadequate and undervalues the Company, says the complaint. It fails to adequately value the Company's recent financial performance and is well below analyst estimates, the Plaintiff relates. According to the complaint, the Proposed Transaction is further marred by a flawed process and conflicts of interest, not the least of which is that some of the directors will receive windfall profits not shared by non-insider shareholders. To secure these benefits, the Director Defendants further exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duty by agreeing to certain deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement that will prevent other bidders from making successful competing offers. Stillwater Mining Company is a palladium and platinum mining company with headquarters located at Littleton, Colorado, United States. It is the only palladium and platinum producer in the USA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971 1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (504) 455 1400 Facsimile: (504) 455 1498 E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com STRAWBERRY PATCH: Faces "Harshbarger" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM HARSHBARGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STRAWBERRY PATCH, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 651593 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles), alleges that Plaintiff Worked more than eight hours in any given day and more than 40 hours in any given week; did not receive rest or meal periods; was not properly paid for time worked, did not received overtime compensation, did not receive rest/meal period premiums, and did not receive accurate itemized wage statements; and, when terminated from his employment, he did not receive his final paycheck within the time limits prescribed by the California Labor Code. The Defendants is a restaurant/bar where Plaintiff was employed as an hourly paid employee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey K. Compton, Esq. Mark A. Ozzello, Esq. Ari Y. Basser (SBN 272618) MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP 17383 Sunset Boulevard, Suite A-380 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Phone: (310) 454-5900 Fax: (310)454-5970 E-mail: icompton@mzclaw.com mozzello@mzclaw.com abasser@mzclaw.com SWEDISH MEDICAL: Class Action Adds PreCheck Inc. as Defendant ------------------------------------------------------------- Kieran Nicholson at The Denver Post reports that a class action lawsuit brought against Swedish Medical Center saying it was negligent in hiring a surgical technologist who stole drugs and exposed patients to HIV, hepatitis B and C has added the company that performed Rocky Allen's background check for the hospital. Court documents show PreCheck Inc., a Texas corporation, has been added to the suit, according to court documents. Swedish and HealthONE of Denver Inc. recently disclosed that PreCheck performed the background hiring check on Allen, who was sentenced in November to 6-1/2 years in prison by a federal judge. A class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Denver court alleges patients were exposed to HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C, in part, due to the hospital's negligence in hiring Allen. The Englewood hospital fired Allen, who has since been convicted in federal court for stealing a syringe filled with fentanyl from an operating room. Court records show that by the time Swedish hired him, Allen had been fired from four other hospitals and also had been court- martialed in 2011, when he was serving with the Navy in Afghanistan, for the theft of fentanyl. "By the time Allen appeared on the doorstep of SMC in August 2015 looking for a job as a surgical technician, all the warning signs of what would later occur at SMC were present," the lawsuit states. "Allen already had been terminated by numerous other hospitals for the exact conduct that has now exposed thousands of SMC patients at an increased risk of bloodborne pathogens." The lawsuit names three plaintiffs, Angelica Porras, Catherine Pecha and Gary Wolter, but sought class-action status for all individuals who had surgery at Swedish between Aug. 17, 2015, and Jan. 22, 2016. The plaintiffs seek economic and compensatory damages. The hospital offered free blood tests to 2,900 patients. Each of the three named plaintiffs has received negative test results for the three viruses, the lawsuit states. But all three were told that despite those test results, they remain at risk and should pursue continued blood testing, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the hospital negligently hired Allen, negligently inflicted emotional distress and failed to properly supervise Allen after hiring him. Named as defendants are Swedish and its parent companies, Hospital Corp. of America and HealthONE of Denver. The lawsuit states that another HealthONE hospital, Rose Medical Center, had another drug- theft scandal. In February, Allen received an additional year on his prison sentence for breaking a judge's trust when he took a vacation with family while on his way to an Oregon prison to serve his sentence. TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Feller Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned GORDON AND MARY FELLER, et al. v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:16-cv- 01378-CAS-AJW (C.D. Cal.), move for provisional certification of this class: All persons who own an in-force Policy for which the Monthly Deduction Rate increases imposed by Transamerica beginning August 1, 2015, has resulted or will result in higher Monthly Deduction charges than those applicable under the rate schedule in effect before that date. The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of Donna M. White as the sole class representative of the provisional class and for the appointment of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP, and Consumer Watchdog as class counsel for the provisional class. Should the Court grant the their previously filed renewed application for preliminary injunction, the Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order that notice be provided to the provisional class members informing them of the terms of the preliminary injunction and the Court's decision to grant provisional class certification. The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court order Transamerica Life Insurance Company to bear the cost of issuing notice to the provisional class. The Court will commence a hearing on March 27, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=P1gZ2F9j The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com fbalint@bffb.com - and - Harvey Rosenfield, Esq. Jerry Flanagan, Esq. CONSUMER WATCHDOG 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 392-0522 Facsimile: (310) 392-8874 E-mail: Harvey@consumerwatchdog.org jerry@consumerwatchdog.org - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Gail M. McQuilkin, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. Rachel Sullivan, Esq. Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com gam@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com rs@kttlaw.com tjl@kttlaw.com - and - William M. Shernoff, Esq. Travis M. Corby, Esq. SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA BENTLEY LLP 301 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 246-0503 Facsimile: (310) 246-0380 E-mail: wshernoff@shernoff.com tcorby@shernoff.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Mark R. Rosen, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com mrosen@barrack.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT, LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488-8854 Facsimile: (281) 488-8867 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com - and - David G. Scott, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT, LLP The Rozelle-Murphy House 1301 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON VINES PLLC 2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Facsimile: (888) 505-0909 E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com - and - James R. Patterson, Esq. Allison H. Goddard, Esq. Catherine S. Wicker, Esq. PATTERSON LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6990 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com ali@pattersonlawgroup.com catherine@pattersonlawgroup.com - and - Lance A. Harke, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP 9699 NE Second Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Telephone: (305) 536-8220 Facsimile: (305) 536-8229 E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com hbushman@harkeclasby.com - and - Chip Merlin, Esq. MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A. 