/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170316.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 16, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 54 Headlines 466 AMAZE: Faces "Shen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 466 AMAZE: Faces "Shen" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ACCOUNT DISCOVERY: Pavlovich Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Former Inmates' Suit ALABAMA: Settlement in "Braggs" Has Preliminarily Approval ALDO'S RESTAURANT: Faces "Wood" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Law AMAZON STUDIOS: "Solano-Rodriguez" Suit Invokes FLSA, NY Laws AMERICAN AIRLINES: Awaits Court Ruling on Merger Suit Schedule AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suits Over DOJ Antitrust Investigation Pending AMERICAN MODERN: "Edwards" Class Settlement Has Prelim. Approval AMPLIFY SNACK: "Morrison" Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Rubel" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation ANTHEM INC: Appeal in "Gold" Suit Underway ANTHEM INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk ESI/Anthem Suit Claims ANTHEM INC: Fact Discovery in Cyber Attack Suit Completed in Dec. APN INC: Faces "Grimm" Class Suit in C.D. Calif. ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Fort McClellan Credit Union Files Suit ARES CAPITAL: American Capital Shareholders Amend Complaint ARES CAPITAL: Elliott Entities Consolidated Suit Remains Pending AVON PRODUCTS: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in ERISA Suit BENIHANA INC: Calif. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Wilkes" ENERGY TRANSFER: Del. Court Denies Bids for Summary Judgment BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Has Accrued $2.4-Mil. Settlement in "Sears" Suit BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Has Paid $3.2-Mil. Settlement in "Cardoza" Suit BOX-N-GO: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bacon" Suit Claims BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: "Pettinridge Suit" Joins MDL 2418 CAFE CIRCA: Faces "Nelson" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation CAFETASIA INC: Faces "Guaraca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ehrnfeld" Suit Says CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA: Summary Ruling in ATE Suit Affirmed CHRISTIAN FUNERAL: Sued in Tennessee Over Insurance Coverage CLECO CORPORATE: No Briefing Schedule Yet in Merger Case Appeal CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection COMEX FOOD: Faces "Garcia" Suit Alleging Non-payment of Wages CONCHETTA INC: Faces "Colon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CONNECTICUT, USA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Britt" Suit CONNECTICUT, USA: Britt Appeals District Court Ruling to 2nd Cir. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Court Flips Class Cert. in "Strack" Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid for Prelim OK of "Thompson" Deal Denied COTY INC: Faces "Bowens" Class Suit in Mid. Dist. Ala. CYNOSURE INC: Gusinsky Trust Files Suit Over Merger with Hologic DEAN FOODS: March 28 Trial in Antitrust Class Action DISH NETWORK: TCPA Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Scranton" Suit Briefing to Continue in 2017 E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Schwab Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Documents in FCRA Suit Due March 17 EM CONSULTING: Faces "Yassa" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Law EMTEK PRODUCTS: Faces "Nieto" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Florida District Court Dismisses Class Suit ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Dougherty Wants Dismissal Order Altered ETHICON US: Faces "Diresta" Class Suit in South. Dist. New York FACEBOOK INC: Duguid Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit FCA US: Faces "Kelley" Class Suit in Massachusetts FCNH INC: Nesbitt Appeals D. Colorado Ruling to Tenth Circuit FEDERAL-MOGUL HOLDINGS: "Sanders" Suit Remains Pending in Mich. FEDERAL-MOGUL HOLDINGS: Stockholder Suit Remains Pending in Del. FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Gaines" Suit in N.D. Calif. FIRST CHOICE: "Prochaska" Sues On Behalf of Dental Hygienists FIRST SOLAR: Merits Briefing Ongoing in Pension Schemes Suit FOGO DE CHAO: Sued over Disabled Inaccessible Establishment FORD MOTOR: Philips Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Kessler, Cohen Named Interim Lead Counsel FRESH MARKET: Faces "Sherman" Suit Over Sale to Pomegranate GARMIN LTD: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in "Katz" Suit GC SERVICES: "Alderman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class GREENSKY LLC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Alfortish" Granted GUESS: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Architectural Barriers HANOVER INSURANCE: "Durand" Suit Remains Pending in Kentucky HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Appeal from Dismissal of "Nichols" Suit Pending HERTZ CORP: Bid to Compel in "Margulis" Granted in Part HILL'S PET: Faces "Vanzant" Lawsuit Over Deceptive Labeling HOLY REDEEMER: Faces "Snyder" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Powell" Suit HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Final Hearing in Overdraft Suit on June 2 HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Wins Approval of Merger Suits Settlement IC SYSTEM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Wisconsin, Tennessee Antitrust Suits INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Suit vs. Containerboard Producers Pending JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Leiner" Class Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hammack Seeks Review of Order in "Leiner" Suit JON DAVLER: Faces "Bocardo" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Orellana" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation KAUFMAN ENGLETT: Cadwell Appeals M.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir. KNIGHT ENTERPRISES: Seeks Review of Decision in "Weckesser" Suit KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Gainesville Suit Parties Still Await Ruling LA CUCINA: Faces "Paula" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Work LAS OLAS: Calderon, et al. Allege Violation of Fla. Wage Rates LAURA J LOWENSTEIN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dawson" Suit Says LEGGETT & PLATT: Indirect Purchaser Suits Fully Resolved LUBRIZOL: Ohio Appeals Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit M&T BANK: Trial in Wilmington Trust Securities Suit on June 2018 MALEN & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bakon" Suit Says MARK OBENSTINE: Seeks Review of Decision in "Estakhrian" Suit MDL 2074: Anthem Wins Final Judgment MDL 2196: Leggett & Platt Still Faces Polyurethane Foam Suits MDL 2280: NJ Court Grants MSSB's Summary Judgment Bid MDL 2406: Subscriber and Provider Plaintiffs Add New Claims MTAG SERVICES: Connecticut Court Narrows Claims in "Weldon" MXI CORP: Class Settlement in "Martinez" Has Final Approval NETFLIX INC: "Ziolkowski" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation NEW FOOD: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "De Los Santos" Suit NEW RESIDENTIAL: Chester County Employees' Bid to Reargue Denied NEW RESIDENTIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending NEW RESIDENTIAL: Says Walter and Ditech Facing Class Suits NEW YORK TIMES: Final Hearing Next Month on Labor Case Settlement NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: Deceives Policyholders, "McClendon" Says NPAS INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Fausz" Partially Granted OBESITY RESEARCH: Bozic Appeals Transfer of Case to E.D. Calif. OCWEN LOAN: Ala. Court Refuses to Entertain Couple's FDCPA Suit OPTUM360 LLC: "Mauthe" Files Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Rabanal" Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy PACIFIC WEST: Faces "Applebaum" Suit for Misleading Investors PANERA BREAD: Defends "Friscia" Suit in New Jersey District Court PANERA BREAD: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suits Win Initial OK PENNSYLVANIA: PHEAA Faces "Salvatore" Class Suit in M.D. Penn. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Fisher and Fish industry Subclass Certified PRICELINE GROUP: "Laquer" Suit Transferred to Connecticut PROVIDENCE HEALTH: "Pineda" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations QUEMETCO INC: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Alleging Non-Payment of Wages R & S QUALITY: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA RELIABLE COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims RELIANCE TRUST: Class Certification Status Hearing Set for May 5 RELIANT CAPITAL: Joint Class Certification Bid Filed in "Etienne" RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dawson" Suit Says REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit v. American Tobacco Still Stayed REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit v. A C & S Remains Stayed REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit v. American Tobacco Dormant REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lorillard Defending 78 Filter Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Bourassa" Class Action in Canada Underway REYNOLDS AMERICAN: May 2017 Trial for 5 West Virginia IPIC Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Bid to Dismiss Smokeless Tobacco Claims Denied REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Underway REYNOLDS AMERICAN: BAT's Motion for Rehearing En Banc Denied SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: "Curiel" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violation SAFEWAY INC: "Altamirano" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Pronstroller" Sues Over Washing Machines SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Appeals Decision in "Mendis" Suit to 9th Cir. SEI INVESTMENTS: Stanford Trust-Related Suits Remain Pending SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bivens" Suit Over RESPA Violation SHIRE PLC: Sao Paulo's Class Claims in ELAPRASE Suit Dismissed SODEXO INC: "Piveronas" Lawsuit Alleges FCRA Violation SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFF: Faces "Jacobson" Class Action SOUTHERN CO: Cook County Court Refuses to Certify Customers Class SOUTHERN CO: Defends Securities Class Suit by Monroe County ERS SOUTHERN CO: Has Filed for Writ of Certiorari in Georgia Sup. Ct. SPIRIT CRUISE: Midnight Party Cruise Passengers File Crash Suit STANDARD PARKING: "Huda" Suit Alleges Violation of WARN Act STAR HOME: "Paradysz" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Summary Ruling in "Vaquero" Reversed SWIFT FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Scott" Suit Says SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: May 15 Class Cert. Hearing in "Mckinsty" SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: May 15 Class Cert. Hearing in "Mares" Suit TGI FRIDAYS: "Calabrese" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class TOTAL WEALTH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Calderon" Class Suit TOWN SPORTS: Has Paid Settlement Amount to Resolve "Labbe" Suit TWILIO INC: Discovery in "Flowers" Suit to Continue Until August UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Singh" Suit UBS COMMERCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock's California Suit UBS COMMERCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock's New York Suit UNDER ARMOUR: "Stenger" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation UNITED STATES: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Combat-Related Compensation UNITED STATES: Hawaii Files Amended Trump Travel Bank Lawsuit VILLE PLATTE: Loses Exception of Prescription Arguments VOLKSWAGEN AG: Pleads Guilty in Emissions-Cheating Scandal WAH MING: Faces "Luna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages WELLS FARGO: Faces "Perez" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation WELLS FARGO: "Volcy" Lawsuit Seeks Injunction of Foreclosures WELLS FARGO: Faces "Shadid" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation WESTAR ENERGY: Merger-Related Suits Remain Pending WESTERN UNION: Awaits Rulings on Pending Motions in "Pincus" Suit WESTERN UNION: Cannot Estimate Loss in Tennille and Smet Suits WESTERN UNION: "Herman" Class Suit in California Underway WESTERN UNION: Defends "Smallen" Class Suit Pending in Colorado WESTERN UNION: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Douglas" Suit Settlement WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Oklahoma Suit WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Delaware Court OKs Shareholder Suit Dismissal WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Farmland Appeals Unfavorable Final Judgment WILLIAMS COMPANIES: FHRA Claims Remanded for Further Resolution WILLIAMS COMPANIES: April & August Trials in Geismar Lawsuits WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger Still Stayed WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Unitholder Suit WILLIAMS PARTNERS: More Trials in Geismar Suits in April & Aug. XTO ENERGY: Hutchison Appeals E.D. Arkansas Ruling to 8th Circuit XTO ENERGY: Mobley Lumber Appeals E.D. Ark. Order to 8th Circuit YELP INC: Faces "Schram" Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy YUM BRANDS: Appeals in Taco Bell Wage and Hour Suit Still Pending ZICO BEVERAGES: Faces "Barrios" Suit in Cent. Dist. California * House Approves Class Action Litigation Reform Bill ********* 466 AMAZE: Faces "Shen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Yu Ling Shen, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. 466 Amaze Corp. d/b/a "Amaze Fusion & Lounge", Xue Mei Chen, and "John" (first name unknown) Dong, Case No. 1:17-cv-01557 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1066 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10022. Yu Ling Shen is a pro se plaintiff. 466 AMAZE: Faces "Shen" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Yu Ling Shen, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Xue Mei Chen, "John" (first name unknown) Dong, and 466 Amaze Corp. d/b/a "Amaze Fusion & Lounge", Case No. 1:17-cv-01556 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1066 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10022. Yu Ling Shen is a pro se plaintiff. ACCOUNT DISCOVERY: Pavlovich Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Pavlovich, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Account Discovery Systems, LLC and DNF Associates, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00412-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants operate a collection agency based in Amherst, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Asil A. Mashiri, Esq. MASHIRI LAW FIRM 11251 Rancho Carmel Drive, Suite 500694 San Diego, CA 92150 Telephone: (858) 348-4938 Facsimile: (858) 348-4939 E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Former Inmates' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned W. CURTIS SHAIN, SCOTT IRWIN, ROBERT SPILLMAN, CEDRIC MYLES, and ANTHONY CALABRO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC and SANDISK CORPORATION, Defendants, Civil Case No. 16-10367 (E.D. Mich.). Federal Bureau of Prison manages and operates the commissaries within its facilities. The warden and designated staff at each BOP facility decides, within the guidelines set forth in BOP Program Statement 4500.11, what items to sell in the facility's commissary. The guidelines allow for the sale of the MP3 player identified by the Central Office, Trust Fund Branch which may only be ordered from the vendor identified by the Central Office, Trust Fund Branch, to ensure the special security features and interface with TRULINCS, BOP's Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System function correctly. In 2012, BOP and Advance Technologies Group signed a $5.15 million contract giving ATG the exclusive right to supply prison- restricted MP3 players and MP3 music and audio files to BOP inmates. Around the same time, ATG and SanDisk entered into an agreement for SanDisk to supply exclusively the prison-restricted MP3 players to ATG. The named plaintiffs are former BOP inmates who now reside in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, or New York. While incarcerated, plaintiffs purchased MP3 players, which are on the BOP operated facility's Commissary List of items for sale. The putative class action lawsuit is filed by released inmates on behalf of themselves and current and released BOP inmates who purchased MP3 players and music or other audio files during their incarceration. Plaintiffs assert claims against defendants under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, as well as various common law and state law claims. In Counts I-VIII of their complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in unlawful tying, or conspiracy to engage in unlawful tying, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In counts IX-XII, plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in unlawful monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy to monopolize in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Judge Parker observed that any injury plaintiffs claim is a byproduct of BOP's rules for its MP3 program rather than defendants' alleged anti-competitive conduct. Plaintiffs were limited to purchasing one brand and model of MP3 player with certain security features because this is what BOP requires. Per BOP policy, plaintiffs were allowed to access and download audio files to authorized MP3 players only through TRULINCS, which BOP operates and manages. The MP3 players will stop working shortly after a prisoner's release and thus released purchasers will lose access to their purchased music collections because BOP requires the players to be connected to TRULINCS every two weeks to remain operable. Antitrust injury is lacking to support plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims against defendants. Because BOP policies, rather than any affirmative act by defendants, create the barrier between released purchasers and their purchased music collections, plaintiffs conversion and unjust enrichment claims also fail. Plaintiffs' claims alleging unconscionability and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing fail to state independent causes of action. Plaintiffs do not allege facts to support the necessary elements of their claims under the Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and New York consumer protection acts. With the demise of such claims, plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim fails as well. Accordingly, Judge Parker granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), and denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1). A copy of Judge Parker's opinion and order dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/Vkda4M from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Brian Scott Cohen -- brian@cohenlg.com -- at Cohen Law Group, P.C.; Richard L. Merpi -- rlm@miller.law -- Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law -- E. Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- at The Miller Law Firm Advanced Technologies Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher G. Dean -- cdean@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- Dan L. Makee - - dmakee@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- Jennifer D. Armstrong -- jarmstrong@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- at McDonald Hopkins LLC ALABAMA: Settlement in "Braggs" Has Preliminarily Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Myron H. Thompson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama gave preliminary approval of a settlement agreement in the case captioned, EDWARD BRAGGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:14cv601-MHT (M.D. Ala.). Inmates bring the putative class action against the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) for mental health claims made under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. They alleged that the ADOC (1) has failed to make appropriate accommodations for people with mental health disabilities in its policies and procedures; (2) has discriminated against inmates with mental health disabilities in the provision of and access to programs, benefits, and services; and (3) has failed to provide appropriate programming designed for persons with intellectual disabilities in ADOC facilities. The plaintiffs proposed a class of all of "any current or future inmate in the physical custody of the ADOC who has a disability as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12102 and 29 U.S.C. Section 705(9)(B), relating to or arising from mental disease, illness, or defect." The Plaintiffs and the ADOC have reached a proposed settlement that would release the ADOC from any further liability as to the mental health claims brought under the ADA by the plaintiff class. The settlement agreement requires the ADOC to pay fees to the court-approved monitor and attorneys' fees to the lawyers who represented the class members. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the parties jointly move the court to grant preliminary approval to their proposed ADA mental health settlement agreement in Phase 2A of the litigation; to approve the form of notice to class members of the proposed settlement agreement; to approve the form for objecting to or commenting on the proposed settlement agreement; and to approve the process for distributing these documents and collecting comments. In an Opinion and Order dated February 22, 2017 available at https://is.gd/h2G4e3 from Leagle.com, Judge Thompson found that the settlement class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation -- as well as the requirement of Rule 23(b)(2) that the issues involved "apply generally to the class," such that "relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." The court preliminarily found that plaintiffs' counsel in the case can capably serve as and should be appointed class counsel, based on the factors outlined in Rule 23(g). The Court appoints the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, and Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, are appointed as class counsel to represent the settlement class under Rule 23(g). A fairness hearing is set for 10:00 a.m. on June 2, 2017. Edward Braggs, et al. are represented by Andrew Philip Walsh, Esq. -- awalsh@bakerdonelson.com -- Patricia Clotfelter, Esq. -- pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com -- and -- William Glassell Somerville, III, Esq. -- wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ -- and -- Brooke Menschel, Esq. Ebony Glenn Howard, Esq. Eunice Cho, Esq. Jack Richard Cohen, Esq. Latasha Lanette McCrary, Esq. Maria V. Morris, Esq. Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Esq. Rhonda C. Brownstein, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. are represented by David Randall Boyd, Esq. -- dboyd@balch.com -- John W. Naramore, Esq. -- jnaramore@balch.com -- and -- John Garland Smith, Esq. -- jgsmith@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP -- and -- Anne Adams Hill, Esq. Elizabeth Anne Sees, Esq. Joseph Gordon Stewart, Jr., Esq. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS 301 S. Ripley Street P.O. Box 301501 Montgomery, AL 36130-1501 Tel:(334)353-3883 ALDO'S RESTAURANT: Faces "Wood" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Law -------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE WOOD (4583 Williamston Avenue, Brooklyn, Ohio 44144) On behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. ALDO'S RESTAURANT, INC. (8459 Memphis Avenue, Brooklyn, Ohio 44144, Please also serve: Robert R. Lucarelli, 1228 Euclid Avenue, #900, Cleveland, Ohio 44115) - and - ALDO ZAPPA (8941 Springcrest Brooklyn, Ohio 44144) Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00413-CAB (N.D. Ohio, March 1, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and the proposed class were not paid for all hours worked; were paid less than the minimum wage; or had their tip income improperly and unlawfully withheld and paid to persons not eligible to receive tip income. The suit raises claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. ALDO'S RESTAURANT, INC. is an Italian restaurant. Aldo's employed the Plaintiff as a server. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris P. Wido, Esq. THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC 25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 291-4744 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com AMAZON STUDIOS: "Solano-Rodriguez" Suit Invokes FLSA, NY Laws ------------------------------------------------------------- Marvelous Solano-Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon Studios, Inc.; Amazon Content Services LLC; Picrow, Inc.; Picrow Streaming Inc.; Picrow Features Inc.; Jigsaw Productions Inc.; and Big Indie Pictures, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01587 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2017) alleges failure by Defendants to pay minimum wages and overtime to Parking Production Assistants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, New York Minimum Wage Act, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. Defendants produce television shows, motion pictures, films, and movies. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Vagnini, Esq. Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq. Matthew Berman, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: 516 203 7180 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Awaits Court Ruling on Merger Suit Schedule -------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines Group Inc. awaits acceptance by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York of a jointly proposed schedule for the remainder of the merger-related cases, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On December 9, 2013, a subsidiary of AMR Corporation (AMR) merged with and into U.S. Airways Group, Inc. (US Airways Group), a Delaware corporation, which survived as a wholly-owned subsidiary of AAG, and AAG emerged from Chapter 11 (the Merger). On July 2, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Carolyn Fjord, et al., v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint named as defendants US Airways Group and US Airways, Inc., alleged that the effect of the Merger may be to create a monopoly in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, and sought injunctive relief and/or divestiture. On August 6, 2013, the plaintiffs re-filed their complaint in the Bankruptcy Court, adding AMR and American as defendants. On November 27, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin the Merger. On August 19, 2015, after three previous largely unsuccessful attempts to amend their complaint, plaintiffs filed a fourth motion for leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint to add a claim for damages and demand for jury trial, as well as claims similar to those in the putative class action lawsuits regarding air passenger capacity. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a request with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate the Fjord matter with the putative class action lawsuits, which was denied on October 15, 2015. A jointly proposed schedule for the remainder of the case was submitted on September 7, 2016, which has not yet been accepted by the Bankruptcy Court. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations. American Airlines Group Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company and its principal, wholly-owned subsidiaries are American Airlines, Inc., Envoy Aviation Group Inc., PSA Airlines, Inc. and Piedmont Airlines, Inc. AAG was formed in 1982 under the name AMR Corporation as the parent company of American, which was founded in 1934. The Company's primary business activity is the operation of a major network carrier, providing scheduled air transportation for passengers and cargo. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suits Over DOJ Antitrust Investigation Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuits arising from the antitrust civil investigation demanded by the U.S. Department of Justice remain pending, American Airlines Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "In June 2015, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as part of an investigation into whether there have been illegal agreements or coordination of air passenger capacity. The CID seeks documents and other information from us, and other airlines have announced that they have received similar requests. We are cooperating fully with the DOJ investigation. In addition, subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDs by the DOJ, we, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed in Canada, Air Canada, have been named as defendants in approximately 100 putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements with respect to air passenger capacity. The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia." On October 28, 2016, the Court denied a motion by the airline defendants to dismiss all claims in the class actions. The Company says both the DOJ investigation and the lawsuits are in their relatively early stages and the Company intends to defend these matters vigorously. American Airlines Group Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company and its principal, wholly-owned subsidiaries are American Airlines, Inc., Envoy Aviation Group Inc., PSA Airlines, Inc. and Piedmont Airlines, Inc. AAG was formed in 1982 under the name AMR Corporation as the parent company of American, which was founded in 1934. The Company's primary business activity is the operation of a major network carrier, providing scheduled air transportation for passengers and cargo. AMERICAN MODERN: "Edwards" Class Settlement Has Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division, granted plaintiffs' agreed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case captioned PAMELA GREEN and GARY EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:14-cv-4074 (W.D. Ark.). Plaintiffs and defendants have agreed, subject to court approval to settle the litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions stated in the stipulation of settlement filed with the court on January 24, 2017. Plaintiffs filed an agreed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Judge Hickey preliminarily approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in all material respects, with some amendment in certain non-material respect. Contingent upon final approval of the proposed settlement, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, plaintiffs' motion for preliminary class certification is granted. The following settlement class is conditionally certified for settlement purposes only: All persons who had a covered loss in the state of Arkansas that occurred during the class period of April 11, 2009 through April 11, 2014, where the claim was paid at less than the limit of liability (accounting for deductible), and where American Modern made an ACV payment for Structural Loss that included a deduction for labor depreciation, or would have made an ACV payment for structural loss but for the deduction of labor depreciation. Excluded from the class are: (1) persons who received indemnification payment(s) for full replacement cost; (2) claims that were open and still being actively adjusted as of April 11, 2014; (3) claims for which American Modern received an executed release during the class period; (4) American Modern and its officers and directors; (5) members of the judiciary and their staff to whom the action is assigned; and (6) class counsel. Plaintiffs Pamela Green and Gary Edwards are preliminarily appointed as representatives of the settlement class and Matt Keil Steven E. Vowell John C. Goodson William B. Putman of KEIL & GOODSON P.A. and TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS respectively, Richard Norman A.F. "Tom" Thompson, III R. Martin Weber, Jr. of Casey Castleberry CROWLEY NORMAN LLPMURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, James M. Pratt Jason E. Roselius of JAMES M. PRATT, JR. P.A. MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC, respectively, Matthew L. Mustokoff Richard A. Russo, Jr. of KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &CHECK, LLP are appointed as class counsel. Garden City Group, Inc. shall serve as the third-party administrator of the settlement in accordance with terms of the stipulation. Pending the court's final determination of whether the proposed settlement will be approved, the court preliminarily enjoins all class members and their legally authorized representatives, unless and until they have timely and properly excluded themselves from the settlement class, from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating as a plaintiff, claimant, or class member in any other lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction based on or arising from the released claims. By filing, commencing, or prosecuting a lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction as a class action on behalf of any class members who have not timely excluded themselves, based on or arising from the released claims and from attempting to effect an opt-out class of individuals in any lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction arising from the released claims. The court has reviewed and approves the mailed notice, claim form, publication notice, and reminder postcard. Counsel for the parties, along with the administrator, are authorized to complete any missing information and to make any non-substantive revisions to these documents that do not materially reduce the rights of the class members as necessary to fulfill the purposes of the settlement. No more than thirty days after the date of entry of the order, American Modern shall conduct a reasonable search of its records during the class period of covered losses and provide to the administrator the name, last known address, date of loss, policy number, and claim number for a covered loss person, reasonably believed to be a potential class member. The administrator shall send a copy of the mailed notice and a claim form by first-class U.S. mail to each potential class member for whom American Modern has ascertained a name and address. Prior to mailing, the administrator shall run the addresses one time through the National Change of Address database in an attempt to obtain a current address for each potential Class Member. Upon completion of the updating efforts, the administrator shall use its best efforts to complete the mailing of the mailed notice and claim form to potential class members by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the last known addresses of potential class members maintained by American Modern and as updated by the administrator, and bearing the return address of the Administrator, by March 24, 2017, which is sixty (60) days prior to the final approval hearing. In addition, on or before seven days after the first date of mailing the mailed notices, the administrator shall: a. Set up and maintain an automated toll-free interactive voice response (IVP) phone number with script recordings of information about the settlement, utilizing the relevant portions of the language contained in the mailed notice and other information with the agreement of the parties, along with an option permitting callers to leave messages in a voicemail box. The phone number shall remain open and accessible through the deadline for the administrator's final accounting as described in paragraph 68 of the stipulation. The settlement administrator shall make reasonable provisions for class counsel to be promptly advised of recorded messages left by persons in the settlement class concerning the action or the settlement. b. Publish a notice of the settlement in the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette. The publication notice shall be published once a week for two consecutive weeks as selected by the administrator, in a size of at least one-eighth of a page. c. Establish a settlement website that sets forth the applicable deadlines, contains relevant documents, and provides for the electronic submission of claim forms in lieu of returning mailing of the claim form. The content and form of the settlement website shall be subject to the mutual approval of American Modern and plaintiffs, but shall include the stipulation and exhibits, the order, the mailed notice, a blank claim form, a Spanish translation of the mailed notice and blank claim form, and such other documents as Class Counsel and American Modern agree to post or that the court orders posted on the website. The Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of the settlement website shall be www.GreenLaborDepreciationSettlement.com or such other URL as class counsel and American Modern may subsequently agree upon in writing. The settlement website shall not include any advertising, and shall not bear or include any logos or trademarks of American Modern other than those appearing in the stipulation. The settlement website shall cease to operate and the administrator shall remove all information from the website no later than the deadline for the administrator's final accounting. Ownership of the settlement website URL shall be transferred to American Modern within ten days following the date on which operation of the settlement website ceases. Class members will be provided an opportunity to submit claim forms, requesting claim settlement payments in accordance with the terms of the stipulation and the same shall be considered, if the claim form was signed by or on behalf of class members, and i) if in paper form, mailed to the address of the Administrator as specified in the Claim Form and postmarked by the deadline for submitting claims, which shall be July 10, 2017, which is forty- five (45) days after the Final Approval Hearing, or (ii) if submitted electronically via the Settlement website, be completed and submitted by midnight CST on July 10, 2017. On June 5, 2017, thirty-five days prior to the claim submission deadline, the administrator shall also mail to each class member who has not filed a claim form a reminder postcard with summary information regarding the claim submission deadline, the settlement website address, and sufficient information to enable the class member to submit a claim form via the settlement website or to request a blank claim form. The court will hold a final approval hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement at 9:00 a.m., May 24, 2017, at the United States Courthouse, Texarkana, Arkansas. During the final approval hearing, the court will consider and determine: * Whether the proposed settlement should be finally approved by the court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and if so, whether to incorporate the stipulation as the judgment of the court that shall be binding on all class members who have not timely requested exclusion from the settlement class. * Whether to confirm certification of the settlement class for settlement purposes only and whether the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been met for purposes of certifying the settlement class. * Whether notice to potential class members, in the form and manner described in the order and the stipulation, has been accomplished as directed, and whether such notice satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process as being the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all persons entitled thereto. * Whether and in what amount class counsel shall be awarded attorneys' fees and expenses, as specified in the stipulation. * Whether and in what amount incentive compensation shall be awarded to the representative plaintiffs and objections, if any, made to the proposed settlement or any of its terms. Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement class must submit a written request for exclusion and the request must include the class member's name and address, a clear and unequivocal statement that the class member wishes to be excluded from the settlement class and the signature of the class member or, in the case of a class member who is deceased or incapacitated, the signature of the legally authorized representative of the class member, with written proof of such authority. The exclusion request must be mailed to the administrator at the address provided in the mailed notice and must be postmarked no later than twenty days prior to the final approval hearing. Class members who do not request exclusion from the settlement class may object to the proposed settlement. Class members who choose to object to the proposed settlement may file a written objection. To be considered, the written notice of intent to object to the proposed settlement should: Contain a heading which includes the name of the case and case number of the action. Provide the objector's name, address, telephone number, and signature. Indicate the specific reasons why the objector objects to the proposed settlement. Be filed with the clerk of court no later than twenty days prior to the final approval hearing and the same must sent to the administrator by first-class mail, and postmarked no later than twenty days prior to the final approval hearing. It must contain the name, address, bar number, and telephone of the objector's counsel, if represented by an attorney and state whether the objector intends to appear at the final approval hearing, either in person or through counsel. In addition, an objection should contain the following additional information if the Objector or his/her attorney requests permission to speak at the Final Approval Hearing: i. A detailed statement of the specific legal and factual basis for each and every objection; ii. A list of any and all witnesses whom the objector may call at the final approval hearing, along with the address of each witness and a summary of his/her proposed testimony; iii. A detailed description of any and all evidence the objector may offer at the final approval hearing, including photocopies of any and all exhibits which the objector may introduce at the final approval hearing; and iv. Documentary proof of membership in the settlement class. An objector who does not include the above information in his/her objections will likely be limited in speaking and presenting evidence or testimony at the final approval hearing and may be prevented from doing so entirely. The right to object to the proposed settlement must be exercised individually by a class member, not as a member or representative of a group or subclass, except in the case of a legally authorized representative on behalf of a deceased or incapacitated class member. Any class member may appear at the final approval hearing, in person or by counsel. On or before May 12, 2017, class counsel shall file with the court and serve upon American Modern's counsel a motion seeking the court's final approval of the proposed settlement and stipulation and entry of the final judgment. On or before May 19, 2017, class counsel shall file with the court and serve upon American Modern's counsel a declaration from the administrator confirming dissemination of the mailed notice, establishment of an automatic toll-free IVR phone system, establishment of the settlement website, and posting of the publication notice in accordance with the terms of the order. The declaration will also list the names of class members who have timely excluded themselves from the settlement class, the number of returned mailed notices, and the names of objectors. The parties are directed to amend the stipulation and reflect the modifications noted. A finalized, amended stipulation must be presented to the court for approval by no later than March 7, 2017. Once the court has approved the amended stipulation, no additional amendments may be made without prior approval of the court. A copy of Judge Hickey's order dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/ekfl8u from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Murphy -- Kenneth P. Castleberry -- at Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry; Stevan Earl Vowell -- svowell@taylorlawpartners.com - - Timothy J. Myers -- tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com -- W.H. Taylor -- whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com -- William B. Putman -- wputman@taylorpartners.com -- at Taylor Law Firm; D. Matt Keil -- Attorney at Law; George L. McWilliams -- at Law Office of George L. McWilliams, P.C.; James M. Pratt, Jr. -- atJames M. Pratt, Jr., P.A.; Jason Earnest Roselius -- Jack Austin Mattingly, Jr. -- Tanner Hicks -- at Mattingly Roselius PLLC; R. Martin Weber, Jr. - - mweber@crowleynorman.com -- Richard E. Norman -- rnorman@crowleynorman.com -- at Crowley Norman LLP; John C. Goodson -- at Keil & Goodson; Matthew L. Mustokoff -- mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Richard A. Russo, Jr. -- rrusso@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP American Modern Home Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew Evan Samuels -- asamuels@bakerlaw.com -- Mark A. Johnson -- mjohnson@bakerlaw.com -- Robert J. Tucker -- rtucker@bakerlaw.com -- Rodger L. Eckelberry -- reckelberry@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker Hostetler; W. Kelvin Wyrick, Sr. -- Attorney at Law AMPLIFY SNACK: "Morrison" Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. -------------------------------------------------- Dominique Morrison, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated current citizens of Missouri v. Amplify Snack Brands, Inc., Case No. 1722-CC00350, was removed from the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00816-RWS to the proceeding. Amplify Snack Brands, Inc. develops, markets, and distributes better-for-you snacking products in the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew H. Armstrong ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC 8816 Manchester Road St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 258-0212 E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Martin J. Buckley, Esq. BUCKLEY AND BUCKLEY, L.L.C. 1139 Olive Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101-1928 Telephone: (314) 621-3434 Facsimile: (314) 621-3485 E-mail: mbuckley@buckleylawllc.com AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Rubel" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL RUBEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., BARRY D. ZYSKIND, and RONALD E. PIPOLY JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01545 (March 1, 2017), alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AmTrust had ineffective assessment of the risks associated with its financial reporting; (ii) the Company had an insufficient complement of corporate accounting and corporate financial reporting resources within the organization; (iii) in turn, the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, AmTrust's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., through its subsidiaries, underwrites and provides property and casualty insurance in the United States and internationally. 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 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (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 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 697-6484 Fax: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com ANTHEM INC: Appeal in "Gold" Suit Underway ------------------------------------------ The appeal filed by Ronald Gold, et al., is currently under consideration by the appellate court, Anthem, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company is defending a certified class action filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance. The lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem Insurance's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong ESMs. A trial on liability was held in October 2014. In June 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on all issues, finding that (i) Anthem Insurance correctly determined the state of Connecticut to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (ii) Anthem Insurance acted in good faith in making this determination, while Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to override a presumption that Anthem Insurance's ESM determination was correct; and (iii) Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual obligation. In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered for Anthem Insurance. In December 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided it would hear the appeal directly rather than the appeal going to the intermediate appellate court. Oral arguments were held in October 2016 and the appeal is currently under consideration by the court. The Company says it intends to vigorously seek the affirmation of the trial court's judgment; however, the suit's ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Anthem, Inc., is one of the largest health benefits companies in the United States in terms of medical membership, serving 39.9 million medical members through the Company's affiliated health plans as of December 31, 2016. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA, an association of independent health benefit plans. The Company serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California and as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or BCBS, licensee for Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri (excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New Hampshire, New York (as BCBS in 10 New York City metropolitan and surrounding counties, and as Blue Cross or BCBS in selected upstate counties), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and Wisconsin. ANTHEM INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk ESI/Anthem Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc., awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss all of the claims brought against it in the consolidated captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts Inc. were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the Southern District of New York by three members of ERISA plans alleging ERISA violations captioned Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert Shullich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. The lawsuit was then consolidated with a similar lawsuit that was previously filed against Express Scripts. A first amended consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated lawsuit, which is captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation. The first amended consolidated complaint was filed by six individual plaintiffs against Anthem and Express Scripts on behalf of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA health care plan from December 1, 2009 to the present in which Anthem provided prescription drug benefits through a PBM Agreement with Express Scripts and who paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug benefit. As to the ERISA members, the plaintiffs allege that Anthem breached its duties under ERISA (i) by failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the PBM Agreement and (ii) by placing its own pecuniary interest above the best interests of Anthem insureds for its own pecuniary interest by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the PBM Agreement in exchange for the $4,675.0 purchase price for the Company's NextRx PBM business. As to the non-ERISA members, the plaintiffs assert that Anthem breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans under which the non-ERISA members are covered by (i) negotiating and entering into the PBM Agreement with Express Scripts that was detrimental to the interests of the such non-ERISA members, (ii) failing to adequately monitor the activities of Express Scripts, including failing to timely monitor and correct the prices charged by Express Scripts for prescription medications, and (iii) acting in Anthem's self-interests instead of the interests of the non-ERISA members when it accepted the $4,675.0 purchase price for NextRx. Plaintiffs seek to hold Anthem and Express Scripts jointly and severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill- gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims brought against Anthem, which is pending. ESI filed a motion to transfer the case to a federal court in Missouri, and the Company says it intends to oppose the transfer. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Anthem, Inc., is one of the largest health benefits companies in the United States in terms of medical membership, serving 39.9 million medical members through the Company's affiliated health plans as of December 31, 2016. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA, an association of independent health benefit plans. The Company serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California and as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or BCBS, licensee for Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri (excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New Hampshire, New York (as BCBS in 10 New York City metropolitan and surrounding counties, and as Blue Cross or BCBS in selected upstate counties), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and Wisconsin. ANTHEM INC: Fact Discovery in Cyber Attack Suit Completed in Dec. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fact discovery was completed in December 2016 in the litigation arising from the 2015 Cyber Attack Incident against Anthem, Inc., according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "In February 2015, we reported that we were the target of a sophisticated external cyber attack. The attackers gained unauthorized access to certain of our information technology systems and obtained personal information related to many individuals and employees, such as names, birthdays, health care identification/social security numbers, street addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and employment information, including income data. To date, there is no evidence that credit card or medical information, such as claims, test results or diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no assurance can be given that we will not identify additional information that was accessed or obtained." "Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took immediate action to remediate the security vulnerability and retained a cybersecurity firm to evaluate our systems and identify solutions based on the evolving landscape. We are providing credit monitoring and identity protection services to those who have been affected by this cyber attack. We have continued to implement security enhancements since this incident. We have incurred expenses subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate and remediate this matter and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in the foreseeable future. We recognize these expenses in the periods in which they are incurred." "Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and other claims have been or may be asserted against us on behalf of current or former members, current or former employees, other individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack. Federal and state agencies, including state insurance regulators, state attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are investigating events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its consequences and our responses." "In December 2016, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, or NAIC, concluded its multistate targeted market conduct and financial exam. In connection with the resolution of the matter, the NAIC requested we provide, and we agreed, a customized credit protection program, equivalent to a credit freeze, for our members who were under the age of eighteen on January 27, 2015. No fines or penalties were imposed on us. Although we are cooperating in these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business and our results of operations." "With respect to the civil actions, a motion to transfer was filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February 2015 and was subsequently heard by the Panel in May 2015. In June 2015, the Panel entered its order transferring the consolidated matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The U.S. District Court entered its case management order in September 2015. We filed a motion to dismiss ten of the counts that are before the U.S. District Court. In February 2016, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion, dismissing three counts with prejudice, four counts without prejudice and allowing three counts to proceed." "Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2016, and we subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss. In May 2016, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion, dismissing one count with prejudice, dismissing certain counts asserted by specific named plaintiffs with or without prejudice depending on their individualized facts, and allowing the remaining counts to proceed." "In July 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint which we answered in August 2016. Fact discovery was completed in December 2016. There remain two state court cases that are presently proceeding outside of the Multidistrict Litigation." Anthem, Inc., is one of the largest health benefits companies in the United States in terms of medical membership, serving 39.9 million medical members through the Company's affiliated health plans as of December 31, 2016. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA, an association of independent health benefit plans. The Company serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California and as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or BCBS, licensee for Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri (excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New Hampshire, New York (as BCBS in 10 New York City metropolitan and surrounding counties, and as Blue Cross or BCBS in selected upstate counties), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and Wisconsin. APN INC: Faces "Grimm" Class Suit in C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced against APN, Inc., DPC Pet Specialties LLC, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition Holdings, LLC, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition Parent, LLC, and Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC The case is captioned Christina Grimm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APN, Inc., DPC Pet Specialties LLC, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition Holdings, LLC, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition Parent, LLC, and Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-00356 (C.D. Cal., February 28, 2017). The Defendants own and operate a pet supply store in Meadville, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Fort McClellan Credit Union Files Suit --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. The case is captioned Fort McClellan Credit Union, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00770-MHC (N.D. Ga., March 2, 2017). Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. operates a fast-food sandwich restaurant chain throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, Esq. W. Pitts Carr, Esq. W. PITTS CARR AND ASSOCIATES, PC Building 10 4200 Northside Parkway, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 442-9000 E-mail: aweatherby@wpcarr.com pcarr@wpcarr.com - and - Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, P.L.L.P. 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com ARES CAPITAL: American Capital Shareholders Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- Shareholders of American Capital, Ltd., have filed a second consolidated amended putative shareholder class action complaint, according to Ares Capital Corporation's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On January 3, 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of American Capital, Ltd. pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated May 23, 2016, among the Company, American Capital, Orion Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, Ivy Hill Asset Management, L.P. ("IHAM"), Ivy Hill Asset Management GP, LLC, in its capacity as general partner of IHAM, American Capital Asset Management, LLC, a wholly owned portfolio company of American Capital, and solely for the limited purposes set forth therein, Ares Capital Management. To effect the acquisition, (i) Acquisition Sub merged with and into American Capital, with American Capital remaining as the surviving entity in such merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Ares Capital and (ii) ACAM merged with and into IHAM, with IHAM remaining as the surviving entity in such merger as a wholly owned portfolio company of the Company. Immediately following the Mergers, American Capital converted into a Delaware limited liability company and withdrew its election as a business development company. On or about February 10, 2017, shareholders of American Capital filed a second consolidated amended putative shareholder class action complaint allegedly on behalf of holders of the common stock of American Capital against the former members of American Capital's board of directors and certain former American Capital officers, as well as Elliott Management Corporation, Ares Capital Corporation, a Maryland corporation, is a specialty finance company that is a closed-end, non-diversified management investment company. The Company has elected to be regulated as a business development company under the Investment Company Act of 1940. ARES CAPITAL: Elliott Entities Consolidated Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated shareholder lawsuit initiated by the Elliott Entities remains pending, Ares Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On January 3, 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of American Capital, Ltd. pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated May 23, 2016, among the Company, American Capital, Orion Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, Ivy Hill Asset Management, L.P. ("IHAM"), Ivy Hill Asset Management GP, LLC, in its capacity as general partner of IHAM, American Capital Asset Management, LLC, a wholly owned portfolio company of American Capital, and solely for the limited purposes set forth therein, Ares Capital Management. To effect the acquisition, (i) Acquisition Sub merged with and into American Capital, with American Capital remaining as the surviving entity in such merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Ares Capital and (ii) ACAM merged with and into IHAM, with IHAM remaining as the surviving entity in such merger as a wholly owned portfolio company of the Company. Immediately following the Mergers, American Capital converted into a Delaware limited liability company and withdrew its election as a business development company. Elliott Associates, L.P., Elliott International, L.P. and Elliott International Capital Advisors Inc. (collectively "Elliott") in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland challenging the American Capital Acquisition. This action is a consolidation of putative shareholder complaints filed against the directors of American Capital on June 24, 2016, July 12, 2016, July 21, 2016 and July 27, 2016, which were consolidated and in which an amended consolidated putative shareholder class action complaint was filed on August 18, 2016. The action alleges that the directors, officers and Elliott failed to adequately discharge their fiduciary duties to the public shareholders of American Capital by hastily commencing a sales process due to the board's manipulation by Elliott. In the alternative, the complaint alleges Elliott aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the American Capital directors and officers. The complaint also alleges that the directors and officers failed to obtain for the shareholders the highest value available in the marketplace for their shares in the American Capital Acquisition. The complaint further alleges that the merger was the product of a flawed sales process due to Elliott's continued manipulation, the use of deal protection devices in the American Capital Acquisition that precluded other bidders from making a higher offer to American Capital and the directors' conflicts of interest due to special benefits, including the full vesting of American Capital stock options and incentive awards or golden parachutes the directors received upon consummation of the proposed merger. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement, which was filed with the SEC on July 20, 2016 and includes a joint proxy statement to American Capital's shareholders, is materially false and misleading because it omits material information concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the American Capital Acquisition. The complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages for all losses resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and waste. The Company assumed this legal proceeding in connection with the American Capital Acquisition and believes that these claims are without merit. The defendants' response to the second consolidated amended complaint was due on March 3, 2017. Ares Capital Corporation, a Maryland corporation, is a specialty finance company that is a closed-end, non-diversified management investment company. The Company has elected to be regulated as a business development company under the Investment Company Act of 1940. AVON PRODUCTS: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a final approval order approving Avon Products, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York -- Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc., et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the Company, the Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment committee, and certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan fiduciaries. On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083). On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, asserting claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor under ERISA on behalf of a purported class of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in and/or held shares of the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and May 1, 2014 and between December 14, 2011 and the present. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief. On July 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The parties reached an agreement on a settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and the individual defendants and payment of approximately $6. Approximately $5 of the settlement was paid by the Company's insurer and approximately $1 was paid by the Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the Company's applicable insurance policy). On June 7, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a hearing to consider final approval for October 11, 2016. On January 3, 2017, the Court issued a Final Approval Order approving the settlement. Avon Products, Inc., is a global manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products. The Company commenced operations in 1886 and was incorporated in the State of New York on January 27, 1916. The Company conducts its business in the highly competitive beauty industry and compete against other consumer packaged goods and direct-selling companies to create, manufacture and market beauty and non-beauty-related products. BENIHANA INC: Calif. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Wilkes" --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned BRENDAN WILKES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. BENIHANA, INC., BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP., BENIHANA CARLSBAD CORP., and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 16cv2219 JM (DHB) (S.D. Cal.). Benihana Inc., Benihana National Corp., and Benihana Carlsbad Corp. operates the nation's largest chain of Japanese teppanyaki and sushi restaurants, with seventy-three restaurants nationwide, including seventeen in California and two in San Diego County. Benihana had a restaurant in Carlsbad, California and had this tip-pooling policy were Benihana collects all tips left by customers and pays out 8.5% of teppan sales to the teppan chef, 4% of sushi sales to the sushi chef, 4.5% of liquor, beer, and wine sales to the bartender and 1% of teppan and sushi sales to the busser. Brendan Wilkes is a former server at a Benihana restaurant in Carlsbad, California. He held that position from July 2015 to June 2016. On July 19, 2016 Wilkes filed a first amended class action complaint in San Diego Superior Court. On September 1, 2016, Benihana removed the case to the Southern District of California pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Shortly thereafter, Wilkes filed a second amended complaint and alleged conversion, failure to maintain accurate records and provide accurate itemized wage statements, violations of California Business & Professions Code section 17200 and for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act, as his causes of action. All four causes of action stemmed from Benihana's purportedly unlawful tip-pooling policy. Wilkes alleged that the policy was improper in a number of ways, including that it allowed Benihana to pay non-servers' wages using servers' tips. Benihana moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim, were the court dismissed the second cause of action, but declined to dismiss the first, third, and fourth causes of action. The court found that such conduct by Benihana at least plausibly violates California Labor Code section 351, thus supporting plaintiff's claims for conversion, violation of section 17200, and PAGA penalties. Plaintiff filed the third amended complaint on January 18, 2017, on behalf of himself and a putative class of current and former servers who, within the previous four years, have been required to abide by the policy, a group that exceeds 1,000 individuals. The third amended complaint once again centers on the policy, alleging three causes of action: (1) conversion; (2) violations of section 17200; and (3) PAGA penalties. But plaintiff omitted allegations from his third amended complaint that Benihana makes up the shortfall when tips are insufficient to defray the percentage wage payments owed to chefs, bartenders, and bussers. Instead, he alleged that the percentage payments to non-servers are "paid from the tip pool first if funds are available. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended class action complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Miller granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice and without leave to amend. Judge Miller observed that although the policy may not be perfect, plaintiff does not allege that it has ever left him without tips after a shift, and it does not require servers to go into their own pocket for contributions. Absent this sort of obvious unfairness, the court is in no better position than Benihana to dictate how the policy should operate, and attempting to do so would implicate serious policy concerns. The court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim that the policy violates section 351 on the basis of unfairness. A copy of Judge Miller's order dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/PLvzy9 from Leagle.com. Plaintiff, represented by Kyle M. Van Dyke -- kvandyke@vandykelaw.net -- at Van Dyke Law Defendants, represented by Alison Jacqueline Cubre -- acubre@littler.com -- Dawn S. Fonseca -- dfonseca@littler.com -- Robert L. Zaletel -- rzaletel@littler.com -- Michael E. Brewer -- mbrewer@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, PC. ENERGY TRANSFER: Del. Court Denies Bids for Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Chancery of Delaware denied the parties' cross motions in the case titled IN RE ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY L.P. UNITHOLDER LITIGATION, Cons. C.A. No. 12197-VCG (Del. Ch.). Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., or ETE is a master limited partnership organized under Delaware law, with its principal office in Dallas, Texas. ETE is in the business of energy pipelines. ETE is managed by its General Partner, LE GP, LLC and its board of directors. Defendant LE GP is a Delaware limited liability company and the General Partner of ETE. LE GP is a party to the Limited Partnership Agreement or the LPA in its capacity as General Partner. Non-party The Williams Companies, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company incorporated in Delaware, with its principal offices in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Williams' holdings include pipelines and other energy service related assets. Williams was the counterparty to a merger which was abandoned in June, 2016. Non-party Energy Transfer Corporation LP or ETC is a Delaware limited partnership. ETC was a party to the Williams merger and non-party Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. is a Delaware master limited partnership with its principal offices in Dallas, Texas. Lead plaintiffs, Lee Levine and Chester County Employee's Retirement Fund, have at all relevant times been common unitholders of ETE. The plaintiffs are suing both individually and as a class on behalf of the non-participating common unitholders of ETE for claims arising out of a March 8, 2016 transaction. Plaintiff Lee Levine initiated the action on April 12, 2016, and the matter was expedited shortly thereafter. The action was consolidated with a similar action on May 3, 2016. Following discovery, an amended and supplemented verified class action complaint was filed on August 29, 2016. The compliant pleads four counts. Count I alleges a breach of Section 6.3 of the LPA against ETE, LE GP and the unitholder defendants and asserted that the Rights Distribution and the Convertible Units Distribution were an extraordinary non-cash distribution made in violation of Section 6.3's requirements that such a distribution be made in accordance with unitholders' respective percentage interests. Count II alleges a breach of Section 7.6(f) of the LPA against ETE, LE GP, and the unitholder defendants and asserted that ETE, LE GP, and the unitholder defendants breached 7.6(f)'s requirement that conflicted transactions be fair and reasonable to the Partnership because none of the enumerated safe harbors were met and the terms of the issuance of convertible units were not fair and reasonable. Count III asserts a claim for breach of the contractual good faith obligations in making determinations and approvals under Sections 5.8, 7.9(a), 7.9(b), 13.1(d)(i) and 13.1(g) of the LPA against ETE, LE GP and the director defendants. The plaintiffs assert nine different theories for count III. Count IV asserts that Amendment 5 was not permitted by Section 7.9(a) of the LPA and thus ETE, LE GP and the unitholder defendants breached the LPA. The theory of count IV is that the amendment was a conflict situation and that by not securing any of the exceptions under Section 7.9, the amendment is not permitted and the entry into and implementation of the amendment were in breach of the partnership agreement. The defendants and the plaintiffs have both moved for partial summary judgment. The plaintiffs seek summary judgment on two primary points. First, the plaintiffs seek summary judgment that the Rights Distribution and Convertible Units Distribution are invalid because they were non-pro rata distributions of securities to some limited partners in their capacity as partners that were not in accordance with their percentage interests in the partnership. The plaintiffs argue such distributions were not authorized and violated the LPA. Second, the plaintiffs seek summary judgment that the defendants breached the partnership agreement because, in its haste, the LE GP Board of Directors failed to establish a duly constituted Conflicts Committee composed of directors who were not also directors of an affiliate of the General Partner. The plaintiffs argue that the flaws in the process result in a failure to establish special approval as defined by the LPA, and that they are entitled to summary judgment that special approval was not given. The defendants seek partial summary judgment on a number of points. First, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants and ETE fail as a matter of law because plaintiffs' breach of the LPA claims can only be brought against the General Partner. Second, the defendants assert that count III fails as a matter of law to the extent it relates to a breach by the General Partner for approving the Amendment because Section 13.1(g) forecloses any such claim. Third, the defendants argue that count IV fails as a matter of law because Section 7.9(a) does not provide a claim for breach as to the Amendment. The defendants argue Section 7.9(a) is an optional safe harbor provision that cannot be breached as a matter of law. Finally, the defendants assert that count I fails as a matter of law because the Issuance is an issuance of equity securities, not a distribution subject to Section 6.3 of the LPA. The Court of Chancery noted that the resulting inquiry presents mixed questions of law and fact. Before characterizing the Issuance as a distribution, it is in itself an undefined term in the partnership agreement, the court said. The Court finds it appropriate to have a full factual record, and therefore defer that characterization until after trial. Likewise, although the plaintiffs have raised significant doubt about the propriety of the process by which the Conflicts Committee undertook its review of the Issuance, whether the Issuance qualifies as contractually fair and reasonable involves factual questions appropriately addressed upon a full record, the court further held. Accordingly, the cross-motions for partial summary judgment are denied. A copy of the memorandum opinion dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/S2N9uy from Leagle.com. Michael Hanrahan -- MHanrahan@Prickett.com -- Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr. -- PAFioravanti@Prickett.com -- Samuel L. Closic -- SLClosic@prickett.com -- Eric J. Juray -- EJJuray@prickett.com -- at PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A., Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rolin P. Bissell -- rbissell@ycst.com -- Elena C. Norman -- enorman@ycst.com -- Tammy L. Mercer -- tmercer@ycst.com -- Benjamin M. Potts -- bpotts@ycst.com -- at CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP; Michael C. Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com -- John C. Wander -- jwander@velaw.com -- Andrew E. Jackson -- ajackson@velaw.com -- Craig E. Zieminski -- czieminski@velaw.com - - at VINSON & ELKINS LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., LE GP, LLC, Kelcy L. Warren, John W. McReynolds, Marshall S. McCrea III, Matthew S. Ramsey, Ted Collins, Jr., K. Rick Turner, Ray Davis and Richard D. Brannon David E. Ross -- dross@ramllp.com -- John A. Eakins -- jeakins@ramllp.com -- at ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP; M. Scott Barnard -- sbarnard@akingump.com -- Michelle Reed -- mreed@akingump.com -- Lauren E. York -- lyork@akingump.com -- at AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, Attorneys for Defendant William P. Williams BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Has Accrued $2.4-Mil. Settlement in "Sears" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomin' Brands, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, that it agreed to a tentative class settlement and has accrued a settlement of $2.4 million, inclusive of legal fees, in the lawsuit filed by David Sears and Elizabeth Thomas. In November 2015, David Sears and Elizabeth Thomas, two former Outback Managers ("Manager Plaintiffs"), sent a demand letter seeking unpaid overtime compensation on behalf of all Managers and Kitchen Managers employed at Outback Steakhouse restaurants from November 2012 to present. The Manager Plaintiffs claim that Managers were not assigned sufficient management duties to qualify as exempt from overtime. In December 2016, the Company agreed to a tentative class settlement for eligible Kitchen Managers and has accrued a settlement, inclusive of legal fees, of $2.4 million in fiscal year 2016. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., is one of the largest casual dining restaurant companies in the world, with a portfolio of leading, differentiated restaurant concepts. The Company has four founder- inspired concepts: Outback Steakhouse, Carrabba's Italian Grill, Bonefish Grill and Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar. Our restaurant concepts range in price point and degree of formality from casual (Outback Steakhouse and Carrabba's Italian Grill) to upscale casual (Bonefish Grill) and fine dining (Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar). As of December 25, 2016, the Company owned and operated 1,276 restaurants and franchised 240 restaurants across 48 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and 20 countries. BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Has Paid $3.2-Mil. Settlement in "Cardoza" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomin' Brands, Inc., has paid the $3.2 million settlement in the lawsuit filed by Cardoza, et al., during the fourth quarter of 2016, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016. On October 4, 2013, two then-current employees (the "Nevada Plaintiffs") filed a purported collective action lawsuit against the Company, OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC, and two of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Cardoza, et al. v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.: 2:13- cv-01820-JAD-NJK). The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring employees to work off the clock, complete on-line training without pay, and attend meetings in the restaurant without pay. The nationwide collective action permitted all hourly employees in all Outback Steakhouse restaurants to join. The suit requested an unspecified amount in back pay for the employees that joined the lawsuit, an equal amount in liquidated damages, costs, expenses, and attorney's fees. The Nevada Plaintiffs also filed a companion lawsuit in Nevada state court alleging that the Company violated the state break time rules. In November 2015, the Company reached a tentative settlement agreement resolving all claims and the cost of class administration for $3.2 million. The Court issued final approval in November 2016 and the Company subsequently made payment during the fourth quarter of 2016. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., is one of the largest casual dining restaurant companies in the world, with a portfolio of leading, differentiated restaurant concepts. The Company has four founder- inspired concepts: Outback Steakhouse, Carrabba's Italian Grill, Bonefish Grill and Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar. Our restaurant concepts range in price point and degree of formality from casual (Outback Steakhouse and Carrabba's Italian Grill) to upscale casual (Bonefish Grill) and fine dining (Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar). As of December 25, 2016, the Company owned and operated 1,276 restaurants and franchised 240 restaurants across 48 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and 20 countries. BOX-N-GO: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bacon" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Adrian Bacon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Box-N-Go, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:17-cv-00378 (C.D. Cal., March 2, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and pre-recorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Box-N-Go, LLC operates a moving and storage service company in Los Angeles, California. Adrian Bacon is a pro se plaintiff. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: "Pettinridge Suit" Joins MDL 2418 ------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: PLAVIX PRODUCTS MDL NO. 3:13-CV-02418-FLW-TJB LIABILITY AND MARKETING LITIGATION, LINDA PETTINRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, SANOFI US SERVICES INC., and SANOFI-SYNTHELABO, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01431 (D.N.J., February 14, 2017), alleges that Linda Pettinridge suffered personal injuries and incurred other damages as a result of ingesting the anti-platelet medication Plavix that was designed, developed, formulated, researched, manufactured, labeled, packaged, promoted, marketed, distributed, and/or sold by Defendants. Defendant, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a pharmaceutical manufacturing and marketing company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. Jennifer L. Crose, Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC 425 West Airline Highway New Orleans, LA 70125 Phone: (985) 536-1186 Fax: (985) 536-6445 CAFE CIRCA: Faces "Nelson" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA NELSON, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CAFE CIRCA, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, and MYUNG J. HAN, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1: 17-CV-0766 (N.D. Ga., March 2, 2017), was brought for Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum wages and overtime to all servers and bartenders who worked for Defendants within the last three years, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant, Cafe Circa, is a restaurant/cafe that provides food and beverage to its customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street NE, P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 965-8811 Fax: (404) 965'8812 Email: cleach@forthepeople.com CAFETASIA INC: Faces "Guaraca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Pascual Nugzhi Guaraca, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Cafetasia Inc. d/b/a Somtum Der, Gramercy Thai Inc. d/b/a Lantern Thai Kitchen, Namjit Inc. d/b/a Cafetasia, and Thai Montague, Inc. d/b/a Lantern Thai Kitchen, Sopanut Sopochana, Kittigron Lirtpanaruk, Phakphoom Sirisuwat, Supanee Kittmahawong, and Kevin Leapagers, Case No. 1:17-cv-01516 (S.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant in New York. Luis Pascual Nugzhi Guaraca is a pro se plaintiff. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ehrnfeld" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Ehrnfeld, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-01115 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Capital Management Services, L.P. operates a collections agency that provides delinquent receivables resolutions. Aaron Ehrnfeld is a pro se plaintiff. CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA: Summary Ruling in ATE Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------- The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the case captioned, MYRON DENNIS BEHM, BURTON J. BROOKS, BOBBY LEE LANGSTON, DAVID LEON BRODSKY, JEFFREY R. OLSON and GEOFF TATE SMITH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA and GATSO USA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-1031 (Iowa App.). The plaintiffs were each issued a Cedar Rapids Automatic Traffic Enforcement (ATE) Notice of Violation alleging their vehicles were traveling more than eleven miles per hour over the speed limit on Interstate 380 (I-380) in the City of Cedar Rapids. The plaintiffs contested the notices by requesting administrative hearings. Plaintiffs Behm, Langston, Brodsky, Olson, and Smith were each determined liable for the alleged speeding violations. Plaintiffs Olson and Smith paid civil fines of $75 each. Plaintiff Brooks was found not liable for the alleged speeding violation. Plaintiffs sued the City of Cedar Rapids (City) and Gatso USA, Inc. (Gatso), challenging the legitimacy of the ATE system, arguing the ATE ordinance and its implementation by the City violate state law in numerous respects. They seek declaratory relief, claiming the City's ATE system is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection, Privileges and Immunities, and Due Process clauses of the Iowa Constitution; is in violation of and preempted by Iowa law; and constitutes an unlawful delegation of police power. The petition also asserted a private cause of action seeking damages under the Iowa Constitution. The suit also sought damages for unjust enrichment and injunctive relief. The City and Gatso denied the plaintiffs' allegations and later filed a motion for summary judgment requesting the court to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and Gatso. On appeal, the vehicle owners argued that (1) their procedural due process rights under the Iowa Constitution were violated; (2) the process established by the ordinance unlawfully grants jurisdiction to an administrative board or hearing officer and is preempted by Iowa Code sections 602.6101 and 364.22(4), (6); (3) their substantive due process rights under the Iowa Constitution were violated based on the violation of their fundamental right to interstate and intrastate travel; (4) under inclusive enforcement bears no rational relationship to the interests of safety; (5) their rights under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Iowa Constitution were violated; (6) the City and Gatso have been "unjustly enriched by the implementation of the unlawful ordinance;" and (7) a private cause of action under the Iowa Constitution claiming they were entitled to damages resulting from the violation of their constitutional rights. In an Order dated February 22, 2017, available at https://is.gd/nUKMKO from Leagle.com, the Iowa Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Gatso USA, Inc. is represented by Paul D. Burns, Esq. -- pburns@bradleyriley.com -- and -- Laura M. Hyer, Esq. -- lhyer@bradleyriley.com -- BRADLEY & RILEY P.C. City of Cedar Rapids is represented by Elizabeth D. Jacobi, Esq. - - e.jacobi@cedar-rapids.org -- CEDAR RAPIDS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CHRISTIAN FUNERAL: Sued in Tennessee Over Insurance Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------ MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Plaintiff, v. CHRISTIAN FUNERAL DIRECTORS, INC.; JOE JOHNSON, CLEMENTE BUTTS, JEANNIE WILBURN, RODNEY FIELDS, NORMAN GROVE, LAQUITA JONES, JACQUELYN BONDS, DANECIA EDWARDS, ERICA WILLIAMS, ELIJAH PARTEE, ELLA STEWART, JIMMIE H. STEVENS, JR., VICKIE STEVENS, AARON BRIGHT, REGINA SIMMONS, YANCIE MCCRUISTON, OTTO DAVIS, SR., ANNICE CROWDER, MICHAEL JAMES, REBECCA WILLIAMS, WILLINE FINLEY, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02103-JTF-cgc (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 16, 2017), asks the Court to judicially declare that the Massachusetts Bay policies provide no coverage for, and that Massachusetts Bay has no duty to defend or indemnify in connection with any emotional distress or mental anguish claims, injuries or damages in the underlying actions, because all such claims, injuries and damages accrued after the end of Massachusetts Bay's final policy period and, accordingly, did not occur during the Massachusetts Bay policy periods. The case is a declaratory judgment action pertaining to an actual controversy over potential insurance coverage under a Business Owners Insurance Policy issued by Massachusetts Bay to Christian Funeral Directors for successive policy periods from February 18, 2010 to February 18, 2013. The Plaintiffs sought class certification for an initial class of "Tennessee residents who contracted and paid for funeral services after December 31, 2010, where those services included burial in [Galilee]." Plaintiffs reserved their right to seek certification for a subclass of "persons who paid for proper funerals and who were damaged when the graves and remains of their loved ones were disturbed and damaged by the Defendants' unlawful and unethical conduct. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell E. Reviere, Esq. Jonathan D. Stewart, Esq. RAINEY, KIZER, REVIERE & BELL, P.L.C. 209 E. Main Street P.O. Box 1147 Jackson, TN 38302 1147 Telephone: (731) 423 2414 E-mail: rreviere@raineykizer.com jstewart@raineykizer.com CLECO CORPORATE: No Briefing Schedule Yet in Merger Case Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a briefing schedule has not yet been set in an appeal from the dismissal of former shareholders' claims. On April 13, 2016, Cleco Holdings completed its merger with Cleco MergerSub Inc., whereby Merger Sub merged with and into Cleco Corporation, with Cleco Corporation surviving the Merger, and Cleco Corporation converting to a limited liability company and changing its name to Cleco Holdings, as a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Cleco Group LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cleco Partners L.P. In connection with the Merger, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys' fees and expenses. The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014), * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014). On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co- lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition). The consolidated action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Petition alleges, among other things, that Cleco Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleges that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended Petition. The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish are captioned as follows: * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014). Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, bcIMC, and John Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleges, among other things, that members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of Shareholders held on February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition on July 24, 2015. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions. On March 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. On May 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition. This petition eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended Petition. A hearing was held on September 15, 2016. On September 26, 2016, the District Court granted the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal on November 9, 2016. A briefing schedule has not yet been set. Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC's predecessor was incorporated in 1998, under the laws of the state of Louisiana. Cleco Holdings is a public utility holding company, which holds investments in several subsidiaries, including Cleco Power LLC. Substantially all of its operations are conducted through Cleco Power. CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kena Johnson, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv- 01147 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Client Services, Inc. operates a debt collection agency with headquarters in St. Charles, Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq. FAGENSON & PUGLISI 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 268-2128 Facsimile: (212) 268-2127 E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com COMEX FOOD: Faces "Garcia" Suit Alleging Non-payment of Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- DIANA IZAMAR GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. COMEX FOOD SERVICE, INC., a California corporation; COMEX KC, LLC, a California limited liability company; COMEX KC, LP, a California limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC 652501 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017), Defendants, seeks to recover, among other things, wages and penalties from alleged unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. Comex Food Service, Inc. is in the grocery stores business. The Plaintiff filed the case on behalf of non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Christopher Hughes, Esq. MATERNLAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Phone: (310)531-1900 Fax: (310) 531-1901 CONCHETTA INC: Faces "Colon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Julieann Colon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Conchetta, Inc. d/b/a Club Risque, RT, 413 Inc. d/b/a Club Risque, Tacony 2008 Inc. d/b/a Club Risque, Connie Innezzelli, Dean M. Pagano, Ronald Crudele, Theodore Pagano, Jr., and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:17-cv-00959-RK (E.D. Penn., March 2, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells III, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275 King Of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com CONNECTICUT, USA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Britt" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Michael A. Britt filed an appeal from an order entered by the District Court on February 8, 2017, relating to the lawsuit titled Britt v. Garcia, Case No. 10-cv-1854, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The appellate case is captioned as Britt v. Garcia, Case No. 17- 505, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Carmen Garcia is an officer of the C.S.S.D. Adult Probation Administrative of Courts. Plaintiff-Appellant Michael A. Britt, on behalf of all others similarly situated, represents himself: Michael A. Britt CORRIGAN RADGOWSKI CORRECTIONAL CENTER 986 Norwich-New London Turnpike Uncasville, CT 06382 Defendants-Appellees Carmen Garcia, C.S.S.D. Adult Probation Administrative of Courts in her individual and official capacities; G4s, Administrative of Courts official capacity; Betsy Graziano, Bridgeport Department of Mental Health Administrative Office of Courts individually in her official capacity; Connecticut State Dept of Correction, Administrative of Courts in official capacity; and Susan McKinney, Connecticut Valley Hospital Administrative Office of Courts individually in her official capacity, are represented by: Kimberly P. Massicotte, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141 Telephone: (860) 808-5318 Facsimile: (860) 808-5386 E-mail: Kimberly.Massicotte@po.state.ct.us Defendant-Appellee Randy Wallace, Connection Inc. C.T.P.S.B. Administrative of Courts in his individual and official capacities, are represented by: Gabriel Joseph Jiran, Esq. SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP 1 Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 251-5520 Facsimile: (860) 251-5500 E-mail: gjiran@goodwin.com Defendant-Appellee Gary A. Mastronardi, Individually, juris #307046, represents himself: Gary A. Mastronardi, Esq. LAW FIRM OF GARY A. MASTRONARDI 211 State Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-0411 Defendant-Appellee Jesus Ortiz, Jr., Chief of City of Bridgeport Police Administrative Office of Courts individually in his official capacity, Badge #65753, is represented by: Betsy Ingraham, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF BRIDGEPORT 999 Broad Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 576-7647 Facsimile: (203) 576-8252 E-mail: betsy.ingraham@bridgeportct.gov CONNECTICUT, USA: Britt Appeals District Court Ruling to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Michael A. Britt filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Britt v. Garcia, Case No. 10-cv- 1854, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). Carmen Garcia is an officer of the C.S.S.D. Adult Probation Administrative of Courts. The nature of suit is stated as civil rights. The appellate case is captioned as Britt v. Garcia, Case No. 17- 555, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Michael A. Britt, on behalf of all others similarly situated, represents himself: Michael A. Britt CORRIGAN RADGOWSKI CORRECTIONAL CENTER 986 Norwich-New London Turnpike Uncasville, CT 06382 Defendants-Appellees Carmen Garcia, C.S.S.D. Adult Probation Administrative of Courts in her individual and official capacities; G4s, Administrative of Courts official capacity; Betsy Graziano, Bridgeport Department of Mental Health Administrative Office of Courts individually in her official capacity; Connecticut State Dept of Correction, Administrative of Courts in official capacity; and Susan McKinney, Connecticut Valley Hospital Administrative Office of Courts individually in her official capacity, are represented by: Kimberly P. Massicotte, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141 Telephone: (860) 808-5318 Facsimile: (860) 808-5386 E-mail: Kimberly.Massicotte@po.state.ct.us Defendant-Appellee Randy Wallace, Connection Inc. C.T.P.S.B. Administrative of Courts in his individual and official capacities, are represented by: Gabriel Joseph Jiran, Esq. SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP 1 Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 251-5520 Facsimile: (860) 251-5500 E-mail: gjiran@goodwin.com Defendant-Appellee Gary A. Mastronardi, Individually, juris #307046, represents himself: Gary A. Mastronardi, Esq. LAW FIRM OF GARY A. MASTRONARDI 211 State Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 368-0411 Defendant-Appellee Jesus Ortiz, Jr., Chief of City of Bridgeport Police Administrative Office of Courts individually in his official capacity, Badge #65753, is represented by: Betsy Ingraham, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF BRIDGEPORT 999 Broad Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 576-7647 Facsimile: (203) 576-8252 E-mail: betsy.ingraham@bridgeportct.gov CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Court Flips Class Cert. in "Strack" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's certification of a "hybrid" class in the lawsuit initiated by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner, and remanded the case for further proceedings, according to Continental Resources, Inc.'s February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District Court of Blaine county, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company. The Petition alleged the Company improperly deducted post- production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class. On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition that did not add any substantive claims, but sought a "hybrid class action" in which they sought certification of certain claims for injunctive relief, reserving the right to seek a further class certification on money damages in the future. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification on January 9, 2015, that modified the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma production from July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to the present) and sought certification of over 45 separate "issues" for injunctive or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right to seek a further class certification of money damages in the future. The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and the motions for class certification denying the allegations and raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal arguments to each of the claims and filings. Certain discovery was undertaken and the "hybrid" motion was briefed by plaintiffs and the Company. A hearing on the "hybrid" class certification was held on June 1 and 2, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a "hybrid" class as requested by plaintiffs. The Company appealed the trial court's class certification order. On February 8, 2017, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling on certification and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Company says it is not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the ultimate resolution of the action will have on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. It is reasonably possible one or more events may occur in the near term that could impact the Company's ability to estimate the potential effect this matter could have, if any, on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Plaintiffs have alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million that they may claim as damages, which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes the case meets the requirements for a class action and continues to vigorously defend the case. An unsuccessful mediation was conducted on December 7, 2015. The parties continue to negotiate a possible resolution to the case. However, it is unclear and unforeseeable whether the parties' efforts will result in settlement and the Company will continue to defend the case on all merits and certification issues and, absent settlement, intends to defend the case to a final judgment. Continental Resources, Inc., is an independent crude oil and natural gas company with properties in the North, South and East regions of the United States. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid for Prelim OK of "Thompson" Deal Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned DOUGLAS THOMPSON on behalf of himself, others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-2778-CAB-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Plaintiff Douglas Thompson is a former truck driver for Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco). On October 17, 2014, Thompson filed a class action complaint in the San Diego County Superior Court asserting eleven claims under California's labor and unfair competition laws. He alleged Costco failed to properly provide meal and rest periods and to properly compensate its truck drivers. Costco removed the lawsuit on November 20, 2014, and then filed a motion to dismiss. On February 10, 2015, Thompson filed a Second Amended Complaint that further narrowed the focus of the complaint, including limiting the class to California truck drivers. The SAC asserted seven claims under California law: (1) Wage Theft/Time-Shaving; (2) Failure to pay overtime; (3) Failure to provide meal periods; (4) Failure to provide rest periods; (5) Failure to pay compensation for all time worked; (6) Waiting time penalties; and (7) Violation of California's unfair competition law, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. After conducting some discovery, the parties participated in a private mediation on March 11, 2016, that resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding. The Settlement Agreement requires Costco to pay a gross settlement amount of $2,000,000, allocated as follows: $1,308,000 to the settlement members for their claims; $5,000 as an incentive award for Thompson; $660,000 to Plaintiff's counsel; $10,000 to settlement of PAGA claims; and $17,000 to the CPT Group, Inc., the Class Administrator, for administration costs. The Agreement estimates 882 class members, meaning that each class member will receive an average of $1,483 from the gross settlement amount based on the agreed upon allocation. Plaintiff then filed a Third Amended Complaint adding claims for unpaid wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a claim for penalties under California Labor Code section 226, and a claim under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). On December 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. In an Order dated February 22, 2017, available at https://is.gd/PQ3lnM from Leagle.com, Judge Bencivengo concluded that counsel's inclusion of the FLSA claim in the TAC after having reached the conclusion that it was worth nothing violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), which provides that "[b]y presenting to the court a pleading . . . an attorney . . . certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law." Accordingly, Judge Bencivengo directed the Plaintiff to file a renewed motion for preliminary approval on or before March 20, 2017. David Mara and the Turley Law Firm, APLC, are directed to show cause in writing why the Court should not impose an appropriate sanction for a violation of Rule 11 by including the FLSA claim in the TAC. Douglas Thompson is represented by Ray Padilla, Esq. -- rpadilla@turleylawfirm.com -- William D. Turley, Esq. -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- Jill M. Vecchi, Esq. -- jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com -- and -- David Mara, Esq. -- dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC Costco Wholesale Corporation is represented by David D. Kadue, Esq. -- dkadue@seyfarth.com -- Emily Elizabeth Schroeder, Esq. -- eschroeder@seyfarth.com -- Kenwood C. Youmans, Esq. -- kyoumans@seyfarth.com -- kyoumans@seyfarth.com -- and -- Timothy M. Rusche, Esq. -- trusche@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP COTY INC: Faces "Bowens" Class Suit in Mid. Dist. Ala. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Coty, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Distributing, L.L.C., and Procter & Gamble Hair Care, L.L.C. The case is captioned Carrie Bowens, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Coty, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Distributing, L.L.C., and Procter & Gamble Hair Care, L.L.C., Case No. 2:17-cv-00118-TFM (M.D. Ala., March 1, 2017). Coty, Inc. is a beauty products manufacturer based in New York. The Procter & Gamble Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Distributing, L.L.C., and Procter & Gamble Hair Care, L.L.C. is a consumer goods corporation headquartered in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio, that specializes in a wide range of cleaning agents, personal care and hygienic products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, L.L.C. 2224 First Ave N Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: brandy@hgdlawfirm.com lewis@hgdlawfirm.com - and - Joseph Luther Tucker, Esq. Kenneth Stephen Jackson, Esq. JACKSON AND TUCKER, P.C. 2229 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 252-3535 Facsimile: (205) 252-3536 E-mail: josh@jacksonandtucker.com steve@jacksonandtucker.com CYNOSURE INC: Gusinsky Trust Files Suit Over Merger with Hologic ---------------------------------------------------------------- THE VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REV. TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CYNOSURE, INC., MICHAEL R. DAVIN, WILLIAM O. FLANNERY, BRIAN M. BAREFOOT, ETTORE V. BIAGIONI, MARINA HATSOPOULOS, THOMAS H. ROBINSON, HOLOGIC, INC., and MINUTEMAN MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-10338-DJC (D. Mass., March 1, 2017), alleges that the Solicitation/Recommendation for the acquisition of Cynosure, Inc. by Hologic, Inc. omits material information in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. The tender offer for the transaction is currently scheduled to expire on March 21, 2017. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Cynosure will receive $66.00 in cash for each share of Cynosure common stock. The complaint says the Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding Cynosure's financial projections and the financial analyses performed by financial advisor, Leerink Partners LLC in support of its so-called fairness opinion; omits material information regarding the background of the Proposed Transaction; and omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of Leerink. Cynosure develops, manufactures, and markets aesthetic treatment systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 295-5310 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 - and - Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Phone: (781) 453-0100 DEAN FOODS: March 28 Trial in Antitrust Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Dean Foods Company awaits the March 28, 2017 trial presently scheduled in the antitrust action pending in Tennessee, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer action") was filed against Dean Foods and other milk processors on August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that we, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers. Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants' conduct artificially inflated wholesale prices paid by direct milk purchasers. In March 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, including the Company, as to all counts then remaining. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision, and in January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment as to one of the five original counts in the Tennessee retailer action. Following the Sixth Circuit's denial of our request to reconsider the case en banc, the Company petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review. On November 17, 2014, the Supreme Court denied our petition and the case returned to the district court." "On January 19, 2016, the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on claims accruing after May 8, 2009. On January 25, 2016, the district court denied summary judgment in other respects and denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the district court's order denying class certification. That petition was denied by the Sixth Circuit on June 14, 2016. On March 30, 2016, the district court issued an order holding that the case will be judged under an antitrust legal doctrine known as the rule of reason." "The case is presently scheduled for trial on March 28, 2017. Plaintiffs claim damages in the amount of $57 million from Dean Foods. If plaintiffs were to prevail, any damage award would be trebled as a matter of law. In addition, if plaintiffs were to prevail, they would be entitled to an award of their reasonable attorneys' fees." The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims in the retailer action and intends to defend itself vigorously at trial. Based on the Company's current assessment and because at this time it is not possible to predict the outcome of this matter, the Company has not established a reserve for this litigation. Dean Foods Company is a leading food and beverage company and the largest processor and direct-to-store distributor of fresh fluid milk and other dairy and dairy case products in the United States, with a vision to be the most admired and trusted provider of wholesome, great-tasting dairy products at every occasion. The Company manufactures, markets and distributes a wide variety of branded and private label dairy and dairy case products, including fluid milk, ice cream, cultured dairy products, creamers, ice cream mix and other dairy products to retailers, distributors, foodservice outlets, educational institutions and governmental entities across the United States. DISH NETWORK: TCPA Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------ DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act remains pending. The Company said: "On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States Attorney General and several states in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois (the "FTC Action"), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs allege that we, directly and through certain independent third-party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain telemarketing violations. On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state plaintiffs were seeking civil penalties and damages of approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff was seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought by the state plaintiffs). The plaintiffs were also seeking injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things, enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new independent third-party retailers, except under certain circumstances. We also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims. On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion with respect to the parties' summary judgment motions. The Court found that DISH Network L.L.C. is entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to one claim in the action. In addition, the Court found that the plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to ten claims in the action, which includes, among other things, findings by the Court establishing DISH Network L.L.C.'s liability for a substantial amount of the alleged outbound telemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and certain of its independent third-party retailers that were the subject of the plaintiffs' motion. The Court did not issue any injunctive relief and did not make any determination on civil penalties or damages, ruling instead that the scope of any injunctive relief and the amount of any civil penalties or damages are questions for trial." "In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it intended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties, and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek as much as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages. The plaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief. Their requested injunction, if granted, would enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until: (i) DISH Network L.L.C. hires a third-party consulting organization to perform a review of its call center operations; (ii) such third-party consulting organization submits a telemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federal plaintiff; (iii) the Court holds a hearing on the adequacy of the plan; (iv) if the Court approves the plan, DISH Network L.L.C. implements the plan and verifies to the Court that it has implemented the plan; and (v) the Court issues an order permitting DISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketing calls. The plaintiffs' modified request for injunctive relief, if granted, would also enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting customer orders solicited by certain independent third-party retailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Court approval process was followed with respect to the telemarketing activities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensure compliance with the TSR." "The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016 through February 11, 2016. In closing briefs, the federal plaintiff indicated that it still is seeking $900 million in alleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinois and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific alleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking; but the state plaintiffs have taken the general position that any damages award less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal and state law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns. Under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, excessive fines may not be imposed." "On October 3, 2016, the plaintiffs further modified their request for injunctive relief and are now seeking, among other things, to enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from some or all existing independent third-party retailers. The second phase of the bench trial, which commenced on October 25, 2016 and concluded on November 2, 2016, covered the plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief, as well as certain evidence related to the state plaintiffs' claims." "We may also from time to time be subject to private civil litigation alleging telemarketing violations. For example, a portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action"). Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400 in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA. The plaintiff is also seeking enhanced damages under the TCPA for alleged willful or knowing violations. The Court will decide whether there were any willful or knowing violations, and the Court has discretion to increase the damages by up to three times for any such violations. The plaintiffs in the FTC Action have asserted that the jury verdict in the Krakauer Action preclusively establishes that the independent third-party retailer at issue in the Krakauer Action was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the calls at issue in the FTC Action, and is otherwise persuasive evidence that the other independent third-party retailers at issue in the FTC Action were acting as DISH Network's L.L.C.'s agents when they made their respective calls at issue in the FTC Action, that the alleged civil penalties being sought by the federal and state plaintiffs are reasonable, and that the calls made by DISH Network L.L.C. and independent third-party retailers at issue in the FTC Action were made to landline residential phones. We have opposed those assertions." "A ruling requiring us to pay substantial civil penalties and/or damages and/or enjoining us, whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from the activities described above could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flow." $20-Mil. Verdict in Krakauer Action As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 14, 2017, a North Carolina jury awarded a $20 million verdict in the class action lawsuit against Dish Network for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The trial lasted five days. Dr. Thomas Krakauer, the lead plaintiff, alleged that Dish was liable for more than 51,00 telemarketing calls placed by a Dish dealer to persons whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry. The jury found Dish liable for all calls and awarded $400 per violation of the TCPA. DISH Network Corporation was organized in 1995 as a corporation under the laws of the State of Nevada. The Company started offering the DISH(R) branded pay-TV service in March 1996 and is the nation's fourth largest pay-TV provider. The Company's principal executive offices are located in Englewood, Colorado. E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Scranton" Suit Briefing to Continue in 2017 --------------------------------------------------------------- E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that briefing is scheduled to continue through 2017 in the lawsuit commenced by John Scranton. On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private Attorney General action. The complaint alleged that the Company misrepresented through its website that it would always automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13, 2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted leave to amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March 11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10, 2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on December 12, 2014. By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior Court entered a final order sustaining the Company's demurrer on all remaining claims with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in the Company's favor on April 8, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27, 2015. Briefing is scheduled to continue through 2017. The Company says it will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. E*TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that provides brokerage and related products and services primarily to individual retail investors under the brand "E*TRADE Financial." The Company also provides investor-focused banking products, primarily sweep deposits, to retail investors. E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Schwab Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the securities class action lawsuit filed by Craig L. Schwab has submitted an amended complaint, according to E*TRADE Financial Corporation's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys' fees. On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L. Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities LLC, and former Company executives as defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE violated federal securities laws in connection with the routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys' fees. By stipulation, the Rayner case has been consolidated with the Schwab case and both matters are now venued in the Southern District of New York. E*TRADE has moved to dismiss the complaint in Rayner. E*TRADE moved to dismiss the Schwab case on January 11, 2017; and in response, the Schwab plaintiffs submitted an amended Complaint on February 10, 2017. The amended Schwab complaint asserts only two claims: violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by E*TRADE Securities LLC and E*TRADE Financial Corporation; and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by E*TRADE's two most recent chief executive officers. The Company says it will continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters. E*TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that provides brokerage and related products and services primarily to individual retail investors under the brand "E*TRADE Financial." The Company also provides investor-focused banking products, primarily sweep deposits, to retail investors. EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Documents in FCRA Suit Due March 17 ----------------------------------------------------------- The deadline to file the settlement documents in the consolidated lawsuit pending in California is on March 17, 2017, Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al. v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC, et al. , plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an account following a bankruptcy discharge. On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy on consumer credit files. That settlement resolved claims for injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs' claims for damages. On May 7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims. The District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the settlement and required the settling parties to send a supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re- notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award. Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15, 2011 and the deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011. On July 15, 2011, the District Court approved the settlement. Several objecting plaintiffs subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which, on April 22, 2013, issued an order vacating the settlement and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 21, 2014, the District Court denied the objecting plaintiffs' motion to disqualify counsel for the settling plaintiffs and granted the motion of counsel for the settling plaintiffs to be appointed as interim lead class counsel. On March 28, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's lead counsel appointment. On January 9, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied the objectors' Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The parties have re-engaged in settlement discussions, including participation in mediations in August 2016 and November 2016, and have reached an agreement in principle to again settle the monetary claims. The parties are currently drafting the necessary settlement documents. The deadline to file the settlement documents with the Court is March 17, 2017 and the Court has scheduled a hearing on the expected Motion for Preliminary Approval on May 2, 2017. Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments and consumers. The Company has a large and diversified group of clients, including financial institutions, corporations, governments and individuals. The Company's products and services are based on comprehensive databases of consumer and business information derived from numerous sources including credit, financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments, employment, income, demographic and marketing data. EM CONSULTING: Faces "Yassa" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE YASSA (349 Portico Aisle, Irvine, California 92606 Resident of Orange County) and ERIC ARNICAR (33 High Street Stuartstown, Pennsylvania 17363) Resident of York County and DAVID BATES (12610 Jupiter Road, Apartment 327, Dallas, Texas 75238) Resident of Dallas County and MARC BLAZEJAK (1918 Crafton Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21222) Resident of Baltimore County and DANIEL DAUSCH (1203 Carsinwood Court, Aberdeen, Maryland 21001) Resident of Harford County and STEVEN WEBSTER, JR. (2516 Wycliffe Road, Parkville, Maryland 21234) Resident of Baltimore County, Plaintiffs, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees v. EM CONSULTING GROUP, INC. T/A HELIONAUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (1429 Ivy Hill Road, Cockeysville, Maryland 21030) Serve: David J. Polashuk, R.A. (36 S. Charles Street, Suite 1504, Baltimore, Maryland 21201) Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00593-JKB (D. Md., March 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Section 16(b) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act; unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Maryland Wage and Hour Law; and unpaid wages, treble damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Defendant EM Consulting Group, Inc. is a Maryland-based Information Technology company that specializes in servicing auto dealerships. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, throughout their employment with Defendant, held several different positions with Helion. These positions are desktop support engineers/technicians, systems and project engineers/technicians, lead engineers/technicians, proactive administrators, and network specialists. The Plaintiff is represented by: George E. Swegman, Esq. Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 244-7005 Fax: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: gswegman@nicholllaw.com bdavis@nicholllaw.com EMTEK PRODUCTS: Faces "Nieto" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO NIETO as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. EMTEK PRODUCTS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC 652704 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was, and is, a victim of Defendants' policies and/or practices; lost money and/or property; and has been deprived of the rights guaranteed by Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under California Business and Professions Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order in addition to seeking declaratory relief and restitution. The Defendant designs and manufactures door hardware. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (424) 292-2350 Fax: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.c sblakely@haineslawgroup.