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950 Tampa, FL Telephone: (813) 229-1000 E-mail: cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com - and - Denise H. Sze, Esq. MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A. 1800 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-5961 Facsimile: (310) 229-5763 E-mail: deniseszelaw@gmail.com - and - Jack Scarola, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 383-9451 E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Faces "Sackin" Suit Over 2016 Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSE SACKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01469 (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2017), alleges that Defendant betrayed Plaintiff's trust by failing to properly safeguard and protect his personally identifiable information (PII) and by disclosing his PII to cybercriminals. This case seeks redress for TransPerfect's alleged unlawful and negligent disclosure of thousands of Employees' PII in a massive data breach on January 17, 2016, in violation of common law. TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC. -- http://www.transperfect.com-- provides services including translation, interpretation, website globalization, subtitling, voiceovers, marketing, deposition, and litigation support services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. Todd S. Garber, Esq. John D. Sardesai-Grant, Esq. Difie M. Osborne, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 298-3281 Fax: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com tgarber@fbfglaw.com jsardesaigrant@fbfglaw.com dosborne@fbfglaw.com TRIDENT SEAFOODS: "Guzman" Asserts Food Supplement Mislabeling -------------------------------------------------------------- Ricarlos Guzman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trident Seafoods Corporation and COSTCO Wholesale Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01102, (E.D. N.Y., February 27, 2017), seeks restitution, disgorgement, refund, and/or other monetary damages, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the applicable statutes and prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief and statutory or actual damages pursuant to New York General Business Law, punitive damages and such further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty and violation of various state consumer protection statutes. Trident Seafoods Corporation and Costco Wholesale Corporation advertise, market, sell and distribute Wild Alaskan Fish Oil in 400 mg soft gel capsules. According to the product label, it contains Omega 11 fatty acids despite the lack of scientific literature that this is even present in fish oils. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq. GABRIELLI LEVITT 2426 Eastchester Road, Suite 103 Bronx, NY 10469 Telephone: (718) 708-5322 Fax: (718) 708-5966 UFC: MMA Fighters File Class Action Over Sherman Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Gyetvan, Jonathan Hatch at JD Supra Business Advisor reports that "we have not previously reported on an antitrust litigation that is enveloping the mixed martial arts ("MMA") world. Six current and former MMA fighters have filed a class action lawsuit against the company that owns the UFC, Zuffa, LLC, for violations of the Sherman Act. A review of the docket indicates that the UFC will have to go a few more rounds before it has another opportunity for a knockout." The putative class plaintiffs allege that the UFC has monopoly or monopsony power in two markets: (a) the market for promotion of live MMA bouts, and (b) the market for professional MMA fighting services The plaintiffs claim that the UFC receives 90% of the revenues from MMA bout promotion and that MMA fighters do not have the ability to work for MMA promoters other than the UFC. The plaintiffs' claims regarding the UFC's allegedly anticompetitive scheme partly rely on the fighters' exclusive- dealing contracts with the UFC, which include: (1) a champion's clause that allows the UFC to extend a fighter's contract when he or she is a champion (and most marketable), (2) an ancillary rights clause which grants the UFC the fighters' exclusive and perpetual worldwide personality and identity rights for all commercial purposes, (3) a promotions clause which requires the fighters to promote bouts for no additional compensation, and (4) a sponsorship and endorsement clause which grants the UFC the sole discretion to approve a fighter's sponsorship and endorsement deals. The plaintiffs also claim that the UFC has retaliated against fighters who work or threaten to work for other promoters and against fighters who have refused the UFC's contractual terms. The Amended Complaint also attributes statements to Zuffa's owners and officers as evidence of anticompetitive intent. The plaintiffs allege, for example, that Zuffa's president boasted: "There is no competition. We're the NFL. You don't see people looking at the NFL and going, 'Yeah, but he's not the best player in the world because there's a guy playing for the Canadian Football League or the Arena League over here.' We're the NFL. There is no other guy." (emphasis in original). The president also allegedly posted a video to YouTube that showed a tombstone which listed the dates of death for other MMA promoters. After reading the other promoters' names, the president allegedly referred to himself as the grim reaper. In February 2015, the defendant moved to dismiss the pleading on Twombly grounds. Zuffa's primary argument was that the plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege that its exclusive dealing agreements with fighters were anticompetitive. At a September 2015 hearing, the court issued an oral decision denying Zuffa's motion. Since the court's ruling, the parties have been engaged in wide- ranging discovery. A review of the court's discovery rulings indicates that Zuffa must produce documents from at least 22 custodians and must respond to 25 interrogatories. The court also increased the number of depositions available under the Federal Rules to 45 per side. More recently, a third party has challenged the expansive nature of the discovery sought in the Zuffa litigation. On February 22, 2017, Bellator Sport Worldwide, LLC, a rival MMA promotion company, filed a motion to quash subpoenas served by the plaintiffs and Zuffa. Bellator claims that while it has produced thousands of pages of documents in response to the subpoenas, it objects to producing documents concerning its contracts and negotiations as well as its revenues and expenses. Bellator objects to producing these confidential materials to its rival and to the athletes with whom it negotiates. Bellator's motion to quash has not yet been fully briefed. UNDER ARMOUR: Bloated Stock Price Hit in "Hopkins" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Jodie Hopkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Under Armour, Inc., Kevin A. Plank and Lawrence P. Molloy, Case No. 1:17-cv-00452, (D. Md., February 16, 2017), seeks damages, including interest, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities and Exchange Act. Under Armour is engaged in the manufacturing, development, marketing and distribution of sportswear, performance and casual apparel, footwear and accessories. Under Armour is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that Under Armour's revenue and profit margins would not be able to withstand the heavy promotions, high inventory levels and ripple effects of numerous department store closures and bankruptcy of The Sports Authority, one of its major retailers. Plaintiff claims to have purchased Under Armour stock at artificially inflated prices. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Steven J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. Adam H. Farra, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-3640 Facsimile: (202)408-4699 Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com afarra@cohenmilstein.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Allows Trump Travel Ban Case to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration's bid to freeze proceedings over its controversial travel ban while the White House lays plans to issue a new one. In a one-page order Feb. 27, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the administration's motion to hold the case in abeyance pending a "substantially revised" executive order. The panel also extended by one week the briefing schedule in the government's appeal of a Seattle judge's order temporarily blocking the travel ban. The government's opening brief is due March 10. The decision keeps the ball rolling in the Ninth Circuit after it issued an initial per curiam opinion early in February denying an emergency stay of U.S. District Judge James Robart's order. The ban restricts inbound travel by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim nations. The state attorneys general of Washington and Minnesota, which launched the suit, had opposed the administration's effort to freeze the case. They noted that the White House has said it will not rescind the order and has given no timeline for when it plans to release the new one. In their brief, the states also pointed out White House spokesman Sean Spicer has said the administration plans to fight the Seattle judge's restraining order "on both fronts, making sure that we keep evolving through the court system" while drafting a new executive order. Justice Dep't Wants Travel Ban Appeal Dismissed Martha Bellisle, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the U.S. Justice Department wants to dismiss its appeal of a federal judge's ruling that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's initial travel ban. The agency filed a motion on March 7 with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a day after Trump signed a revised ban, which goes into effect March 16. The government agreed to pay the costs of the case and said Washington state and Minnesota, who sued over the original executive order, agreed to the motion. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in an email that the move confirms his position that the original ban signed in late January was unconstitutional. He said a day earlier that his office was reviewing the new version to determine whether to oppose it. The new ban is narrower and seeks to ease concerns about violating the due process rights of travelers from six predominantly Muslim nations. It temporarily bars new visas for citizens of Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and suspends the U.S. refugee program for 120 days. Iraq was dropped from the list of countries. Trump officials say their goal is the same: to keep would-be terrorists out of the United States while the government reviews how refugees and visa applicants from certain parts of the world are vetted. Washington and Minnesota argued in their lawsuit that the original ban illegally targeted people on the basis of religion. U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle put it on hold while the case moved forward. The Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit, where a three- judge panel denied a request to reinstate the ban. The government's opening brief in its appeal was due on March 3. The appeals court was evaluating the new order's effect on the existing case, a spokesman said on March 6. The Justice Department filed papers that day in federal court in Seattle arguing that the restraining order should not block the new ban from taking effect. In the March 6 motion before the original judge, the government said it followed the 9th Circuit's ruling and guidance to "substantially" revise the immigration order. UNITED STATES: Justice Dept Granted 2-Week Extension for Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Baumann at WMCA Action News reports that a federal judge in Seattle on March 3 granted a two-week extension to the Justice Department in a lawsuit alleging that President Donald Trump's immigration order is blocking efforts by legal residents to reunite with their children who are trapped in war-torn countries. U.S. District Judge James Robart, who halted enforcement of Trump's immigration order nationwide in February in a separate case brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota, said in his order that the federal government could have more time before responding to plaintiff's efforts to have the case certified as a class-action lawsuit. The Justice Department argued that Trump intends to rescind the order and replace it with a new, substantially revised executive order that may "influence the shape of the legal issues ... in ways relevant to the class certification question." After being repeatedly postponed, a White House official said a replacement order now won't be unveiled until at a later date. Robart also said he understood the frustrations of the parents and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, who filed the lawsuit, over Trump administration statements that seemingly contradict those made by federal government lawyers. "The court understands Plaintiffs' frustrations concerning statements emanating from President Trump's administration that seemingly contradict representations of the federal government's lawyers in this and other litigation before the court," the order said. Nevertheless, Robart said, the court will continue to rely on statements coming from the federal attorneys. The lawsuit filed in Seattle's U.S. District Court in late January claims Trump's order barring people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. is unconstitutional. It asked for a judge to intervene and stop the application of the part of the order that suspends visas to citizens of those seven countries. Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, one of the plaintiffs, is a U.S. citizen living in Seattle who started the process in August of bringing her son from Somalia. But Trump's order has her worried that her son's visa process will be indefinitely suspended, she said. Like thousands of others, those named in the lawsuit pursued the immigrant visa process that includes hundreds of dollars in filing fees, security screenings, medical examinations and interviews, Matt Adams, the group's legal director said previously. The Trump administration has defended the order, saying more restrictions are needed to protect the U.S. from future terrorist attacks. The new deadline for federal government attorneys to respond to the motion is March 20. UNITED STATES: ABA Sues Over Reduced Annual Dividend ---------------------------------------------------- AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION; and WASHINGTON FEDERAL, N.A., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00194-SGB (U.S. Ct. of Federal Claims, Feb. 9, 2017), seeks judgment that Defendant has breached its contracts with Washington Federal and other member bank stockholders; taken the stockholders' property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The lawsuit seeks judgment awarding Plaintiffs and all Class members their full and reasonable damages; judgment awarding Plaintiffs and all Class members their full and just compensation; accounting for damages suffered by Plaintiffs and all Class members and judgment requiring Defendant to compensate Plaintiffs and all Class members for such damages; judgment declaring that each failure by Defendant to pay dividends at a rate of six percent shall constitute a breach of contract; and award of any pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. The case is of national importance involving agreements that are central to the nation's banking system. In a classic bait-and- switch, the United States Government broke its promise to pay all banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System a fixed annual dividend of six percent on stock purchased in one of twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, says the complaint. That six percent dividend had been guaranteed to member bank stockholders since the Federal Reserve Act was enacted in 1913, and it is memorialized in contracts between the Federal Reserve Banks and their member bank stockholders. For more than a century, the promise of a six percent dividend had induced banks to join -- and to remain part of -- the Federal Reserve System, notes the complaint. By reneging on that promise and failing to pay all member bank stockholders a six percent annual dividend, the Government either breached its contracts with those banks or failed to pay just compensation for a Fifth Amendment taking. According to the complaint, the Government's failure to pay just compensation for the reduction in Federal Reserve Bank dividends has a significant adverse economic impact on Washington Federal and other member bank stockholders. The Government used the proceeds from the reduction in Federal Reserve Bank dividends to pay for public transportation infrastructure projects that have no relation to the Federal Reserve System and could not have been reasonably foreseen by Washington Federal and other member bank stockholders when they invested capital in Federal Reserve Bank stock and the Federal Reserve Banks agreed to pay a six percent dividend. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. 1776 K Street N.W. WILEY REIN LLP Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 719 7000 Facsimile: (202) 719 7049 E-mail: bshumate@wileyrein.com - and - Michael E. Toner, Esq. Jon W. Burd, Esq. Stephen J. Obermeier, Esq. Ari Meltzer, Esq. Daniel P. Brooks, Esq. Stephen J. Kenny, Esq. 1776 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 719 7000 Facsimile: (202) 719 7049 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Decides Not to Eliminate Scholarships --------------------------------------------------------- Nonparei Online reports that on March 1, the University of Iowa -- having endured the threat of lawsuits and days of criticism from students and their parents -- backed off a plan to eliminate scholarships promised to thousands of current and incoming students. It was a wise decision. Students had filed two proposed class-action lawsuits claiming that the university's cuts violated their constitutional rights and amounted to a breach of contract. UI President Bruce Harreld announced that he had reinstated the Iowa Heritage Award and four other smaller scholarship programs previously promised to current students and those who start next fall. Harreld informed 3,071 students that he was eliminating their awards, citing "devastating" funding cuts approved by lawmakers and Gov. Terry Branstad to help balance the state budget. It was a decision met with criticism from lawmakers, who accused the university of playing politics, and from parents, alumni and students. While the criticism from parents, alumni and students was to be expected, the accusations from lawmakers that the university was "playing politics" was, in our view, hypocritical. The Heritage scholarships, created in 2014 to recruit more students to Iowa, promised an automatic $1,500 annual tuition discount to the children and grandchildren of alumni for four years of undergraduate studies. Many students said they came to Iowa instead of other schools due to the awards, which only required they keep a 2.0 grade point average. Harreld said he heard concerns from many students and parents who feared financial hardships if the scholarships were eliminated, even though they were not need-based. He said continuing them won't be easy while absorbing a $9.2 million funding cut. He added that he would work with state leaders "to establish predictable tuition revenue increases and state support moving forward." Harreld said the programs would be eliminated for new students beginning in 2018, and the university would prioritize other need- based and merit-based awards. The university will now look for other ways to find $4.4 million in savings that the scholarship cuts would have generated, school spokeswoman Jeneane Beck said. Outgoing Board of Regents President Bruce Rastetter said reinstating the scholarships "places the University of Iowa in a very difficult financial situation." He warned that the board would bring the university's below-average tuition rates "in line with its national peer group" if lawmakers do not adequately invest in the university, which is starting a five-year strategic plan. That could mean major hikes in coming years. Iowa's tuition and mandatory fees for in-state students currently rank at the bottom of an 11-member group of universities that it considers peers: $8,575 this academic year compared to an average of $11,581. The creation of the now-troublesome four-year Heritage scholarships to recruit the children and grandchildren of alumni regardless of need was ill-conceived from the outset, but promises made are promises that should be kept. VCA INC: Hight Sues Over Proposed Sale to MMI Holdings ------------------------------------------------------ KAREN HIGHT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VCA INC., ROBERT L. ANTIN, JOHN M. BAUMER, JOHN B. CHICKERING, JR., JOHN HEIL, FRANK REDDICK, MMI HOLDINGS, INC., VENICE MERGER SUB INC., and MARS, INCORPORATED, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00289-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed transaction. The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 9, 2017 (Proposed Transaction), pursuant to which VCA Inc. will be acquired by MMI Holdings, Inc. On January 7, 2017, VCA's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (Merger Agreement) with Mars. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of VCA will receive $93.00 in cash for each share of VCA common stock. On February 3, 2017, defendants filed a proxy statement (Proxy Statement) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. VCA is an animal healthcare company operating in the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208 2800 Facsimile: (310) 209 2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 Facsimile: (302) 654 7530 WALMART DE MEXICO: NY Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Fogel" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned MICHAEL FOGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART DE MEXICO SAB de CV, ERNESTO VEGA, SCOT RANK, and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendants, No. 13 Civ. 2282 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.). Walmart de Mexico SAB de CV or Wal-Mex owns and operates a network of retail stores in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. Wal-Mex is a subsidiary of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. More specifically, it is a subsidiary of Wal-Mart International, one of Wal-Mart's three divisions. Ernesto Vega, and Scot Rank are employees of Mal-Mex, who has held a variety of executive positions at the company. On April 21, 2012, the New York Times published an article by David Barstow titled, Wal-Mart Hushed Up a Vast Mexican Bribery Case. The Times Article exposed an internal investigation of alleged bribery at Wal-Mex that was conducted by Wal-Mart in 2005 and 2006. Lead Plaintiff Michael Fogel is a holder of Wal-Mex American Depository Shares or ADRs that he purchased on March 7, 2012; March 26, 2012; and April 17, 2012. Fogel alleges that Wal-Mex, Ernesto Vega, Scot Rank, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, in public statements that were issued as late as 2012. The lawsuit was originally filed against Vega and Wal-Mex but on December 8, 2014, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint, bringing for the first time claims against Wal-Mart and Rank, in addition to the claims brought in plaintiff's original complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss to which the court without prejudice to its renewal and set a schedule for defendants to file their renewed motion. Defendants filed their second motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on February 5, 2016. . In lieu of his opposition, plaintiff requested leave to file a second amended complaint on April 4, 2016, which request defendants did not oppose. The court ordered that the pending motion to dismiss be withdrawn, and granted plaintiff leave to file the second amended complaint. Plaintiff claims in the second amended complaint that Wal-Mart's December 2011 Form 10-Q was materially misleading, that Wal-Mex failed to correct the misrepresentations at Wal-Mart's behest; and that Wal-Mex and Vega misled ADR purchasers in the Wal-Mex press releases and in Audit & Corporate Practice Group reports published in December 2011, and January, February, March, and April 2012. In contrast, plaintiff's original complaint identifies defendants' materially false and misleading statements as being found on the Wal-Mex website and in the company's 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 Annual Reports, the alleged falsity of which was revealed by the New York Times on April 22, 2012. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has cross-moved to strike the three appendices attached to defendants' motion. Plaintiff also requests leave to amend the second amended complaint and file a third amended complaint rectifying its deficiencies. Judge Failla observed that plaintiff has taken advantage of two separate opportunities to replead his complaint in response to contemplated dispositive motions from defendants. And, indeed, the size of the operative pleading has jumped from approximately 23 pages and 61 paragraphs to 128 pages and 289 paragraphs, exclusive of the many exhibits. The court has carefully considered plaintiff's second amended complaint, but concludes that the additional text has not remedied the many pleading deficiencies identified by defendants. Defendants' motion is granted and plaintiff's motion is denied. The court finds that further amendment would be futile, plaintiff's request is denied. A copy of Judge Failla's order dated February 27, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/6NVvKH from Leagle.com. Michael Fogel, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Gregory M. Egleston -- gegleston@gme-law.com -- Thomas James McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme- law.com -- at Gainey McKenna & Egleston Claudia S. Egleston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas James McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- at Gainey McKenna & Egleston C. E., Plaintiff, represented by Thomas James McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- at Gainey McKenna & Egleston Defendants, represented by Brian T. Glennon -- brian.glennon@lw.com -- Colleen C. Smith -- colleen.smith@lw.com - - Peter A. Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com -- Sarah A. Greenfield -- sarah.greenfield@lw.com -- at Latham & Watkins LLP YAHOO INC: General Counsel Steps Down Amid Data Breach Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, writing for The Recorder, reports that Yahoo Inc. announced on March 1 that general counsel Ron Bell is leaving the tech giant after an investigation of the company revealed that its legal team failed to sufficiently inquire into a massive 2014 cybersecurity breach. According to a March 1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Bell "resigned as the Company's General Counsel and Secretary and from all other positions with the Company" effective March 1. The filing said that "[n]o payments are being made to Mr. Bell in connection with his resignation." In addition to announcing Mr. Bell's departure, the filing revealed the results of an investigation by an independent committee of Yahoo's board of directors, with assistance from law firm Sidley Austin, into a 2014 hack of the company's networks that impacted at least 500 million customer email accounts. Yahoo, which did not immediately respond to request for comment on Bell's departure, explained in the filing that certain senior executives at Yahoo as well as members of its legal team "had sufficient information to warrant substantial further inquiry in 2014" about a hack by a state-sponsored actor into the company's networks, but "they did not sufficiently pursue it." "As a result, the 2014 Security Incident was not properly investigated and analyzed at the time and the Company was not adequately advised with respect to the legal and business risks associated with the 2014 Security Incident," the filing said. "The Independent Committee found that failures in communication, management, inquiry and internal reporting contributed to the lack of proper comprehension and handling of the 2014 Security Incident." The company did not disclose the 2014 data breach to the public until September 2016. Then, in December 2016, the company admitted that it had suffered yet another breach in 2013, that had affected more than one billion user accounts. Aside from raising questions about the company's security and disclosure practices, the delayed public disclosure of the two massive breaches has at times led to speculation that Verizon Communications Inc.'s acquisition of Yahoo's operating business may be in jeopardy. A Feb. 21 SEC filing from Verizon, however, revealed that the deal is moving forward, though the price has been reduced by $350 million, from approximately $4.83 billion in cash to roughly $4.48 billion. * Antitrust Suits Could Face Major Hurdles With Class Action Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Liz Crampton at BNA reports that the House is slated to vote on a bill the week of March 6 that could limit plaintiffs' ability to hold companies liable for antitrust violations by preventing them from suing as a class. The measure could have sweeping ramifications for antitrust cases. Class action lawsuits are often the only way customers hurt by anticompetitive companies can receive compensation because the cost of bringing such cases is so high. Foreign companies in particular could benefit from the bill because they've been targets of major recent antitrust class actions, Irving Scher, partner at plaintiff's law firm Hausfeld LLP, told Bloomberg BNA. Price-fixing class action cases in the auto parts, air freight and LCD panel industries in the past few years have involved foreign businesses. Several groups concerned with antitrust issues, including the American Antitrust Institute, Consumers Union and the Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws, signed a Feb. 14 letter to House Judiciary Committee leaders expressing their opposition to the bill. Randy Stutz, general counsel for the American Antitrust Institute, told Bloomberg BNA his group is tracking the bill and will be examining it "in detail" as it moves to the floor. Supporters of the bill, such as the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, say it would cut down on "lawsuit abuse." Most antitrust cases are brought by a class of plaintiffs. A 2013 report from the University of Baltimore School of Law analyzed 60 of the largest recent successful antitrust cases in the U.S. and found that 49 were class action suits that delivered as much as $21 billion in compensation to victims. The House Rules Committee has set a March 7 deadline for proposed amendments to the bill (H.R. 985). It could be on the House floor as early as March 8. The bill, introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), would add conditions to class action and complex litigation cases in an effort to ensure "fairer and more efficient outcomes." A similar bill passed the House last year. It then stalled in the Senate. There isn't a Senate companion measure yet this year. 'Complete Disarray.' The proposal threatens to throw established legal standards for antitrust cases "into complete disarray," Stutz said. Opponents are chiefly concerned about the bill's requirement that all members of a class suffer the same injury. Courts have always recognized that classes will contain members who are injured to various degrees for different reasons and the law has been clear that that fact doesn't defeat class certification, Stutz said. "I've been trying to think of a single successful antitrust class action in the past where all the victims all suffered 'the same type and scope of injury,' and I can't," Stutz said. "The problem would be particularly acute in antitrust cases, because antitrust plaintiffs frequently have to rely on statistical evidence to calculate damages." "Class action lawsuits are among the most important tools to enable harmed, cheated and violated individuals and small businesses to hold large corporations and institutions accountable and deter future misconduct," the letter said. "H.R. 985 would annihilate that tool. We urge you to oppose this bill." New Mandates for Plaintiffs The bill would create new mandates for plaintiffs in big antitrust cases that are filed in multiple jurisdictions that could make it more difficult to collect damages. For example, plaintiffs in consolidated multi-district litigation proceedings in federal court would face new evidence requirements if they are seeking compensation for injuries. The SBE Council, by contrast, says that provision would prevent "injured individuals from being forced into class actions with those with minimal or no injuries." The bill also would hamper the antitrust plaintiff's bar by capping or delaying the distribution of fees to class counsel and requiring disclosure of litigation financing. "Broadly, it's a bill that's intent is to end class actions," Eric Fastiff, president of the Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws, told Bloomberg BNA. "For antitrust in particular, any attempt that makes it harder for victims, particularly consumers, that have suffered a wrongdoing that's not financially viable for them to prosecute on their own means that they have no redress." Scher is also concerned about a provision that would prevent a company bringing a class action from retaining the same attorneys more than once. That prohibition would remove efficiencies that his firm has gained from representing clients such as retailers, pension funds, and hospitals, he said. The bill also would extend the duration of a class action dramatically because class certification decisions would be automatically appealed, and pretrial discovery stayed based on motion practice, Scher said. "It's going to clog the courts," he said. * Colorado Looks to Reform Construction Defects Law --------------------------------------------------- Pat Ferrier at Coloradoan reports that Colorado housing advocates are making their fourth attempt to temper a law they believe has stopped developers from building affordable housing in a state where home prices are soaring. Efforts to reform the state's construction defects law -- which allows as few as two condo owners to bring a class-action lawsuit against a builder -- failed in 2014 and 2015 and never got off the ground last year. This year, advocates are tackling the issue piecemeal with five different bills in the Colorado Legislature; four of which remain in play. The 12-year-old law was passed to protect consumers from unscrupulous developers and shoddy construction during the nation's pre-recession building boom. But the ease with which homeowners can sue has made it prohibitively expensive for developers to insure, build and sell condominiums, say critics who want to see the law changed. That means many builders shy away from condos, which are oftentimes the most affordable entry point into home ownership. According to Colorado Legislative Council staff, Colorado courts process between 150 and 200 construction defect lawsuits per year. In Fort Collins, the median sales price for a single-family home in January was $361,275 compared to $274,500 for a townhouse or condo, although sale prices for such multifamily homes are escalating more quickly due to tight supply, according to Fort Collins Board of Realtors. Statewide, condominiums accounted for 2 percent of all new construction in 2015 compared to 8 percent in 2003, before the construction defects law was passed, according to the Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado, or NoCo HBA. Fort Collins' building department does not separate approved building permits for condos from other multifamily permits, so it is difficult to determine how many new condos are built or permitted in the city. Opponents of changing the state's construction defects law say watering down or removing their right to sue deprives them of their constitutional rights. "There really isn't a shortage of condos in Fort Collins," said Amanda Silvestri, a member of a Fort Collins homeowner association involved in a dispute with its developer. "Now we want to make it easier for developers and harder for homeowners to protect their property? These bills are ridiculous." Greg Miedema, executive officer of NoCo HBA, said: "We are not looking for free reign to do as we please. We want to know first when something's wrong; we want the opportunity to repair it and we want to make sure everyone involved is aware of the consequences" and cost of a potential lawsuit. Reform proponents "tried passing one big bill and it kept getting caught up," Miedema said. This year, supporters -- including mayors of cities throughout Colorado -- hope breaking the legal issues into smaller bites will result in "a composite and we can have significant reform," he said. This year, five bills introduced in the Colorado Legislature intend to chip away at current construction defects law. Senate Bill 045 divides the costs to defend a construction defects lawsuit among insurers. Another proposal, SB 155, defines a construction defect as a defect in the design or construction that causes damages to or the loss of use of property or personal injury. Senate Bill 156, considered by many reform advocates as the most significant of the bunch, requires arbitration or mediation to try to settle the issues prior to a lawsuit if requested by the developer. The bill passed the Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee on a 5-2 vote. It now heads to the Senate floor for debate. Senate Bill 157 requires homeowner association boards to notify all unit owners of a potential for and cost of a lawsuit and requires approval from a majority of unit owners. It also limits the contact a developer can have with unit owners while the HOA is seeking approval for a lawsuit. Finally, House Bill 1169, heard by the State, Veterans & Military Affairs committee, would have given developers the right to inspect a contested property and decide whether to fix the problems or settle before homeowners file a lawsuit. The bill died in committee on March 1. Fort Collins condominium owners Mike Pretz and Silvestri say consumer protections should not be weakened by changes to the law. Each tells a harrowing tale of problems in their own condo projects and the difficulties they've had getting them fixed. Pretz, president of a homeowner association in south Fort Collins, said problems arose several years ago when basements flooded, windows leaked, concrete sidewalks buckled, retaining walls bowed, patio railings separated from their buildings and patio stairs sunk several inches. Requests to the developer to fix the problems went unheeded, Pretz said. Homeowners waited more than a year for repairs. When nothing happened, the HOA began looking at its options, he said. "No one wakes up in the morning and says 'Hey, let's sue someone.' It's time-consuming, expensive and wearying. "We didn't do it without a lot of forethought and deliberation." The HOA recently won a $2.5 million judgment -- netting $1.1 million after paying lawyers and consultants -- to help cover about $1.6 million in needed repairs, Pretz said. "I think we did pretty well," Pretz said. A general contractor is expected to begin repairs. Pretz doesn't buy the argument that a stout construction defects law has led to the demise of affordable housing. "They've tried to frame this as an affordable housing issue ... If they didn't have to pay this insurance they would build more condos. It simply is not true. ... there are too many other drivers for costs that won't make housing any more affordable." Opponents of change, including the Build Our Houses Right, point to Lakewood, the first city in the state to implement its own reforms in 2015. Since the change was made, no condo projects have been proposed. What will $1 million buy you in Fort Collins' hot real estate market? Fort Collins City Council also passed its own rules two years ago, but the city has seen little movement in condo construction. No builder wants to be the first to test a municipal regulation that might be preempted by state law, Fort Collins City Council member and developer Gino Campana said. Shoddy workmanship is unacceptable in any housing project and needs to be corrected, he said, but "the pendulum has swung too far. If someone has an issue with the product I build, I would like them to bring it to my attention and allow me the opportunity to correct it. I don't want to just be served by an attorney with a lawsuit." Just as there are bad builders and bad developers, there are lawyers waiting to create class-action lawsuits that tie up projects when there are no damages, Campana said. "I think there's compromise in there somewhere. We just have to find it." The Fort Collins City Council has instructed its lobbyists to support construction defect reform efforts. The law has caused Fort Collins to lose "the entire condo market," Campana said. "When you take out condos -- the most affordable home ownership we have in the community -- it sends a ripple through the entire market." Developers would be scrambling to put up new condos if they were "reasonably affordable" to build, said Clint Skutchan, executive director of the Fort Collins Board of Realtors Skutchan, however, does not believe reform has to come at the expense of consumer protections. "Our approach is to take a balanced and sensible (approach) to protect consumers while not creating such a quagmire and liability that adds to the cost," he said. There are other ways to mediate and arbitrate the issues rather than resorting to the court system, he said. Silvestri told a House committee during the hearing HB 1169 that her HOA tried everything to get its builder to fix major issues in its 64-unit development. "Homes in our community had been built with missing building wrap, missing flashing and a missing moisture management system," she said. "Joints were not sealed. Gutters were missing. Grading around our foundations was completely wrong. Basements were flooding and water seeped into the doors of handicap-accessible units." Homeowners complained for years and the developer always promised he would fix the problems and never did, Silvestri said. Finally, the HOA took action "to preserve our rights," she said. The suit is still active. * Reed Smith Atty Comments on Treatment of "Mass Actions" in Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Boranian, Esq. -- sboranian@reedsmith.com -- at Mondaq reports that it is has been a rough few weeks for forum-shopping litigation tourists. We wrote the other day on the Missouri Supreme Court's landmark opinion in State ex rel. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Dolan, which held that Missouri's courts do not have jurisdiction over out-of-state controversies involving out- of-state defendants. It has long been the practice of many plaintiffs' lawyers to group hundreds of claims together in Missouri state court because they prefer that venue and for the sake of their own convenience. The Norfolk Southern Railway case should put an end to that. Another bulwark against litigation tourism is the Class Action Fairness Act, which Congress enacted in 2005 to address abuses in aggregated litigation. Among other provisions, CAFA makes actions combining 100 or more plaintiffs removable to federal court as "mass actions." We have written a lot on mass actions, including multiple posts on removing mass actions to federal court even when plaintiffs' counsel try to break their claims into multiple actions of less than 100 plaintiffs. The gist is that transparent gamesmanship should not prevent federal courts from retaining jurisdiction over hundreds of plaintiffs bringing coordinated claims, even when plaintiffs' lawyers go through their usual machinations to avoid it. That is what happened in Portnoff v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, No. 16-5955, 2017 WL 708745 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2017), and the district court's order denying the plaintiff's motion to remand is really interesting. First some background: Six plaintiffs' law firms filed a "Petition to Consolidate and for Mass Tort Designation" in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas requesting consolidation of 87 pending pharmaceutical cases. They withdrew the petition about two weeks later and filed a second petition in its place. Id. at **2-3. The number of cases and plaintiffs in the second petition are key. The petition identified 94 cases and well over 100 plaintiffs. But the six plaintiffs' firms who filed the petition represented only 96 of the plaintiffs and had no authority to bind the others. However, once the 20-day deadline for other plaintiffs to object passed, those other plaintiffs became subject to the petition, thus boosting the numbers over 100. The defendants thereafter removed all the cases to federal court as a CAFA "mass action." Id. **1-3. Pretty smart, if you ask us. But the plaintiffs did not think so, and they moved to remand on the basis that (1) the removal was untimely and (2) the cases were not a "mass action," i.e., 100 or more plaintiffs whose claims "are proposed to be jointly tried." The district court rejected both arguments. First, the district court acknowledged that although removal statutes are generally strictly construed, "the presumption against removal does not apply to class actions invoking jurisdiction under [CAFA]." Id. at *2. We understand that the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction, but we have never thought that a "presumption" against removal really exists. Either way, it is refreshing to have a district judge roundly reject any such presumption in a CAFA removal. As the court reasoned, "Congress enacted CAFA to facilitate class actions in federal court, and its provisions should be read broadly, with a strong preference that interstate class actions should be heard in federal court if properly removed by any defendant." Id. (citations omitted). As for timeliness, the plaintiffs submitted a legal assistant's affidavit attesting that the second consolidation petition was merely a "refiled version" of the initial petition and thus was not a new case triggering a new clock for removal. Id. at *4. But the district court found the initial petition to be a legal nullity. And, the defendants could not have removed the case anyway until the deadline for other plaintiffs to object passed and it was apparent that the petition covered more than 100 plaintiffs. That is the event that made the cases removable. This last point is the most interesting part of the order. In determining whether a paper provides "sufficient notice of removability," the court applied an objective standard. In other words, [T]he 30-day removal clock does not begin to run until litigation documents . . . reveal facts supporting removal . . . . Critically, though, . . . the triggering event focused solely upon the defendant's receipt of a litigation document[;] that is, the scope of the defendant's knowledge . . . plays no role in triggering the 30-day removal clock. Id. at *4 (emphasis added, citations omitted). Or, put yet another way, "[T]he relevant test is not what the defendants' purportedly knew, but what these documents said." Id. at *5 (citations omitted). But here is where it gets really good. In ascertaining whether a paper gives notice of removability, a defendant must apply a "reasonable amount of intelligence." Id. at 6. We admit that we have never before seen the "reasonable amount of intelligence" standard. But now that it has come to our attention, we love it. We will apply it to other aspects of life. If the Cleveland Browns pay a king's ransom for an untested and overrated quarterback, did they apply a "reasonable amount of intelligence"? If any governmental entity says it can balance its budget by increasing spending while simultaneously decreasing revenue, did it apply a "reasonable amount of intelligence"? If anyone orders gazpacho in a Chinese restaurant (or any other kind of restaurant), does that reflect a "reasonable amount of intelligence"? Fine, these are loaded questions. But in Portnoff, a "reasonable amount of intelligence" foretold that no paper proposed consolidation of more than 100 pages until the deadline for other plaintiffs to object passed. Until that time, there were at most 96 plaintiffs, and the removal clock had not started. Second, what about the fact that these were multiple separate civil actions? Were the plaintiffs' claims "proposed to be jointly tried? Yes, they were. Whether claims are "proposed to be jointly tried" has been hotly contested (see our posts referenced above). But here, the plaintiffs' consolidation petition "explicitly and plainly" proposed consolidation for pretrial and trial. Id. at *8. The plaintiffs tried to negate their request with an affidavit from the attorney who prepared the petition stating that she used a previously filed petition as a template and that the request for a consolidated trial was a "scrivener's error." Id. at *8. The plaintiffs also tried to file a post- removal "supplement" disclaiming any "intent to suggest that consolidation of trials occur." Id. We are sure the attorney "scrivener" did not enjoy drafting that affidavit, but the district court was unforgiving. The petition reinforced the request for consolidated resolution multiple times, and multiple plaintiffs' attorneys reviewed and signed off on the petition. In the end, we cannot improve on the district court's conclusion: "In short, a common sense reading of the entire Petition established that Plaintiff proposed a joint trial." Id. at *9. Chalk one up for common sense and fairness -- and intelligence. * Rural Electric Cooperatives Receive Dismissals in Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Beard Renstrom and Christina Schwing at JD Supra Advisor reports that two recent dismissal orders -- filed within days of each other -- signal positive news to rural electric cooperatives defending actions brought by former or current members regarding the distribution of patronage capital and excess revenues. Recently, in Florence N. Brunson v. Gulf Coast Electric Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 2015-CA-000063, a Florida circuit court granted in part a motion to dismiss filed by Gulf Coast Electric Cooperative, dismissing the plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). Less than one month after the court's oral ruling on the motion and before the court entered its written order, the plaintiff dismissed the remaining counts and filed a notice of appeal with Florida's First District Court of Appeal. Instead of pursuing the appeal, plaintiff Florence N. Brunson filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice on Feb. 22, 2017. The notice provides that each party is to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. Further, the fact that the dismissal is with prejudice signifies that the plaintiff is barred from bringing any future action on the same claim. In a related action the next day, in Grice Webb v. Tombigbee Electric Cooperative, Inc., No. 49-CV-2014-900078, the Circuit Court of Marion County, Alabama granted the parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss and issued an Order of Dismissal, dismissing the claims of Grice Webb without prejudice. These dismissals come on the heels of an appellate court decision upholding the dismissal of a related action brought by Alabama rural electric members and former members. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Jan. 1, 2017, upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in the case of Pamela Caver, et al. v. Central Alabama Electric Cooperative, Case No. 15-15207. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the cooperative's "distribution of excess revenues to its members by making credits to their capital accounts, as opposed to making cash payments, complied with Alabama state law." The court dismissed the plaintiffs' argument that the cooperative must annually distribute patronage refunds in the form of a cash payment to its members and instead held that the Alabama state statute, which is similar to many other states' excess revenue statutes, does not require an annual cash payment to be made to rural electric cooperative members. Rural electric cooperatives have been the target of actions in many jurisdictions, and the legal landscape facing them is in a state of considerable flux. However, a number of recent rulings and developments have favored cooperatives. * Sawaya Orchestrates $8,500 Donation to Non-Profit Organization ---------------------------------------------------------------- Menafn reports that law firm names "Towards Justice" as recipient of Cy Pres funds. In two recent Colorado court decisions district court judges have approved the payment of unclaimed funds in wage and hour class actions to a Colorado non-profit that provides legal services to low-wage workers who have not been paid what they are owed under the wage and hour laws. The Sawaya Law Firm represented the plaintiffs in both lawsuits. In each -- one from a state court and another from a federal district court -- the judges recently ordered that the payments to class members who could not be located will be paid to the Denver, Colorado, non-profit organization, Towards Justice. Towards Justice litigates and educates workers and the community about employment rights, wage theft, how to defend against exploitation, and how to seek legal relief when wages are not paid as the law requires. So what makes this settlement a big deal? Typically in class action settlements, unclaimed funds are given back to the at-fault company. Such claims usually involve lawsuits for unpaid overtime, failure to pay the minimum wage, and for time worked off-the-clock or through rest breaks where no wages are paid for time worked. Instead of those unclaimed funds going back to the defendants at the offices of Towards Justice, David H. Miller, the lead class action attorney for the plaintiffs in both of the cases, will be presenting checks totaling approximately 8,500 in unclaimed funds to the Executive Director of Towards Justice, Nina DiSalvo, to help support the work Towards Justice does in assisting low wage workers to be paid what they are owed. Why would one of the most successful law firms in Colorado orchestrate a donation of this size to a non-profit organization like Towards Justice? The truth is inspiring. The Sawaya Law Firm not only handles personal injury, work comp, and social security cases, but has operated a successful Wage and Hour class action department for several years. The Wage and Hour team fights for groups of workers who have been denied the pay that the law requires. Headed by attorney David H. Miller, former Legal Director for the ACLU of Colorado, the Wage and Hour team's approach to legal work reflects their values. "In the U.S., if we mean what we say about the need to increase the number of American jobs and support the working class, then employers must pay their workers the wages they are owed," said Miller. "We proudly represent those many workers who have little power within our system; to see to it that they are paid what the law says is theirs." Rewarding the wrong-doing employer that has kept inaccurate or incomplete information so that the former workers cannot be located has frequently resulted in class action money being returned to the employer. Miller explained that such a practice of rewarding the wrong-doer is not fair. "The employer should not benefit from taking money meant to be paid to the missing class member and keeping it for themselves." That kind of result encourages wrong-doing employers to mistreat their workers. "We all want more jobs for workers," said Miller, "but if employers are not paying what they owe then they are cheating those who do the work that makes our economy strong and our country successful." "I hope these donations encourage other attorneys to adopt this same approach in the lawsuits they are bringing so that money from class action judgments and settlements stops going back to the wrong-doers," says Miller. "We're spearheading this effort to strengthen Colorado's working communities, so that through the work Towards Justice does we can help others who are not directly our clients but who are also being treated unfairly at work." Time and location: The presentation was held at Towards Justice at 1:30 p.m. March 3, 2017 -- 1535 High Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80214. * What Lawyers Need to Know About Tort Reform Push in Congress -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad at Law.com reports four bills are set to go before the U.S. House of Representatives' Rules Committee this week in one of the most comprehensive efforts at legal reform in more than a decade. The bills, targeting everything from class actions to attorney sanctions, are scheduled for amendments on March 6 and March 7. Another three bills are being closely watched. Some have companion bills in the U.S. Senate. Here's what you need to know about the bills being considered this week -- and those in the pipeline: Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (HR 985). This bill would make several changes designed to reduce class actions and fees paid to plaintiffs' attorneys. Critics contend the bill could kill class actions, but its overall impact isn't certain. The core provision attempts to make it harder to bring class actions that have what advocates call "no injuries." This issue has come up several times in consumer cases. Critics point to the Volkswagen emissions case, in which the carmaker admitted a defect but the complaints involved claims for devalued cars, not physical injuries. The bill also ties fees to a settlement's value and forces attorneys to disclose third-party financing. Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017 (HR 906). This bill requires that the trusts of bankrupt companies file quarterly reports disclosing payments to victims of mesothelioma and other cancers caused by asbestos. Advocates complain that plaintiffs' attorneys withhold evidence in lawsuits brought on behalf of people who also have claims against the trusts. Critics contend the alleged fraud is rare and the bill, backed by corporate interests, would make it harder for victims to get compensated. Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2017 (HR 720). This bill would mandate that judges impose monetary sanctions against attorneys who file frivolous cases in federal courts. The bill would reverse amendments in 1993 that gave attorneys 21 days to withdraw their case before getting sanctioned. Critics say the bill would eliminate judicial discretion and could encourage more litigation spurred by sanctions motions. Innocent Party Protection Act (HR 725). This bill makes it harder for plaintiffs' attorneys to remand federal cases to more plaintiff-friendly state courts by naming a defendant located in that state. The issue comes up a lot in products liability cases where, for instance, a plaintiff files a suit against a pharmaceutical company that's based in another state but adds a local pharmacy to avoid federal jurisdiction. Advocates refer to the practice as "fraudulent joinder." But critics say the bill is really about large corporations that want to remove cases to federal court, which is a friendlier venue for defendants. Stay tuned for these bills to come down the pipeline: Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017 (HR 732). This bill would prevent the U.S. Department of Justice from allowing funds in settlements to go to third parties. The practice, common during the Obama administration, has been criticized as executive overreach and the bill's supporters have pointed to mortgage lending settlements with banks as examples. In a $25 billion settlement in 2012, for example, $3.5 billion was directed to fund housing counselors, legal aid and other public programs. Opponents of the bill contend it would handcuff the DOJ's ability to redress wrongdoing beyond the individuals who are owed restitution. Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act (HR 469). This anti-regulation bill is aimed at limiting the ability of federal agencies, particularly the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to make rules and other actions as a result of consent decrees. The bill would open such agreements, often obtained in suits brought by environmental groups, to public comment and allow those affected by the rules to intervene. Critics say the bill would make it longer and more expensive to get the EPA to act. Protecting Access to Care Act (HR 1215). This bill's key provision would impose a cap of $250,000 in noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, limiting awards for pain and suffering. The bill mirrors a similar statute in California. It's the only legal reform issue that President Donald Trump highlighted in his address to Congress. ********* 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 * * *