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Kadeidra Dawson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01117 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC operates a debt collection agency in New York. Kadeidra Dawson is a pro se plaintiff. ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Florida District Court Dismisses Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit initiated against ERBA Diagnostics, Inc., in Florida was dismissed on February 16, 2017, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In December 2015, a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its current or former executive officers. The original Complaint was replaced by an Amended Complaint that added, as defendants, certain other of the Company's former executive officers, the Company's executive chairman, the entity that is the Company's majority stockholder (ERBA Diagnostics Mannheim GmbH), the company that owns the majority stockholder (Transasia Bio-medicals Ltd.), and the Company's independent registered public accounting firm at the time the Amended Complaint was filed (Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.). The Amended Complaint alleged generally that during the purported class period of June 14, 2013 through November 20, 2015, the Company and the other Company-related defendants knowingly or recklessly disseminated or approved statements about the Company's financial position and results of operations, business operations, and prospects that were materially false and misleading or lacked a reasonable basis. The Amended Complaint asserted claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought damages in the amount that the class members allegedly lost on account of the allegedly false and misleading statements. The Company, together with those of its current and former officers and directors who were named as defendants and served, filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint; the Company's former auditors also moved to dismiss. On February 16, 2017, the court heard oral argument on the motions to dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge ruled from the bench: * granting the motions to dismiss; * denying the plaintiff's request for permission further to amend the Amended Complaint; and * dismissing the case. ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Dougherty Wants Dismissal Order Altered -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit initiated by Kevin L. Dougherty ask the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to alter or amend the dismissal of their case, and for leave to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint, according to Esperion Therapeutics, Inc.'s February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On March 1, Defendants Esperion Therapeutics and Tim M. Mayleben filed a response to the Motion to Alter or Amend the December 27, 2016 Judgment and for Leave to File the Proposed Second Amended Complaint. On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial before approving our lead product candidate. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit. On July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company's favor. On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., is a lipid management company, a late-stage pharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing convenient, complementary, cost-effective, once- daily, oral therapies for the treatment of patients with elevated LDL-C. Esperion develops new LDL-C lowering therapies that will make a substantial impact on reducing global cardiovascular disease -- the leading cause of death around the world. ETHICON US: Faces "Diresta" Class Suit in South. Dist. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Ethicon US, LLC and Johnson & Johnson. The case is captioned Timothy Diresta, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Ethicon US, LLC and Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 1:17-cv-01534 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2017). The Defendants are medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturers. Timothy Diresta is a pro se plaintiff. FACEBOOK INC: Duguid Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Duguid filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Noah Duguid v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00985- JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit accused Facebook of spamming cellphones and invading people's privacy with unwanted automated text messages notifying them that their accounts have supposedly been logged into. The lawsuit claims Facebook knowingly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with the texts. The appellate case is captioned as Noah Duguid v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 17-15320, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Noah Duguid's opening brief is due on June 2, 2017; -- Appellee Facebook, Inc.'s answering brief is due on July 3, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant NOAH DUGUID, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com Defendant-Appellee FACEBOOK, INC., is represented by: Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1400 Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 E-mail: edeeley@kirkland.com - and - Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq. Susan E. Engel, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5173 E-mail: aclubok@kirkland.com susan.engel@kirkland.com FCA US: Faces "Kelley" Class Suit in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against FCA US LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert Bosch GMBH and Robert Bosch LLC. The case is captioned Kayla Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert Bosch GMBH and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-10342-MLW (D. Mass., March 1, 2017). FCA US LLC and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. design, engineer, manufacture, distribute, and sell vehicles primarily in the United States. Robert Bosch GMBH and Robert Bosch LLC is an engineering and electronics company headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. HALSTROM LAW OFFICES 132 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com FCNH INC: Nesbitt Appeals D. Colorado Ruling to Tenth Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rhonda Nesbitt filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-CV-00990-RBJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1084, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Docketing statement is due on March 16, 2017, for Rhonda Nesbitt; -- Transcript order form is due on March 16, 2017, for David Hunter Miller and Adam Murdoch-Kitt Harrison; -- Notice of appearance is due on March 16, 2017, for FCNH, Inc., Mid-Atlantic Massage Therapy, Inc., Rhonda Nesbitt, SEG Cort LLC, Steiner Education Group, Inc., Steiner Leisure Ltd. and Virginia Massage Therapy, Inc.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant RHONDA NESBITT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brian Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES 242 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com - and - Rachel Graves, Esq. David Hunter Miller, Esq. THE SAWAYA LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218-0000 Telephone: (303) 839-1650 Facsimile: (720) 235-4380 E-mail: RGraves@sawayalaw.com dmiller@sawayalaw.com - and - Adam Murdoch-Kitt Harrison, Esq. SAWAYA, ROSE & ROAD 1650 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218-0000 Telephone: (303) 839-1650 - and - Leon Greenberg, Esq. LEON GREENBERG, ATTORNEY AT LAW 2965 South Jones Boulevard, Suite E-3 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (702) 383-6085 Facsimile: (702) 385-1827 E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com Defendants-Appellees FCNH, INC., VIRGINIA MASSAGE THERAPY, INC., MID-ATLANTIC MASSAGE THERAPY, INC., STEINER EDUCATION GROUP, INC., STEINER LEISURE LTD., and SEG CORT LLC, DBA Steiner Education Group, are represented by: Natalia Ballinger, Esq. OFFICE OF THE DENVER CITY ATTORNEY 201 West Colfax Avenue Department 1108 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 913-3100 E-mail: Natalia.ballinger@denvergov.org - and - Jeffrey Max Lippa, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1200 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 Facsimile: (303) 572-6540 E-mail: LippaJ@gtlaw.com - and - Todd D. Wozniak, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 3333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (678) 553-2100 E-mail: wozniakt@gtlaw.com - and - Scott David Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. SEGAL 335 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3405 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-6240 E-mail: ssegal@myhrattorney.com FEDERAL-MOGUL HOLDINGS: "Sanders" Suit Remains Pending in Mich. --------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit entitled Sanders v. Federal- Mogul Holdings Corporation, et al., remains pending in Michigan, according to Federal-Mogul Holdings LLC's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On September 6, 2016, the Company, American Entertainment Properties Corp., a Delaware corporation ("AEP"), the Company's parent and a subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises L.P. ("IEP"), and IEH FM Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Merger Sub") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and upon the terms and subject to the conditions thereof, Merger Sub commenced a cash tender offer (the "Offer) to acquire, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, all of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company's common stock, par value $0.01 per share, not already owned by IEP affiliates, for a purchase price of $9.25 per share, net to the seller in cash, without interest, less any applicable tax withholding. On October 5, 2016, a putative class action captioned Sanders v. Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation et al., C.A. No. 16-155387 was filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County of the State of Michigan against the Company, the Board and the Icahn Defendants (the "Michigan Action"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Board breached its fiduciary duties and that the Company and the Icahn Defendants aided and abetted the Board's breaches of its fiduciary duties, as well as alleging certain material misstatements and omissions in the Schedule 14D-9. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the then-Offer Price was unfair and the result of an unfair sales process that included conflicts of interest. In addition, the complaint alleges that the Merger Agreement contains certain allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions, including a no-solicitation provision, an information rights provision and a matching rights provision. Among other things, the complaint sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, or, in the event that the transactions were consummated, rescind the transactions or award rescissory damages, as well as award money damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. On February 10, 2017, an order was entered providing that plaintiff shall have through March 6, 2016, to file his First Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the claims in the Michigan Action are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. Federal-Mogul Holdings LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware. On February 14, 2017, Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation was converted to a single member limited liability corporation in the U.S. and changed its name to Federal- Mogul Holdings LLC. FEDERAL-MOGUL HOLDINGS: Stockholder Suit Remains Pending in Del. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated lawsuit captioned In re Federal-Mogul Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation remains pending in Delaware, Federal- Mogul Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On September 6, 2016, the Company, American Entertainment Properties Corp., a Delaware corporation ("AEP"), the Company's parent and a subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises L.P. ("IEP"), and IEH FM Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Merger Sub") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and upon the terms and subject to the conditions thereof, Merger Sub commenced a cash tender offer (the "Offer) to acquire, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, all of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company's common stock, par value $0.01 per share, not already owned by IEP affiliates, for a purchase price of $9.25 per share, net to the seller in cash, without interest, less any applicable tax withholding. On September 29, 2016, September 30, 2016, October 12, 2016 and October 19, 2016, respectively, four putative class actions, captioned Skybo v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12790, Lemanchek v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12791, Raul v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12821 and Mercado v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12837, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Board, Icahn Enterprises L.P. and certain of its affiliates, including Parent and the Offeror (the "Icahn Defendants"), and, in the case of Raul, the Company. The complaints allege that, among other things, the Board breached its fiduciary duties by approving the proposed Merger Agreement, that the Icahn Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the minority stockholders and/or aided and abetted the Board's breaches of its fiduciary duties, as well as alleging certain material misstatements and omissions in the Schedule 14D-9. The complaints allege that, among other things, the then-Offer Price was inadequate and, together with that the Merger Agreement, was the result of a flawed and unfair sales process and conflicts of interest of the Board and the Special Committee, alleging that the Special Committee and the Company's management lacked independence from the Icahn Defendants. In addition, the complaints allege that the Merger Agreement contains certain allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions, including a no- solicitation provision, an information rights provision and a matching rights provision. Among other things, the complaints sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, as well as award costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. The Raul and Mercado complaints further seek to rescind the transaction or award rescissory damages, or (in the case of Raul) award a quasi- appraisal remedy in the event that the transaction was consummated, as well as award money damages. On October 28, 2016, all four actions were consolidated under the caption In re Federal-Mogul Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12790-CB (the "Delaware Action"). On February 3, 2017, an order was entered requiring plaintiffs to file their amended complaint by March 6, 2017. The Company believes that the claims in the Delaware Action are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. Federal-Mogul Holdings LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware. On February 14, 2017, Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation was converted to a single member limited liability corporation in the U.S. and changed its name to Federal- Mogul Holdings LLC. FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Gaines" Suit in N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC. The case is captioned Jason Gaines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01051 (N.D. Cal., February 28, 2017). Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC operates an automobile company headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Jason Gaines is a pro se plaintiff. FIRST CHOICE: "Prochaska" Sues On Behalf of Dental Hygienists ------------------------------------------------------------- DORETTA PROCHASKA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. FIRST CHOICE DENTAL GROUP, S.C. (440 Science Drive, Suite 100, Madison, WI 53711) Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00160 (W.D. Wis., March 1, 2017), alleges that starting on November 1, 2015, Plaintiff and the other dental hygienists were paid a percentage of their production; however, when the dental hygienists worked overtime, Defendant failed to account for their production pay in their computation of the overtime rate in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Act. FIRST CHOICE DENTAL GROUP, S.C. is in the business of cosmetic, and sedation dentistry. Plaintiff was a dental hygienist. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. Caitlin M. Madden, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 West Washington Avenue, Suite 450 Post Office Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701-2155 Phone: (608) 257-0040 Fax: (608) 256-0236 Email: dzoeller@hq-law.com Email: cmadden@hq-law.com FIRST SOLAR: Merits Briefing Ongoing in Pension Schemes Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Merits briefing is ongoing on First Solar, Inc.'s appeal in the class action lawsuit led by the Pension Schemes, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555- DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the "Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action. On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme (collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on February 27, 2015. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015. On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth Circuit"). First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November 18, 2015. On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits briefing schedule. On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied the Pension Schemes' motion. Merits briefing on the appeal is ongoing. The Arizona District Court has entered a stay of the proceedings in district court until the appeal is decided. Given the pending appeal, the need for further expert discovery, and the uncertainties of trial, the Company says it is not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on the Company's financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any. First Solar, Inc., is a leading global provider of comprehensive PV solar energy solutions. The Company designs, manufactures, and sells PV solar modules with an advanced thin-film semiconductor technology and also develops, designs, constructs, and sells PV solar power systems that primarily use the modules the Company manufactures. Additionally, the Company provides operations and maintenance ("O&M") services to system owners that use solar modules manufactured by the Company or by third-party manufacturers. FOGO DE CHAO: Sued over Disabled Inaccessible Establishment ----------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fogo de Chao 53rd Street, New York LLC, Case No. 1:17- cv-01202 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to remove architectural and communication barriers in existing stores, denying equal access to disabled persons. Fogo de Chao 53rd Street, New York LLC operates a Brazilian restaurant located at 40 W 53rd St, New York, NY 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com FORD MOTOR: Philips Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- William Philips, Alison Colburn and Jaime Goodman filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled William Philips, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-02989-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose. The appellate case is captioned as William Philips, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 17-15323, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 2, 2017, a federal judge ruled in favor of Ford and said the Plaintiffs didn't have a case. According to the lawsuit, the Ford Fusion and Ford Focus have defective electric power-assisted steering (EPAS) systems that cause drivers to lose power steering. Plaintiff William Philips says he wouldn't have purchased his Ford Fusion, or he wouldn't have paid as much as he did, if Ford would have admitted problems existed with the power steering system. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by March 24, 2017; -- Transcript is due on April 24, 2017; -- Appellants Alison Colburn, Jaime Goodman and William Philips' opening brief is due on June 2, 2017; -- Appellee Ford Motor Company's answering brief is due on July 3, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM PHILIPS, ALISON COLBURN, and JAIME GOODMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mark Philip Pifko, Esq. Roland Karim Tellis, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 E-mail: MPifko@baronbudd.com rtellis@baronbudd.com - and - David Wayne Fernandes, III, Esq. San Joaquin Valley Veterans 4928 E. Clinton Way Fresno, CA 93727 Telephone: (559) 761-7216 - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-0000 Facsimile: (312) 214-0001 E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com - and - Mary S. Thomas, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7148 E-mail: mthomas@gelaw.com Defendant-Appellee FORD MOTOR COMPANY is represented by: Andrew Chang, Esq. Amir Nassihi, Esq. Michael Kevin Underhill, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Tower, Suite 2700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1967 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: achang@shb.com anassihi@shb.com kunderhill@shb.com FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Kessler, Cohen Named Interim Lead Counsel -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the case captioned LORAINE CAPPELLO, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., et al., Defendants, Cause No. 3:16-CV-290-TLS-MGG (N.D. Ind.). The consolidated action stems from allegations that defendant, Franciscan Alliance Inc., et al., improperly claimed the church plan exemption from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On April 22, 2016, plaintiffs Jean L. Jewett, Lenore Owens, and Lori Buksar initiated their ERISA church plan class action against Franciscan Alliance in the Northern District of Illinois represented by the law firms of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Keller Rohrback, LLP. The Jewett plaintiffs served and received limited discovery requests, including the Franciscan Alliance Plan documents, which led them to file their first amended complaint on August 10, 2016. The Jewett amended complaint alleges twelve causes of action, including a constitutional claim based on the Establishment Clause and a claim based on allegations that Franciscan Alliance improperly required five years of service before employees would qualify as fully vested participants in the Plan. In the meantime, Lorraine Cappello and Jeffrey O'Barski filed their church plan complaint against Franciscan Alliance in the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, on May 12, 2016, represented by the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP, and Sopko, Nussbaum, Inabnit & Kaczmarek. The Cappello complaint lacked the constitutional claim, the vesting claim, and other claims raised by the Jewett plaintiffs in their amended complaint. The Cappello plaintiffs engaged in no discovery, but filed their first motion to appoint interim lead counsel on June 24, 2016, which was denied by the court without prejudice. On August 9, 2016, with the expectation that the Jewett plaintiffs were going to agree to transfer their case, the Cappello plaintiffs filed their second motion to appoint interim lead counsel. The Cappello plaintiffs' motion became ripe on September 2, 2016. The Jewett plaintiffs filed their competing motion for appointment of counsel on September 16, 2016. Magistrate Gotsch expresses that at this early stage of litigation, the court is inclined to appoint co-interim lead class counsel for plaintiffs and Magistrate Gotsch granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim lead class counsel. The court appoints Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as co-interim lead class counsel, with the conditions that co-counsel will inform defendants' counsel which single attorney will serve as their point of contact. Co-counsel must file time records for fees and expenses incurred in prosecution of the case on a quarterly basis. Co- counsel's first billing report should accompany the parties' joint status report due 21 days after the United States Supreme Court issues its opinions in Advocate Health Care v. Stapleton, No. 16- 74; St. Peter's Healthcare v. Kaplan, No. 16-86; and Dignity Health v. Rollins, No. 16-258. The court expects very limited, or possibly no, billing to be generated while the case is stayed. A copy of Magistrate Gotsch's opinion and order dated February 28, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/hep38s from Leagle.com. Lorraine Cappello and Jeffrey O'Barski, Plaintiffs, represented by Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Julie Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP Jean L. Jewett, Plaintiff, represented by Julie G. Reiser -- jreiser@cohenmilstein.com -- Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Michelle C. Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Lynn A. Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- at Cohen & Malad LLP; Laura R. Gerber -- lgerber@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn L. Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Ron Kilgard -- rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com -- at Keller Rohrback LLP Lenore R Owens, Lori L Buksar, Plaintiffs, represented by Julie G. Reiser -- jreiser@cohenmilstein.com -- Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Michelle C. Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Lynn A. Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- at Cohen & Malad LLP Defendants, represented by Bradford D. Roth -- broth@cassiday.com -- Daniel J. Broderick, Jr. -- dbroderick@cassiday.com -- at Cassiday Schade LLP; Lars C. Golumbic -- lgolumbic@groom.com -- Sarah M. Adams -- sadams@groom.com -- Sean C. Abouchedid -- sabouchedid@groom.com -- at Groom Law Group Chtd; Mark D. Boveri - - mboveri@kdlegal.com -- Robert A. Anderson -- randerson@kdlegal.com -- at Krieg DeVault LLP; W. Patrick Downes - - at Franciscan Alliance Inc. United States of America, Movant, represented by Adam Grogg FRESH MARKET: Faces "Sherman" Suit Over Sale to Pomegranate ----------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE S. SHERMAN and BRUCE & CYNTHIA SHERMAN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, INC., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE FRESH MARKET, INC., RAY BERRY, RICHARD A. ANICETTI, MICHAEL CASEY, JEFFREY NAYLOR, RICHARD NOLL, BOB SASSER, ROBERT SHEARER, MICHAEL TUCCI, STEVEN TANGER, JANE THOMPSON, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, APOLLO MANAGEMENT VIII, L.P., POMEGRANATE HOLDINGS, INC., and POMEGRANATE MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00179 (M.D.N.C., March 3, 2017), was filed in connection with the sale of Fresh Market to Pomegranate Holdings, Inc., an affiliate of Apollo Global Management, LLC, Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc. for an aggregate value of approximately $1.36 billion. According to the Complaint, Fresh Market's public shareholders were induced to tender their shares and/or forced to relinquish their shares in the Company as a result of the Company's recommendation or statements that omitted or misstated material information concerning, inter alia, the relationship between Apollo and the Berry family (founder) and the true value of Fresh Market. The Board misled Fresh Market shareholders and concealed the fact that the Berrys and Apollo were an undisclosed group working together to buy Fresh Market at the lowest possible price, by highlighting and advancing false and/or misleading distinctions regarding R. Berry's relationship with Apollo, says the complaint. Fresh Market is a specialty grocery retailer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Ostrander, Esq. WILSON RATLEDGE, PLLC 4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 400 Raleigh, NC 27612 Phone: (919) 787-7711 Fax: (919) 787-7710 E-mail: mostrander@wrlaw.com - and - David A.P. Brower, Esq. Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. BROWER PIVEN 475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 501-9000 - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 295-5310 GARMIN LTD: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in "Katz" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval of the settlement in the lawsuit entitled Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Garmin Ltd. and Garmin International, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On December 18, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lead plaintiff was Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The class of plaintiffs that Andrea Katz purported to represent includes all individuals who purchased any model of Forerunner watch in the State of Illinois and the United States. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Illinois statutory law. Plaintiff alleged that Forerunner watch bands have an unacceptable rate of failure in that they detach from the watch. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. On January 29, 2014 the court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff re-filed the lawsuit with the same claims for relief as the earlier action and adding an additional claim for unjust enrichment. On February 4, 2014, the court ordered the case to be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case filed in Illinois and, on March 6, 2014, she refiled the lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Utah with the same claims, but with additional claims for violations of the Utah Consumers Sales Practice Act, Lanham Act, and Utah Truth in Advertising Act. The relief she requested is the same. On March 31, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to transfer the venue of the Utah action back to the Northern District of Illinois. On October 21, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Garmin's motion to transfer venue. On December 26, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to dismiss certain counts of the complaint. On April 16, 2015 the court granted Garmin's motion in part and dismissed with prejudice (i) Mr. Katz's (but not Mrs. Katz's) claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (ii) the plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim, (iii) the plaintiffs' negligence claim and (iv) the plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim. No class was certified. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit in consideration of a settlement under which Garmin would pay the plaintiff's counsel $385,000 in attorneys' fees and would repair or replace Forerunner 610 watchbands and watches at no cost provided that a request is made within twelve months of the date of the final approval of the settlement by the court. On November 3, 2016 the court granted final approval of the settlement. For over 25 years, Garmin Ltd. and subsidiaries has pioneered new Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation and wireless devices and applications that are designed for people who live an active lifestyle. Garmin serves five primary business units, including auto, aviation, fitness, marine, and outdoor. Garmin designs, develops, manufactures, markets and distributes a diverse family of hand-held, wearable, portable and fixed-mount GPS-enabled products and other navigation, communications, sensor-based and information products. GC SERVICES: "Alderman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JAMES ALDERMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-14508-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class defined as: "(i) all persons with addresses in the State of Florida (ii) to whom initial communication letters that contained the language: "If you dispute this balance or the validity of this debt, please let us know in writing. If you do not dispute this debt in writing within 30 days after you receive this letter, we will assume this debt is valid." (iii) were mailed, delivered or caused to be served by the Defendant (iv) that were not returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office (v) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes owing to Synchrony Bank (vi) during the one-year period prior to the filing of the original Complaint in this action through the date of certification (the Class)." The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint James Alderman as Class Representative, and appoint Leo W. Desmond, Esq. and Scott D. Owens, Esq. as Class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ttvkn0Wb The Plaintiff is represented by: Leo W. Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Telephone: (772) 231 9600 Facsimile: 772.231.0300 E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: 954 589 0588 Facsimile: 954 337 0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com The Defendant is represented by: William S. Helfand, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 659 6767 Facsimile: (713) 759 6830 E-mail: Bill.helfand@lewisbrisbois.com GREENSKY LLC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Alfortish" Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, TODD ALFORTISH, ET AL., v. GREENSKY, LLC, ET AL., SECTION "B"(1), Case No. 5:16-cv-19 (E.D. La.), Senior Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ordered that the motion to compel arbitration is granted. The Plaintiffs are directed to submit all of their claims to arbitration. The case arises out of the marketing and sale of solar energy systems. Several Louisiana solar companies, including Joule, LLC, Southcoast Solar, A-1 Solar Source, and SunPro (the Solar Companies), sold energy systems to Todd and Sylvia Alfortish, James Fincher, and a class of similarly situated individuals (Plaintiffs). The companies were purportedly actively lobbying against legislation designed to cap the total amount of solar energy income tax credits -- legislation that went into effect on June 19, 2015. Plaintiffs' applications for state income tax credits were denied because of the legislation. According to Plaintiffs, the Solar Companies were acting as agents on behalf of Defendant GreenSky, which gave the companies the authority to enter into finance agreements and represent the terms of the loans. On November 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging a class action against Defendants GreenSky, Synovus, and SunTrust, on behalf of "all Louisiana residents who entered into finance agreements (bridge loans) with GreenSky as a result of purchasing solar energy systems from the Solar Companies and who were denied the solar energy state income tax credit." Plaintiffs estimate that the class consists of more than five hundred households. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs asserted causes of action under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (LUTPA); the Truth in Lending Act (TILA); the Louisiana Consumer Credit Law (LCCL); as well as a common law claim for unjust enrichment. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration arguing that (1) Plaintiffs' challenge to the arbitration clause should be decided by the arbitrator and, alternatively, (2) Plaintiffs' challenge lacks merit. In his Order and Reasons dated February 22, 2017, available at https://is.gd/kT4P46 from Leagle.com, Judge Lemelle found that the instant dispute including any dispute regarding the enforceability of the arbitration clause falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Sylvia Alfortish, et. al are represented by Joshua L. Rubenstein, Esq. -- jrubenstein@nola-law.com -- SCHEUERMANN& JONES -- and -- Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq. Zachary Landry, Esq. MARTZELL&BICKFORD 338 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel:(504)581-9065 -- and -- Calvin Clifford Fayard, Jr., Esq. David Blayne Honeycutt, Esq. FAYARD& HONEYCUTT 519 Florida Ave SW, Denham Springs, LA 70726 Tel: (225)664-0304 -- and -- Heidi M. Gould, Esq. HEIDI MABILE GOULD, ATTORNEY AT LAW 146 W Livingston Pl Metairie, LA 70005-3948 Tel: (504) 835-7458 GreenSky, LLC, et. al are represented by John Anthony Dunlap, Esq. -- dunlap@carverdarden.com -- Haley E. Nix, Esq. -- nix@carverdarden.com -- and -- Leann Opotowsky Moses, Esq. -- moses@carverdarden.com -- CARVER, DARDEN, KORETZKY, TESSIER, FINN, BLOSSMAN&AREAUX -- Barry Goheen, Esq. -- bgoheen@kslaw.com -- and -- J. Anthony Love, Esq. -- jlove@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING, LLP GUESS: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Architectural Barriers -------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Guess?, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01203 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to remove architectural and communication barriers in existing stores, denying equal access to disabled persons. Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Guess?, Inc. is a clothing brand and retailer. Derrick Anderson is a pro se plaintiff. HANOVER INSURANCE: "Durand" Suit Remains Pending in Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------------ The purported class action lawsuit filed by Jennifer A. Durand remains pending in Kentucky, according to The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The named plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former life insurance and annuity business who received a lump sum distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the time of her separation from the company, claims that she and others similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the Plan understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and those of similarly situated participants by failing to pay an additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value of an estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump sum distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65 ("whipsaw claim"). The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. Two of the three new claims set forth in the Amended Complaint were dismissed by the District Court, which action was upheld in November 2015 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. The District Court, however, did allow to stand the portion of the Amended Complaint which set forth claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to meet notice requirements arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") from the various interest crediting and lump sum distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain, but only as to plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim that remained in the case. On December 17, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying a class to bring "whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty claims consisting of all persons who received a lump sum distribution between March 1, 1997 and December 31, 2003. The Company filed a summary judgment motion, prior to the decision on the appeal, that was based on the statute of limitations and seeks to dismiss the subclass of plaintiffs who received lump sum distributions prior to March 13, 2002. This summary judgment motion has been stayed pending additional discovery. At this time, the Company says it is unable to provide a reasonable estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the outcome of the suit is unfavorable. The statute of limitations applicable to the sub-class consisting of all persons who received lump sum distributions between March 1, 1997 and March 12, 2002 has not yet been finally determined, and the extent of potential liability, if any, will depend on this determination. In addition, assuming for these purposes that the plaintiffs prevail with respect to claims that benefits accrued or payable under the Plan were understated, then there are numerous possible theories and other variables upon which any revised calculation of benefits as requested under plaintiffs' claims could be based. Any adverse judgment in this case against the Plan would be expected to create a liability for the Plan, with resulting effects on the Plan's assets available to pay benefits. The Company's future required funding of the Plan could also be impacted by such a liability. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., is a holding company organized as a Delaware corporation in 1995. The Company's primary business operations are property and casualty insurance products and services. The Company markets its domestic products and services through independent agents and brokers in the United States and conduct business internationally through a wholly owned subsidiary, Chaucer Holdings Limited, which operates through the Society and Corporation of Lloyd's and is domiciled in the United Kingdom. HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Appeal from Dismissal of "Nichols" Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of the case captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corporation remains pending, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit." "On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request certification as a class action. One of those named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time period of 1997 to 2002." "On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are derivative in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations. On May 26, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the Supreme Court of Alabama on June 28, 2016. The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the appeal." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself in this case. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as the Company understands them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense the Company continues to mount, the Company does not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate an amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case. HealthSouth Corporation is one of the nation's largest providers of post-acute healthcare services, offering both facility-based and home-based post-acute services in 35 states and Puerto Rico through its network of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, home health agencies, and hospice agencies. HealthSouth was organized as a Delaware corporation in February 1984 and its principal executive offices are located in Birmingham, Alabama. HERTZ CORP: Bid to Compel in "Margulis" Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Mark Falk of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to compel in the case captioned DANIEL MARGULIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-1209 (JMV) (D.N.J.). Daniel Margulis, a New Jersey citizen claims that he was a victim of the Hertz Corporation's dynamic currency conversion practices in connection with two car rentals -- one in the United Kingdom and one in Italy. Margulis commenced a putative class action, alleging that Hertz is conducting a broad-ranging currency conversion scheme, labeled dynamic currency conversion, to defraud its customers who rent vehicles abroad. Plaintiff alleges that Hertz quotes customer rates for vehicle rentals without including any currency conversion fee, charges the fee directly to the customer's credit card, and then falsely claims the customer specifically chose the currency conversion and subsequent overcharge. The operative complaint contains claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud and (4) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Hertz moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) and for failure to join indispensable parties pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7), claiming that Hertz U.K. Ltd. and Hertz Italiana S.r.l. were necessary parties to the action because they were the entities that contracted with plaintiff. Defendant also contends that the subsidiaries, not Hertz, provide DCC service in foreign countries. On April 30, 2015, the Honorable Madeline C. Arleo, denied Hertz's Rule 12 motion. Defendant has withheld a number of emails pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and the common-interest doctrine. However, the emails are almost exclusively between and among, not defendant's employees, but employees of two of defendant's foreign subsidiaries, Hertz U.K. Ltd. and Hertz Italiana S.r.l., which are separate corporate entities and not parties to the case. Defendant claims that withheld documents are protected by its own attorney- client privilege due to the structure of Hertz's in-house legal department and in-house counsel's alleged joint representation of all three companies. Documents withheld on such basis are referred to as category 1. There is also a category 2. Specifically, some withheld documents were also shared by employees of the foreign Hertz companies with employees of a non-party, non-Hertz entity, Monex Financial Services, Ltd., an Irish company that provides currency conversion services for Hertz rentals. Defendant contends sharing documents with Monex is permissible, and does not waive the attorney-client privilege, because the disclosures occurred pursuant to New Jersey's version of the common-interest doctrine. Plaintiff challenged defendant's claims of privilege, arguing that the attorney-client privilege does not stretch to cover the situation presented, that corporate form must be respected, and that the common-interest doctrine does not apply. Magistrate Falk granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to compel as the court finds that the first and second factors of the common-interest question are satisfied in this case. Whether the third and final factor is satisfied, and thus whether sharing was permissible, would depend on the particulars of the specific documents, which have not been properly presented, the magistrate held. The parties are ordered to meet-and-confer in-person to resolve disputes with the remaining documents. A copy of Magistrate Falk's opinion dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/gc76aC from Leagle.com. DANIEL MARGULIS, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- at CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.; ALIAKSANDRA RAMANENKA -- aramanenka@gslawny.com - - at GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN D. TORTORELLA -- jtortorella@khmarino.com -- KEVIN HARRY MARINO -- kmarino@khmarino.com -- at MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C. HILL'S PET: Faces "Vanzant" Lawsuit Over Deceptive Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------- HOLLY BLAINE VANZANT, and DANA LAND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION INC.; PETSMART, INC.; MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a BANFIELD PET HOSPITAL; BLUEPEARL VET, LLC, Defendants, (Ill. Circ., Cook County, March 2, 2017), alleges that Defendants used deception and misrepresentations and omissions of material facts in marketing, labeling, and/or selling "prescription" pet food at above-market prices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Defendants manufacture, market, and/or sell one or more lines of pet food. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Forde, Esq. Michael K. Forde, Esq. Ellen M. Carey, Esq. FORDE LAW OFFICES LLP 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 641-1441 HOLY REDEEMER: Faces "Snyder" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- KAREN SNYDER, CHERYL ROBINSON-KELLY, BARBARA FREDERICI, AND KIMBERLY NIEDRIST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOLY REDEEMER HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a/ HOLY REDEEMER HOSPITAL; THE HOLY REDEEMER HEALTH SYSTEM PENSION PLAN COMMITTEE; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00960-TJS (E.D. Pa., March 2, 2017), alleges that Holy Redeemer has improperly underfunded the Plan by millions of dollars, in violation of the mandates of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Specifically, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, the Plan was $15.77 million underfunded. Defendant Holy Redeemer Health System is a 50l(c)(3) non-profit corporation that does business as Holy Redeemer Hospital. It is the employer responsible for maintaining the Plan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Phone: 610-822-3700 Fax: 610-822 3800 E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com sconnolly@cwglaw.com - and - Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq. THE KEHOE LAW FIRM Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215 792 6676 Fax: 215 792 6676 E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Powell" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Powell v. Huntington National Bank appealed an order granting Huntington Bancshares Incorporated's motion for summary judgment, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Huntington is a defendant in a class action filed on October 15, 2013 alleging Huntington charged late fees on mortgage loans in a method that violated West Virginia law and the loan documents. Plaintiffs seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages and attorney's fees. Huntington filed a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims, which was granted by the U.S. District Court on December 28, 2016. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966 and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the financial needs of its customers. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing, recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust services, brokerage services, insurance service programs, and other financial products and services. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Final Hearing in Overdraft Suit on June 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The final approval hearing of the global settlement in the FirstMerit Overdraft Litigation is scheduled for June 2, 2017, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On August 16, 2016, Huntington completed its acquisition of FirstMerit Corporation in a stock and cash transaction valued at approximately $3.7 billion. FirstMerit was a diversified financial services company headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with operations in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Pennsylvania. Post acquisition, Huntington now operates across an eight-state Midwestern footprint. Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court of Common Pleas against FirstMerit. The complaints were brought as class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at FirstMerit and who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debit transactions. The parties have reached a global settlement for approximately $9 million cash to a common fund plus an additional $7 million in debt forgiveness. Attorneys' fees will be paid from the fund, with any remaining funds going to charity. FirstMerit's insurer has agreed to reimburse Huntington 49% of the approximately $9 million, which totals approximately $4.4 million. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on December 5, 2016 and the cash portion of the settlement was funded on December 12, 2016. The final approval hearing is scheduled for June 2, 2017. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966 and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the financial needs of its customers. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing, recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust services, brokerage services, insurance service programs, and other financial products and services. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Wins Approval of Merger Suits Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a federal court approved its settlement of shareholder lawsuits arising from the FirstMerit merger. On August 16, 2016, Huntington completed its acquisition of FirstMerit Corporation in a stock and cash transaction valued at approximately $3.7 billion. FirstMerit was a diversified financial services company headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with operations in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Pennsylvania. Post acquisition, Huntington now operates across an eight-state Midwestern footprint. Huntington is a defendant in five lawsuits filed in February and March of 2016 in state and federal courts in Ohio relating to the FirstMerit merger. The plaintiffs in each case are FirstMerit shareholders and have filed class action and derivative claims seeking to enjoin the merger. The parties in the federal court cases have entered into a tentative settlement. The defendants made agreed supplemental disclosures in advance of the shareholder vote in exchange for which plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their preliminary injunction motion and agreed to a release of all claims in the federal and state actions. The parties jointly moved for approval of the settlement by the federal court, which was granted on February 1, 2017. The plaintiffs in the state court cases did not join in the settlement, but their claims will be released in the federal court settlement. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966 and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the financial needs of its customers. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing, recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust services, brokerage services, insurance service programs, and other financial products and services. IC SYSTEM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------- Odette Franco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. IC System, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01154 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. IC System, Inc. is a nationwide provider of accounts receivable management services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 Facsimile: (347) 244-7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the case captioned, IN RE IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 15-CV-2514 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.). The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Complaint) in the action was filed on March 25, 2016, by Plaintiffs against iDreamSky Technology Limited (IDS), its officers and directors, and four underwriters (collectively, Defendants). The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The allegations in the Complaint relate to American Depository Shares (ADSs) issued by IDS in an initial public offering (IPO) on August 7, 2014. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that IDS failed to disclose the adverse financial impact of delays in its release of the game Cookie Run in China and its lack of an adequate third- party billing platform. Plaintiffs filed four putative class actions in this Court, naming as Defendants IDS, its officers and directors (the Individual Defendants), and four underwriters of IDS's IPO (the Underwriter Defendants). The Court then consolidated these actions on January 25, 2016, designating Hoong as Lead Plaintiff, and the operative Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on March 25, 2016. IDS and the Underwriter Defendants separately move to dismiss the claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(1), and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Section 11 imposes strict liability on certain participants in a registered securities offering if "any part of the registration statement contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading." In the Opinion and Order dated February 22, 2017, available at https://is.gd/qPgIkv from Leagle.com, Judge Oetken dismissed claims under Section 12(a)(1) because Plaintiffs have not alleged that unregistered securities were sold and denied dismissal as to misstatements and omissions because Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that at the time the relevant statements were made, Defendants were fully aware of the delays affecting the launch date of Cookie Run and claims under the Exchange Act because Plaintiffs have carried their burden of proving Defendants had access to information, or otherwise failed to check information, that would have indicated that their public statements were not accurate. Defendants are directed to answer Plaintiffs' remaining claims within twenty-one days of the date of the order. Michael Rubin, et. al are represented by Mark David Smilow, Esq. - - msmilow@weisslawllp.com -- and -- Joseph Harry Weiss, Esq. -- jweiss@weisslawllp.com -- WEISS & LURIE -- Joshua Lon Crowell, Esq. -- jcrowell@glancylaw.com -- GLANCYPRONGAY& MURRAY LLP -- Keith Robert Lorenze, Esq. -- klorenze@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- and -- Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Idreamsky Technology Limited, et. al are represented by Scott D. Musoff, Esq. -- scott.musoff@skadden.com --and -- Robert Alexander Fumerton, Esq. -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,MEAGHER&FLOM LLP J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, et. al are represented by Peter Eric Kazanoff, Esq. -- pkazanoff@stblaw.com -- and -- Sarah Emily Phillips, Esq. -- sarah.phillips@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Wisconsin, Tennessee Antitrust Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company continues to defend itself against antitrust lawsuits pending in Wisconsin and Tennessee, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In June 2016, a lawsuit captioned Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America (W.D. Wis.), was filed in federal court in Wisconsin. The Ashley Furniture lawsuit closely tracks the allegations found in the Kleen Products complaint but also asserts Wisconsin state antitrust claims. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. No class certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously defending each action. However, because the Kleen Products action is in the pretrial motions stage and the Tennessee and Ashley Furniture actions are in a preliminary stage, the Company is unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. International Paper Company is a global producer of renewable fiber-based packaging, pulp and paper products with manufacturing operations in North America, Latin America, Europe, North Africa, Asia and Russia. The Company is a New York corporation, incorporated in 1941 as the successor to the New York corporation of the same name organized in 1898. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Suit vs. Containerboard Producers Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action lawsuit against containerboard producers, including International Paper Company, remains pending in Illinois, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. International Paper Co. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004 through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The class is all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the period February 2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover unspecified treble damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In March 2015, the District Court certified a class of direct purchasers of containerboard products; in June 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted the defendants' petition to appeal, and on August 4, 2016, affirmed the District Court's decision on all counts. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company says it will continue to aggressively defend this case, including challenges to class certification. International Paper Company is a global producer of renewable fiber-based packaging, pulp and paper products with manufacturing operations in North America, Latin America, Europe, North Africa, Asia and Russia. The Company is a New York corporation, incorporated in 1941 as the successor to the New York corporation of the same name organized in 1898. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Leiner" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Sweeney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Stephanie Leiner, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05876, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action lawsuit resulted in a $5 million settlement, including $1.5 million in attorney fees. The Plaintiffs have alleged that Johnson & Johnson's Bedtime Bath baby products did not make babies as sleepy as the Company claimed. The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Leiner, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 17-1409, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee STEPHANIE LEINER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com Appellant PAMELA SWEENEY represents herself: Pamela Sweeney, Esq. SWEENEY LEGAL GROUP 6666 Odana Road Madison, WI 53716 Telephone: (424) 488-4383 E-mail: pam.sweeney1@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., is represented by: Mark A. Neubauer, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 843-6300 Facsimile: (310) 843-6301 E-mail: mneubauer@cfjblaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hammack Seeks Review of Order in "Leiner" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Hammack Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Stephanie Leiner, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05876, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Leiner, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 17-1403, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the people behind a false advertising class action lawsuit that said Johnson & Johnson's Bedtime Bath baby products did not make babies as sleepy as the company claimed are asking a judge to formally approve a $5 million settlement. The settlement would include nearly $1.5 million for attorneys, while the individual plaintiffs would collect service awards of $5,000 each. Members of the class could receive up to $15 each, if they submit eligible claims. Stephanie Leiner, of downstate Chillicothe, filed a class action lawsuit July 2, 2015, in federal court in Chicago against New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and unjust enrichment, among other counts, saying the company misled her and others into buying products the company claimed were clinically proven to help babies sleep better. According to the briefing schedule in the Appellate Case, the Appellant's brief is due on or before April 4, 2017, for Ashley Hammack. Plaintiff-Appellee STEPHANIE LEINER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com Appellant ASHLEY HAMMACK is represented by: Brian N. Custy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN CUSTY 101 W. 84th Drive Merrillville, IN 46410 Telephone: (219) 660-0450 Facsimile: (219) 644-4020 E-mail: bcusty@officeofgc.com Defendant-Appellee JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., is represented by: Mark A. Neubauer, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 843-6300 Facsimile: (310) 843-6301 E-mail: mneubauer@cfjblaw.com JON DAVLER: Faces "Bocardo" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA BOCARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the California general public; MARIA OLEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the California general public, Plaintiffs, vs. DAVID J. SHEEN; JON DAVLER, INC.; L.A. SPLASH; L.A. SPLASH COSMETICS, INC.; SPLASH; LASPLASH COSMETICS; IONICONSMESTIC; DOE 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 652 373 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017), alleges that in violation of the California Labor Code, Plaintiffs and current and former employees of DEFENDANTS were paid below the minimum wage and were not compensated for off the clock work; worked overtime for DEFENDANTS but were only paid at their regular hourly rate (i.e., straight time) for the overtime hours they worked; DEFENDANTS failed to pay PLAINTIFFS and other current and former employees for all hours worked and/or off-the-clock work; Defendants did not have a meal and rest period policy and otherwise failed to provide PLAINTIFFS and other current and former employees meal and rest periods required by law; failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to pay all wages due after separation. Jon Davler Inc. is a cosmetic retailer. Plaintiff is an hourly employee by Defendants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Glick, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 387-3400 Fax: (213) 387-7872 JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Orellana" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- FERDINAND ORELLANA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and on Behalf of the JPMORGAN CHASE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiff, vs. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC., JPMORGAN CHASE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN SELECTION COMMITTEE, EMPLOYEE PLANS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, JAMES DIMON, LEE R. RAYMOND, STEPHEN B. BURKE, WILLIAM C. WELDON, CRANDALL C. BOWLES, JAMES S. CROWN, LABAN P. JACKSON, JR., MICHAEL A. NEAL, LINDA B. BAMMANN, TIMOTHY P. FLYNN, JAMES A. BELL, DAVID M. COTE, ELLEN V. FUTTER, DOUGLAS L. BRAUNSTEIN, MARIANNE LAKE, JOHN L. DONNELLY, BERNADETTE J. BRANOSKY and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01575 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2017), alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the detriment of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries by violating their duties of loyalty and prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and by failing to adequately monitor the Plan's co-fiduciaries. Specifically, Defendants allegedly violated these duties by larding the Plan with proprietary fund investment options that charged excessively high fees that inured to the benefit of affiliates of JPMorgan and one of JPMorgan's closest business partners, BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., at the expense of Plan participants. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank, is a national bank that constitutes the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the U.S. multinational banking and financial services holding company, JPMorgan Chase. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Evan J. Kaufman, Esq. Andrew L. Schwartz, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631/367-7100 Fax: 631/367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com aschwartz@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Carissa J. Dolan, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/231-1058 Fax: 619/231-7423 E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com cdolan@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/230-0063 Fax: 619/255-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com - and - W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER LLP 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212/802-1486 Fax: 212/602-1592 E-mail: scotth@johnsonsandweaver.com KAUFMAN ENGLETT: Cadwell Appeals M.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Loyd P. Cadwell filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Loyd Cadwell v. Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-00662-PGB-KRS, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate Judge Paul G. Byron dismissed the class action, which accused Kaufman Englett of violating federal law by causing a cash- strapped client to incur more debt while he explored filing for bankruptcy, saying the case can't survive without an alleged improper motive for the firm's billing. Judge Byron, who oversees Loyd P. Cadwell's suit in Florida federal court, said Mr. Cadwell's claims that KEL violated the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act by billing him $1,700 in retainer fees while he explored filing for bankruptcy could not survive the firm's motion to dismiss. The appellate case is captioned as Loyd Cadwell v. Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC, Case No. 17-10810, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before April 3, 2017; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; and -- Appellee's CIP due on or before March 22, 2017, as to Appellee Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC. Plaintiff-Appellant LOYD P. CADWELL, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Bryan Keith Mickler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICKLER & MICKLER, LLP 5452 Arlington Expy. Jacksonville, FL 32211 Telephone: (904) 725-0822 Facsimile: (904) 725-0855 E-mail: bkmickler@planlaw.com Defendant-Appellee KAUFMAN, ENGLETT & LYND, PLLC, is represented by: Adam C. Herman, Esq. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.A. 315 E Robinson St., Suite 550 Orlando, FL 32801-1631 Telephone: (407) 420-4380 E-mail: acherman@mdwcg.com KNIGHT ENTERPRISES: Seeks Review of Decision in "Weckesser" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Patrick Weckesser v. Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-02053-RMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at Charleston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the Defendant has violated the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and has deprived the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members of their rights to such compensation. Knight Enterprises provides integrated communications infrastructure solutions in North America. The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Weckesser v. Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC, Case No. 17-1247, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on April 5, 2017; and -- Response Brief is due on May 5, 2017.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee PATRICK WECKESSER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ashley Long Falls, Esq. Joseph Scott Falls, Esq. FALLS LEGAL, LLC 245 Seven Farms Drive Charleston, SC 29492 Telephone: (843) 737 6040 Facsimile: (843) 737 6140 E-mail: ashley@falls-legal.com scott@falls-legal.com Defendant-Appellant KNIGHT ENTERPRISES S.E., LLC, is represented by: Matthew Adams Abee, Esq. Deborah Whittle Durban, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP P. O. Box 11070 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 255-9335 E-mail: matt.abee@nelsonmullins.com debbie.durban@nelsonmullins.com KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Gainesville Suit Parties Still Await Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the Gainesville class action lawsuit still await a court ruling, according to Koppers Holdings Inc.'s February 22, 2017, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East in 2010. In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other parties as defendants. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that chemicals and contaminants from the Gainesville plant have contaminated real properties, have caused property damage (diminution in value) and have placed residents and owners of the putative class properties at an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the chemicals at issue. The plaintiffs presently seek a class comprised of all current property owners of single family residential properties with a polygon-shaped area extending approximately two miles from the former plant area (which area encompasses approximately 7,000 owners). This case was removed to the United States District court for the Northern District of Florida in December 2010. Koppers Holdings Inc. was dismissed from the case by the district court for lack of personal jurisdiction. Class factual discovery closed in May 2015 and expert witness discovery was completed in August 2015. Discovery on the merits is stayed until further order of the court. Motions were subsequently filed by each side to strike or limit the testimony of the other side's experts. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on September 30, 2015. And the response of Koppers Inc. was filed on October 30, 2015. A hearing on plaintiffs' motions for class certification and the parties' motions relating to experts was held in January 2016 and the parties await a ruling from the court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company says it has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. Koppers Holdings Inc. is an integrated global provider of treated wood products, wood treatment chemicals, and carbon compounds. LA CUCINA: Faces "Paula" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Work ------------------------------------------------------- JUAN C. PAULA and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. LA CUCINA MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a PERRICONE'S MARKETPLACE & CAFE, STEVEN PERRICONE, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20796-DPG (S.D. Fla., March 1, 2017), alleges that Defendants have employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. La Cucina Management, Inc. (trade name Peiricone's Marketplace) is in the Italian Restaurant business. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a sous chef. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 LAS OLAS: Calderon, et al. Allege Violation of Fla. Wage Rates -------------------------------------------------------------- ANYEE CALDERON, SARAI ARIAS, RELNA HERNANDEZ, RUTH MARIE-LA CASTRO, And others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAS OLAS CAFE, LLC, and CARLOS FLORES, individually, Defendants, Filing No. 53190885 (Fla. Circ., 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, March 2, 2017), alleges that during their employment, Plaintiffs, at various times, were purportedly paid hourly rates, in cash, below the statutory Florida Minimum Wage rates. Plaintiffs were employed with Defendants as non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305)416-5005 LAURA J LOWENSTEIN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dawson" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Kadeidra Dawson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Laura J. Lowenstein & Associates, LLC and Capital Resource Management, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01118 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Laura J. Lowenstein & Associates, LLC operates a law firm located at 2005 Merrick Rd #116, Merrick, NY 11566 Capital Resource Management, Inc. specializes in pre and post business succession planning, retirement planning, and investment strategy development. Kadeidra Dawson is a pro se plaintiff. The Defendant is represented by: Maxim Maximov MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com LEGGETT & PLATT: Indirect Purchaser Suits Fully Resolved -------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the U.S. Indirect Purchaser Class Action Cases have been fully resolved. The Company said: "We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. Indirect Class Action cases on May 18, 2015, by agreeing to pay an amount not materially different from the amount previously accrued for this claim. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases, but settled the indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk, uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The Court preliminarily approved the class settlement on July 31, 2015. The full settlement amount was paid in escrow in the third quarter of 2015. The final settlement approval hearing was held on December 15, 2015 and the Court granted final approval of the settlement." "Several objectors filed notices of appeal of the order approving the class settlement to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 14, 2016, the Court ordered the objectors to post an appeal bond by May 13, 2016. Certain of the objectors filed a motion to reconsider or stay the bond order, which the Court denied on May 12, 2016. Subsequently, three of the five objectors voluntarily dismissed their appeals. On June 20, 2016, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the remaining two appeals, one for failure to post an appeal bond, and the other because it was untimely filed. One of the two objectors filed a petition for rehearing en banc (requesting that all judges rather than the normal 3 rule on the appeal) on June 29, 2016. That petition was denied on September 27, 2016. On December 22, 2016, the objector filed a petition for a writ of certiori to the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition was denied on January 23, 2017. As such, these cases have been fully resolved." Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, is a diversified manufacturer, and member of the S&P 500 index, that conceives, designs, and produces a wide range of engineered components and products found in many homes, offices, automobiles, and commercial airplanes. The Company makes components that are often hidden within, but integral to, its customers' products. LUBRIZOL: Ohio Appeals Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas dismissing the Second Amended Consolidated Derivative and Class Action Complaint for lack of standing in the case captioned, IN RE: LUBRIZOL SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, Case No. 2016-L-026 (Ohio App.). On March 16, 2011, Henry Mandel, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of The Lubrizol Corporation, filed a Class and Derivative Action in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas against members of Lubrizol's Board of Directors, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Ohio Merger Sub, Inc., and The Lubrizol Corporation as a nominal defendant. The action sought "to enjoin defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in pursuit of a sale of the Company at an unfair price through an unfair and self-serving process to Berkshire." On May 10, 2011, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry consolidating Mandel v. Hambrick, Case No. 11CV000684, with Spletter v. Lubrizol, Case No. 11CV000825, Sair v. Hambrick, Case No. 11CV000807, Jaroslawicz v. Hambrick, Case No. 11CV000886, and State-Boston Retirement System v. Hambrick, Case No. 11CV001006. On October 31, 2011, Plaintiffs Mandel and Sair filed a Second Amended Consolidated Derivative and Class Action Complaint, captioned In re Lubrizol Shareholder Litigation. The Consolidated Complaint raised two causes of action, one a class or direct claim and the other a derivative claim. Both causes of action were for breach of fiduciary duties. The Complaint sought a declaration that the Merger Agreement was unlawful and unenforceable and the rescission thereof. On February 27, 2012, the Lubrizol defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Derivative and Class Action Complaint. On February 18, 2016, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry, granting the Lubrizol defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The court held that "Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a direct class action claim for breach of fiduciary duty and Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a derivative claim because they are not shareholders of the corporation. On appeal, Plaintiff raises that the trial court (1) erred in granting Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action; (2) erred by granting Defendants- Appellees' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action without addressing and sustaining the viability of the substantive claim for breach of fiduciary duty; (3) erred by granting Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action without addressing and sustaining the viability of the substantive claim for breach of fiduciary duty; (4) erred in granting Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action by holding that Plaintiff did not sufficiently plead derivative demand futility. In an Opinion dated February 21, 2017, available at https://is.gd/G3mtcv from Leagle.com, the Ohio Court of Appeals held that removal is untimely because Prestige knew that the Plaintiffs sought to certify a class that covered the period 2006 to the present and, thus, that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, years before it filed its Notice of Removal. The Court will not exercise its discretion to award attorneys' fees and costs in the case finding that Prestige had a reasonable basis for seeking removal. Emilie J. Sair is represented by Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq. -- gritts@jonesday.com -- and -- Marjorie P. Duffy, Esq. -- mduffy@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY The Lubrizol Corporation is represented by Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONERGRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 W 9th St #200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (888)570-3607 -- Phillip A. Ciano, Esq. Andrew S. Goldwasser, Esq. -- asg@c-g- law.com -- and -- Robert A. West, Jr., Esq. -- RWest@c-g-law.com - -- CIANO & GOLDWASSER, LLP -- Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. -- MONTEVERDE& ASSOCIATES PC -- David A. Knotts, Esq. -- dknotts@rgrdlaw.com -- and -- David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. -- DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWN, LLP M&T BANK: Trial in Wilmington Trust Securities Suit on June 2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the consolidated lawsuit styled In Re Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (D. Del. Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR), is scheduled for June 18, 2018, according to M&T Bank Corporation's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to be class representatives, commenced a putative class action lawsuit against the Company's subsidiary, Wilmington Trust Corporation, alleging that Wilmington Trust Corporation's financial reporting and securities filings were in violation of securities laws. The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trust Corporation moved to dismiss. The Court issued an order denying Wilmington Trust Corporation's motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. Fact discovery commenced. On April 13, 2016, the Court issued an order staying fact discovery in the case pending completion of the trial in U.S. v. Wilmington Trust Corp., et al. On September 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the stay of discovery in this matter to allow for additional, limited discovery. On December 19, 2016, the Court issued an order lifting the existing stay in its entirety, subject to appropriate protective orders to be determined by the Court. On January 24, 2017, the Court issued an order scheduling trial for June 18, 2018 and entering certain protective orders. Headquartered in Buffalo, New York, M&T Bank Corporation is a New York business corporation, which is registered as a financial holding company and as a bank holding company. M&T was incorporated in November 1969. As of December 31, 2016 the Company had consolidated total assets of $123.4 billion, deposits of $95.5 billion and shareholders' equity of $16.5 billion. MALEN & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bakon" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bakon, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Malen & Associates, P.C., Case No. 1:17-cv- 01116 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Malen & Associates, P.C. operates a law firm located at 123 Frost St # 203, Westbury, NY 11590. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail m@maximovlaw.com MARK OBENSTINE: Seeks Review of Decision in "Estakhrian" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Mark Richard Obenstine filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled James Estakhrian, et al. v. Mark Obenstine, Case No. 2:11-cv-03480-FMO-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as James Estakhrian, et al. v. Mark Obenstine, Case No. 17-80026, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Fernando M. Olguin certified a class with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims for professional malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty consisting of "all individuals who were class members in, i.e. did not opt out of, Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada Property 1, LLC, et al., Nevada District Court, Case No. A582541, excluding Sanjay Varma." Plaintiffs-Respondents JAMES ESTAKHRIAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and ABDI NAZIRI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mark A. Chavez, Esq. Nance F. Becker, Esq. CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 381-5599 Facsimile: (415) 381-5572 E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com Nance@chavezgertler.com - and - Steven A. Skalet, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 855-5100 E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com Defendant-Petitioner MARK RICHARD OBENSTINE represents himself: Mark Richard Obenstine, Esq. MARK OBENSTINE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 5404 Whitsett Avenue Valley Village, CA 91607 Telephone: (818) 321-9434 MDL 2074: Anthem Wins Final Judgment ------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has entered final judgment in Anthem, Inc.'s favor in the multidistrict litigation styled In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company is a defendant in 11 putative class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs filed several amended complaints alleging that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies. The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which the Company filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims. In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion. The court held that the federal and state anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved the Company's alleged non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims with prejudice. The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff. Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2013 seeking six different classes. Following oral argument, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in late 2014. The California subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification with more narrowly defined proposed classes, which the court denied. All but two of the individually named subscribers and all of the providers and medical associations dismissed their claims with prejudice. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2016, and a motion for summary judgment was also filed by one of the remaining individual plaintiffs. In July 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. One plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and then filed an appeal of the court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, which is currently pending. In October 2016, the court entered final judgment in the case in the Company's favor. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Anthem, Inc., is one of the largest health benefits companies in the United States in terms of medical membership, serving 39.9 million medical members through the Company's affiliated health plans as of December 31, 2016. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA, an association of independent health benefit plans. The Company serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California and as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or BCBS, licensee for Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri (excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New Hampshire, New York (as BCBS in 10 New York City metropolitan and surrounding counties, and as Blue Cross or BCBS in selected upstate counties), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and Wisconsin. MDL 2196: Leggett & Platt Still Faces Polyurethane Foam Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, continues to defend itself against the polyurethane foam antitrust multidistrict litigation, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "We were named as a defendant in an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers, brought damages claims under various states' antitrust and consumer protection statutes, and were seeking three times an amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also sought attorney fees, prejudgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations." "We denied all allegations. The Ohio Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, is a diversified manufacturer, and member of the S&P 500 index, that conceives, designs, and produces a wide range of engineered components and products found in many homes, offices, automobiles, and commercial airplanes. The Company makes components that are often hidden within, but integral to, its customers' products. MDL 2280: NJ Court Grants MSSB's Summary Judgment Bid ----------------------------------------------------- Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case titled IN RE MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION, MDL 2280, Civ. No. 2:11-3121 (D.N.J.). Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. referred to as MSSB, is a financial services firm focused on providing financial advisory services and selling various investment products to a large and diversified clientele. Plaintiffs Jimmy Kuhn, Nick Pontilena, Howard Rosenblatt and Denise Often worked for MSSB for varying durations as Financial Advisors. On May 31, 2011, Pontilena filed a class and collective action complaint, alleging that MSSB violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime wages, and that it violated New Jersey law by failing to pay overtime wages, making impermissible deductions from employees' wages and failing to maintain records. The court subsequently consolidated Pontilena's claims with similar claims emanating from Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island, creating a multidistrict class and collective action against MSSB, alleging ten counts in violation of the FLSA and various state labor laws. During the ensuing litigation, the court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims except for the FLSA overtime claim and the Connecticut, New Jersey and New York overtime claims. On April 11, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class action and conditional collective certification. Consequently, plaintiffs' individual overtime claims are all that remain. MSSB moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining overtime claims, arguing that the FLSA claim fails because plaintiffs satisfied the administrative exemption, that plaintiffs Often, Pontilena and Kuhn also satisfied the highly compensated exemption, that plaintiffs Pontilena and Kuhn's FLSA claims are time barred, and the administrative exemptions under the three state laws mirror the FLSA and plaintiffs are, exempt under state law for the same reasons as they are under the FLSA. Plaintiffs oppose the application of the exemption countering that genuine issues of material fact exist. They presented before the court the issues whether plaintiffs were paid the required minimum salary of $455 per week, whether plaintiffs' primary duty at MSSB was the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to MSSB's management or general business operations, and whether plaintiffs exercised discretion and independent judgment to significant matters. Plaintiffs also contest MSSB's other claims concerning the highly compensated exemption, the statute of limitations, and the state labor laws at issue and they also filed a separate motion to strike portions of MSSB's objections to plaintiffs' counterstatement of facts. Judge Martini held that MSSB has met its burden in showing that there is no factual dispute that plaintiffs satisfied the exemption, and MSSB was not required to pay them overtime wages. He added that plaintiffs were exempt employees under New York, New Jersey and Connecticut law for the same reasons as they were under the FLSA. MSSB's motion for summary judgment is granted and all remaining counts are dismissed with prejudice. A copy of Judge Martini's opinion dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/ImAa76 from Leagle.com. NICK PONTILENA, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH -- smith@whafh.com -- MICHAEL MILTON LISKOW -- liskow@gmail.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP; ROBERT ABRAMS -- babrams@abramslaw.com -- at Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP; STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- at DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC DENISE OTTEN, Plaintiff in case 11-6062, Plaintiff, JEFFREY G. SMITH --smith@whafh.com -- MICHAEL MILTON LISKOW -- liskow@gmail.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP; ERIK H. LANGELAND; STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- at DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC JIMMY KUHN, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew M. Guiney -- guiney@whafh.com -- JEFFREY G. SMITH --smith@whafh.com -- MICHAEL MILTON LISKOW -- liskow@gmail.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP; ROBERT ABRAMS -- babrams@abramslaw.com -- at Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP; STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- at DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC GREGG VANASSE, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew H. Berg -- berg@sbllp.net -- at Sammartino & Berg; JEFFREY G. SMITH -- smith@whafh.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP; ROBERT ABRAMS -- babrams@abramslaw.com -- at Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP HOWARD ROSENBLATT, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH -- smith@whafh.com -- MICHAEL MILTON LISKOW -- liskow@gmail.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP; ROBERT ABRAMS -- babrams@abramslaw.com --at Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP; STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- at DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC; ANDREW W. SKOLNICK -- at Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, Defendant, represented by DANIEL F. MURPHY, JR. -- dmurphy@putneylaw.com -- MARK ANTHONY HERNANDEZ -- mhernandez@putneylaw.com -- at PUTNEY, TWOMBLY, HALL & HIRSON; JESSICA R. PERRY -- jperry@orrick.com -- TRISH M. HIGGINS -- thiggins@orrick.com -- at Orrick MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., Defendant, represented by TRISH M. HIGGINS -- thiggins@orrick.com -- at Orrick MDL 2406: Subscriber and Provider Plaintiffs Add New Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the subscriber plaintiffs and provider plaintiffs filed new consolidated amended complaints adding new named plaintiffs and new factual allegations in the multidistrict litigation titled In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2406. The Company is a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan), restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in July 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013. In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following the subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber and provider plaintiffs, the Company filed its answer and asserted the Company's affirmative defenses in December 2014. No date has been set for either the pretrial conference or trials in these actions. Since January 2016, subscribers have filed additional actions asserting damage claims in Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have been consolidated into the multi-district lawsuit. In November 2016, subscriber plaintiffs and provider plaintiffs filed new consolidated amended complaints adding new named plaintiffs and new factual allegations. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined. Anthem, Inc., is one of the largest health benefits companies in the United States in terms of medical membership, serving 39.9 million medical members through the Company's affiliated health plans as of December 31, 2016. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA, an association of independent health benefit plans. The Company serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California and as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or BCBS, licensee for Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri (excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New Hampshire, New York (as BCBS in 10 New York City metropolitan and surrounding counties, and as Blue Cross or BCBS in selected upstate counties), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and Wisconsin. MTAG SERVICES: Connecticut Court Narrows Claims in "Weldon" ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss the case captioned ROGER WELDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MTAG SERVICES, LLC et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-783(JCH) (D. Conn.). The City of Bridgeport imposed four municipal tax liens on Roger Weldon's home after the latter did not pay his property taxes for several years. The City assigned the liens to MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC, which immediately assigned the liens it received to MTAG Services, LLC or MTAG as its custodian or directly to MTAG as custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC. MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC changed its name to Caz Creek CT, LLC In August 2015, MTAG, in its custodial capacity, assigned the four liens to Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC. On October 19, 2015, MTAG, as custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC, filed a tax lien foreclosure lawsuit against Weldon in state court to collect on the liens, but the complaint did not indicate that the liens had been assigned to Cazenovia. Rather, materials attached to the filing expressly stated that plaintiff as named in the complaint is the creditor to whom the debt is owed, and a notice of lis pendens dated the same day as the state complaint indicated that MTAG Services, LLC, as custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC is now the owner and holder of said liens. The state complaint demanded foreclosure of the lien, attorney's fees, interest, and costs. Caz Creek appears under its previous name, MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC. Weldon initially denied some of the allegations in the state complaint, but later asked that Caz Creek and MTAG inform him of the amount necessary to pay off the debts. On December 31, 2015, Weldon provided a certified check for $25,463.23, the amount that MTAG and Caz Creek had demanded by email. MTAG and Caz Creek withdrew the lawsuit the same day and later refunded $375, but the remaining $25,088.23 Weldon paid included charges for $1,100.00 of attorney's fees and $1,319.20 of costs. On December 29, 2015, February 4, 2016, and March 23, 2016, Weldon demanded that defendants discharge the tax liens on his home for tax years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, which were at that point paid in full. Cazenovia filed a discharge of the 2011 and 2013 tax liens on February 4, 2016. For the 2010 and 2012 liens, Cazenovia filed a release dated June 16, 2016, which was notated as received by the City of Bridgeport on July 13, 2016. Neither MTAG nor Cazenovia are licensed Connecticut Consumer Collection Agencies. Caz Creek is licensed as a consumer collection agency, as of November 18, 2015, under its current name, Caz Creek CT, LLC. Weldon claims defendants engaged in wide-ranging, unlawful conduct related to their prosecution of municipal tax lien foreclosure actions. In his first amended complaint, Weldon alleged conversion (count I), violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (count II), abuse of process (count III), violations of the Connecticut Creditor Collection Practices Act (count IV), violations of sections 12-195g, 42a-9-513, and 42a-9-625 of the Connecticut General Statutes (count V), violations of section 49-8 of the Connecticut General Statutes (count VI), and unjust enrichment(count VII). Caz Creek and Cazenovia filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them, under Rules 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6)., as did MTAG. Judge Hall granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. Counts I, II A-D, and II H are dismissed on both litigation privilege and Noerr-Pennington grounds, while counts II E-F are dismissed on Noerr-Pennington grounds. Count II F, insofar as it brings claims against Cazenovia, is dismissed for lack of standing. Count II G is dismissed because defendants are not consumer collection agencies, and count III is dismissed because he failed to allege that defendants instituted the state foreclosure suit for any collateral purpose. Counts IV A-C are dismissed because the municipal tax liens at issue in the case do not qualify as debts within the meaning of the CCPA, and count V, similarly, is dismissed because section 12-195g of the Connecticut General Statutes does not apply to municipal tax liens on real property. Lastly, count VII is dismissed for failure to plausibly state an unjust enrichment claim, where it is undisputed that Weldon's liens were discharged in exchange for the payment he made to defendants. Defendants' motions to dismiss count VI on Article III standing grounds are denied. Count VI is the only claim that survives. A copy of Judge Hall's order dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/NYWioZ from Leagle.com. Roger Weldon, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Blinn -- at Consumer Law Group; Peter A. Holland -- at The Holland Law Firm, P.C.; Joseph S. Tusa -- at Tusa P.C. MTAG Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Soukup -- asoukup@cov.com -- Christian J. Pistilli -- cpistilli@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling, LLP; Richard S. Order -- rorder@uks.com -- Adam B. Marks -- amarks@uks.com -- at Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC CAZ Creek CT, LLC and Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC, Defendants, represented by Alyx S. Pattison -- alyx.pattison@akerman.com -- Dara Chevlin Tarkowski -- dara.tarkowski@akerman.com -- Julian Dayal -- julian.dayal@akerman.com -- at Akerman, LLP; Michael J. Jones -- mjones@ibolaw.com -- Michael Andrew Zamat -- at Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alyx S. Pattison, Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Dara Chevlin Tarkowski, Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Julian Dayal, Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Jones, Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC, Jessica Marie Signor, Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC & Michael Andrew Zamat, Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC MXI CORP: Class Settlement in "Martinez" Has Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted final approval of class action settlement in the case captioned ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MXI CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00243-MMD-VPC (D. Nev.). The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement agreement. The class representatives have filed a joint motion for final approval of the class action settlement. The court orders that the following settlement class is finally certified for settlement purposes only: All MXI Associates who (1) received less money from MXI than they paid MXI in fees or product purchases over the course of their associations with MXI, up to the November 3, 2016, (2) made any payment to MXI to purchase product or pay fees between May 1, 2011 and November 3, 2016, and (3) were U.S. residents at any time between May 1, 2011 and the present; provided, however, that the defendants, their affiliates, their management, their employees and their spouses are excluded from the settlement class, provided further that the foregoing exclusions shall not cover MXI Associates other than any defendants. The court finds that the settlement is the product of serious, informed, noncollusive negotiations conducted at arms' length by the parties and with the initial assistance of a mediator. The court finds that the terms of the settlement agreement are fair, adequate, and reasonable and comply with Rule 23. The injunctive relief provided for in the settlement agreement is appropriate, and enjoins defendant MXI as follows: a. Within 150 days of the Effective Date, MXI will provide to class counsel: (a) copies of any policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and agreements that then govern or apply to its contractual relationships with its members and its preferred customers; (b) evidence that MXI is no longer encouraging or incentivizing its members to purchase goods or services to maintain eligibility for bonuses, rewards, or commissions; (c) evidence that MXI is no longer inducing others to encourage or incentivize members to purchase goods or services to maintain an eligibility for bonuses, rewards, or commissions; (d) evidence that MXI is encouraging its members to purchase goods or services for resale or personal use; and (e) evidence that MXI requires a member to have at least 51% of his or her group qualifying sales volume of goods or services from preferred customers in order to earn compensation. b. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, MXI may not pay any compensation to its members unless at least 10% of the member's group qualifying sales volume of goods or services are from preferred customer sales. c. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, MXI may not pay any compensation to its members unless at least 20% of the member's group qualifying sales volume of goods or services are from preferred customer sales. d. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, MXI may not pay any compensation to its members unless at least 30% of the member's group qualifying sales volume of goods or services are from preferred customer sales. e. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, MXI may not pay any compensation to its members unless at least 40% of the member's group qualifying sales volume of goods or services are from preferred customer sales. f. Within 150 days of the Effective Date, MXI may not pay any compensation to its members unless at least 51% of the member's group qualifying sales volume of goods or services are from preferred customer sales. The court directs the parties and the settlement administrator to consummate the settlement agreement according to its terms, and dismisses the action with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement however, the court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to interpret, implement, and enforce the settlement and all orders and judgment entered in connection therewith. A copy of Judge Du's order dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/D2NcSV from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Randall Adam Swick -- aswick@rctlegal.com -- J. Benjamin King -- bking@rctlegal.com -- at Reid Collins & Tsai; John Patrick Desmond -- JDesmond@dickinson-wright.com -- Justin James Bustos -- JBustos@dickinson-wright.com -- at Dickinson Wright PLLC MXI Corp, Martin J Brooks, Jeanette L Brooks, Andrew Brooks, Defendants, represented by Brian A. Howie -- brian.howie@quarles.com -- Joshua D. Maggard -- joshua.maggard@quarles.com -- Edward A. Salanga -- edward.salanga@quarles.com -- Kevin D. Quigley -- kevin.quigley@quarles.com -- at Quarles & Brady LLP; Nathan M. Jenkins -- at Jenkins Law Firm Dr. Gordon Pedersen, Connie Hollstein, Sherman Smith, Ruth Smith, William "Butch" Swaby, Felix Gudino, Glen Overton, Adam Paul Green, Jeremy Reynolds, Derrick Winkel, Paul Engemann, Defendants, represented by Douglas R. Rands -- at Rands, South & Gardner Paula Pritchard, Kathleen Robbins, Ian Murray, Judy Murray, Sandy Chambers,Kerry Dean, Defendants, represented by Lesley B. Miller - - lmiller@kcnvlaw.com -- at Kaempfer Crowell NETFLIX INC: "Ziolkowski" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES ZIOLKOWSKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NETFLIX, INC., REED HASTINGS, and DAVID WELLS, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01070-HSG (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2017), is a securities class action arising from material misstatements and omissions by Defendants regarding Netflix's media streaming business, particularly, Netflix's price increase and its brutal impact on subscriber growth, in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Netflix, Inc. is predominantly a streaming content provider that allows customers who pay a monthly subscription fee to instantly watch popular television shows and movies through the Internet. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP 912 Cole Street #251 San Francisco, CA 94117 Phone: 504-455-1400 Fax: 504-455-1498 E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com - and - Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. David J. Harris, Jr., Esq. Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 238-1333 Fax: (619) 238-5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com djh@classactionlaw.com trk@classactionlaw.com NEW FOOD: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "De Los Santos" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Andres De Los Santos, Domingo Franco, Jose Ramon Lopez, Angel Rodriguez and Ramon Santos filed an appeal from the District Court's minute order dated January 24, 2017, in the lawsuit styled De Los Santos v. New Food Corp., Case No. 14-cv-4541, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are chain of supermarkets owned and operated by Jason Ferreira and Jose Ferreira. The appellate case is captioned as De Los Santos v. New Food Corp., Case No. 17-539, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Andres De Los Santos, Domingo Franco, Angel Rodriguez, Ramon Santos, and Jose Ramon Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Steven John Moser, Esq. STEVEN J. MOSER P.C. 3 School Street, Suite 207B Glen Cove, NY 11542 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 Facsimile: (516) 882-5420 E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com Defendants-Appellees New Food Corp., DBA Foodtown; JCA Food Corp., DBA Metfood; JJC Food Corp., DBA Foodtown; SWF Food Corp., DBA Foodtown; Mother Food Corp., DBA Foodtown; Jason Ferreira; and Jose Ferreira are represented by: Gregory S. Lisi, Esq. FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO, COHN & TERRANA, LLP The Omni 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard Uniondale, NY 11553 Telephone: (516) 248-1700 Facsimile: (516) 248-1729 E-mail: glisi@forchellilaw.com NEW RESIDENTIAL: Chester County Employees' Bid to Reargue Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Delaware Court of Chancery denied the motion for reargument filed by the Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund. The Company said: "On May 22, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company, Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund, filed a class action and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery purportedly on behalf of all stockholders and the Company, titled Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund v. New Residential Investment Corp., et al., C.A. No. 11058-VCMR. On October 30, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The lawsuit names the Company, our directors, our Manager, Fortress and Fortress Operating Entity I LP as defendants, and alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company, our directors, our Manager, Fortress and Fortress Operating Entity I LP in connection with the HLSS Acquisition. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment, among other things, as to the applicability of Article Twelfth of the Company's Certificate of Incorporation and as to the validity of the release of claims of the Company's stockholders related to the termination of the HLSS Initial Merger Agreement. The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory relief, equitable relief and damages." "On December 11, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was heard by the court on June 14, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the court issued an opinion dismissing without prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty claims and declaratory judgment claims, except for the claim relating to the applicability of Article Twelfth. On October 14, 2016, plaintiff moved to reargue the Court's dismissal opinion, and defendants filed an opposition to the motion for reargument on October 28, 2016. On December 1, 2016, the court denied the motion for reargument." New Residential Investment Corp. is a Delaware corporation that was formed as a limited liability company in September 2011. The Company is a publicly traded real estate investment trust primarily focused on opportunistically investing in, and actively managing, investments related to residential real estate. NEW RESIDENTIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities lawsuit involving a subsidiary of New Residential Investment Corp. remains pending in Florida, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempted company ("HLSS") and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. On April 2, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, which is referred to as the "Securities Action." On April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison counsel were appointed in the Securities Action. On November 9, 2015, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On January 27, 2016, the Securities Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and given the Index No. 16-CV-60165 (S.D. Fla.). The Securities Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President and Chief Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial Officer James E. Lauter. The Securities Action asserts causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on certain public disclosures made by HLSS relating to its relationship with Ocwen and HLSS's risk management and internal controls. More specifically, the consolidated class action complaint alleges that a series of statements in HLSS's disclosures were materially false and misleading, including statements about (i) Ocwen's servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS's contingencies and legal proceedings; (iii) its risk management and internal controls; and (iv) certain related party transactions. The consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege that HLSS's financial statements for the years ended 2012 and 2013, and the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and misleading based on HLSS's August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead plaintiffs in the Securities Action also allege that HLSS misled investors by failing to disclose, among other things, information regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen's business practices. Lead plaintiffs seek money damages under the Exchange Act in an amount to be proven at trial and reasonable costs, expenses, and fees. On February 11, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Securities Action in its entirety. On June 6, 2016, all allegations except those regarding certain related party transactions were dismissed. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the Securities Action. New Residential Investment Corp. is a Delaware corporation that was formed as a limited liability company in September 2011. The Company is a publicly traded real estate investment trust primarily focused on opportunistically investing in, and actively managing, investments related to residential real estate. NEW RESIDENTIAL: Says Walter and Ditech Facing Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- New Residential Investment Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Ditech Financial LLC and Walter Investment Management Corp. are involved in certain litigation, including putative class actions, over alleged violations of various laws. On August 8, 2016, New Residential Mortgage LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and a licensed mortgage servicer, entered into a flow and bulk agreement for the purchase and sale of mortgage servicing rights (the "Walter Purchase Agreement") with Ditech Financial LLC ("Ditech"), a subsidiary of Walter Investment Management Corp. Pursuant to the Walter Purchase Agreement, NRM agreed to (i) purchase the mortgage servicing rights ("MSRs") and related Servicer Advances with respect to a pool of existing Fannie Mae residential mortgage loans with a total UPB of approximately $32.3 billion (the "Walter Existing MSRs") for a purchase price of approximately $211.4 million and $27.4 million, respectively, subject to certain adjustments set forth in the Walter Purchase Agreement, and (ii) provide ongoing daily pricing to Ditech for the purchase of MSRs from Ditech relating to new residential mortgage loans originated or purchased by Ditech on a flow basis and pooled into Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or, if applicable, Ginnie Mae securities (the "Walter Flow MSRs"). Walter is involved in litigation, including putative class actions, and other legal proceedings concerning, among other things, lender-placed insurance, private mortgage insurance, bankruptcy practices, employment practices, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and other federal and state laws and statutes. The Company says the outcome of all of Walter's regulatory matters and other legal proceedings is uncertain, and it is possible that adverse results in such proceedings (which could include restitution, penalties, punitive damages and injunctive relief affecting Walter's business practices) and the terms of any settlements of such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on Walter's reputation, business, prospects, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. New Residential Investment Corp. is a Delaware corporation that was formed as a limited liability company in September 2011. The Company is a publicly traded real estate investment trust primarily focused on opportunistically investing in, and actively managing, investments related to residential real estate. NEW YORK TIMES: Final Hearing Next Month on Labor Case Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Times Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, that a final hearing is scheduled to take place in April 2017 for the approval of its settlement resolving a class action lawsuit. The Company has been involved in class action litigation brought on behalf of individuals who, from 2006 to 2011, delivered newspapers at NEMG T&G, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company ("T&G"). T&G was a part of the New England Media Group, which the Company sold in 2013. The plaintiffs asserted several claims against T&G, including a challenge to their classification as independent contractors, and sought unspecified damages. In December 2016, the Company reached a settlement with respect to the claims. This settlement remains subject to court approval, and a final hearing is scheduled to take place in April 2017. As a result of the settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $3.7 million in the fourth quarter within discontinued operations. The New York Times Company was incorporated on August 26, 1896, under the laws of the State of New York. The Company and its consolidated subsidiaries are a global media organization focused on creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news and information. The Company includes newspapers, print and digital products and investments. NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: Deceives Policyholders, "McClendon" Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIETTA MCCLENDON, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant (M.D. Tenn., March 1, 2017), is a class action that claims Defendant deceives its policyholders and beneficiaries by breaking promises made to them and cheats them out of money it owes them. In particular, NCM allegedly cheated its policyholders and beneficiaries in two ways: first, it charged interest rates on the policy loans that were higher than the promised interest rates; and second, when policyholders made payments towards paying back their policy loans, NCM pocketed the money but did not apply it to reduce the loan balance. North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Company is an insurance company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Annika K. Martin, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 150 Fourth Avenue, North, Suite 1650 Nashville, TN 37219-2423 Phone: (615) 313-9000 Fax: (615) 355-9592 E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com akmartin@lchb.com - and - J. Bradley Ponder, Esq. Luke Montgomery, Esq. MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC 2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 201-0303 Fax: (205) 208-9443 E-mail: brad@montgomeryponder.com luke@montgomeryponder.com NPAS INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Fausz" Partially Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Charles R. Simpson, III, of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted in part NPAS, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, ELLA J. FAUSZ, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. NPAS, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00145-CRS-DW (W.D. Ky.). Plaintiff Ella Fausz, individually and behalf of a putative class of similarly situated persons, sued NPAS, Inc. asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. Fausz contends that NPAS's February 2014 letter contained false, deceptive, or misleading representations and thus violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(11) because NPAS failed to identify itself or a debt collector or provide that any information it obtained would be used for a debt collection purpose (Count I). She seeks actual damages and statutory damages up to one-thousand dollars per 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k for each member of the putative class. Fausz also seeks an injunction preventing NPAS from violating the FDCPA, and attorney fees and costs. NPAS sent Fausz a letter to collect the unpaid patient account balance. As Fausz did not pay her medical debt by December 2012, the hospital recorded in its account ledger that it estimated it would receive $0.00 in revenue on the debt. NPAS now moves for summary judgment on Fausz's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). NPAS argues that the Court should grant its motion for summary judgment for four reasons. First, NPAS asserts that Fausz lacks Article III standing to assert the action because she has not suffered a concrete injury in fact. Second, NPAS contends that it is not a debt collector because Fausz's account was not in default when it sent her the February 2014 letter and thus that it could not violate the FDCPA as a matter of law. Third, NPAS asserts that Fausz's claims fail as a matter of law because she has not pled and cannot show that it made any misrepresentations in the February 2014 letter that materially impacted her decision-making. Fourth and finally, NPAS argues that, even if it acted as a debt collector subject to the requirements of the FDCPA, it may claim the bona fide error defense. In his Memorandum Opinion dated February 22, 2017, available at https://is.gd/ewuOLg from Leagle.com, Judge Simpson granted NPAS's motion for summary judgment on Count I because there is not a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether NPAS's omissions in its letter were material and denied as to Count II because Fausz's remaining claim is inappropriate at the time since there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether NPAS may claim the protections of the bona fide error defense. The matter will be referred to the magistrate judge for scheduling. Ella J. Fausz is represented by Zachary L. Taylor, Esq. -- ztaylro@taylorlawcenter.com -- and -- Nina B. Couch, Esq. -- ncouch@taylorlawcenter.com -- COUCH LAW, PLLC NPAS, Inc, is represented by John P. Boyle, Esq. -- John.Boyle@lawmoss.com -- and -- Micheal S. Poncin, Esq. -- Mike.Poncin@lawmoss.com -- MOSS & BARNETT, PA -- Kent Wicker, Esq. -- kwicker@dbllaw.com -- DRESSMAN BENZINGER LAVELLE PSC OBESITY RESEARCH: Bozic Appeals Transfer of Case to E.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Regina Bozic filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to correct Judge Cynthia Bashant's alleged erroneous order dated January 31, 2017, granting the Defendants' motion to stay the action titled REGINA BOZIC, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. HENNY DEN UIJL, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00733-BAS-MDD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego, or alternatively, transfer the action to the Eastern District of California for consolidation with an earlier-filed action under the "first-to-file" rule. The Respondent is the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13, 2017, the case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00222-MCE-EFB to the proceeding. The appellate case is captioned as Regina Bozic v. USDC-CASD, Case No. 17-70614, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner REGINA BOZIC, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Michael Houchin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumersadvocates.com Real Parties in Interest HENNY DEN UIJL, an individual; SANDRA DEN UIJL, an individual; BRYAN CORLETT, an individual; OBESITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, a California Limited Liability Company; CONTINUITY PRODUCTS, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; NATIONAL WEIGHT LOSS INSTITUTE, a California Limited Liability Company; ZODIAC FOUNDATION, a California Limited Liability Company; and INNOTRAC CORPORATION, a Georgia Corporation, are represented by: Hazel Mae Pangan, Esq. Patrick Mulkern, Esq. Richard Paul Sybert, Esq. GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 101 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 696-6700 E-mail: hpangan@gordonrees.com pmulkern@gordonrees.com rsybert@gordonrees.com OCWEN LOAN: Ala. Court Refuses to Entertain Couple's FDCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, RICHARD A. YEAGER and DEANA J. YEAGER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:14cv117-MHT (M.D. Ala.), Judge Myron H. Thompson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama rejected a magistrate judge's recommendation that Ocwen's renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. Plaintiffs Richard A. Yeager and Deana J. Yeager bring claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692, et seq., against defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC for failing to provide a notice of debt validation by the deadline prescribed by the statute. They claim that Ocwen Loan violated their statutory procedural right to timely receipt of the validation notice required by the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a). They allege that the company did not provide all of the information in the validation notice within five days of the company's initial contact on March 15, 2013. The Yeagers' claim rests solely on the contention that the company failed to comply with the validation-notice requirement until 13 days after the statutory deadline. Ocwen Loan filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) and 12(h)(2)-(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the Yeagers lacked standing because the validation notice to which they say they were entitled was in fact sent to them by the company the day after it acquired servicing rights to their loan. On the magistrate judge's recommendation, the court denied that motion "with leave to Ocwen Loan to renew its standing arguments at any time after the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 S.Ct. 1892 (2015). After the Supreme Court released its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), Ocwen Loan renewed its motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the issue of standing, the magistrate judge recommended denying the motion. Ocwen Loan objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation arguing that the Yeagers have failed to satisfy the `concreteness' aspect of the injury requirement. In an Opinion dated February 22, 2017, available at https://is.gd/EEIcUA from Leagle.com, Judge Thompson found that the Yeagers have failed to establish they suffered a concrete injury sufficient to sustain Article III standing, accordingly, the court may not entertain their FDCPA suit. Ocwen Loan's renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. Richard A. Yeager is represented by Earl Price Underwood, Jr., Esq. -- epunderwood@alalaw.com -- and -- Kenneth Joseph Riemer, Esq. -- jkriemer@alalaw.com -- UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, PC Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is represented by Michael R. Pennington, Esq. -- mpennington@bradley.com -- and -- Robert J. Campbell, Esq. -- rcampbell@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP OPTUM360 LLC: "Mauthe" Files Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OPTUM360, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00945-JLS (E.D. Pa., March 1, 2017), alleges that Defendant sent Plaintiff at least one advertisement by facsimile offering goods, products, or services available for purchase from optumcoding.com or optum360coding.com, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Optum360, LLC operates a platform to provide healthcare services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Phone: (248) 562-1320 Fax: (888) 769-1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 658-5500 Fax: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Rabanal" Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy --------------------------------------------------------------- GEOMAR RABANAL, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC.; P.F. CHANG'S III, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RC17851208 (Cal. Super., Alameda County, March 1, 2017), arises out of the policy and practice of Defendants to record and/or monitor, without the consent of all parties, consumer initiated telephone calls made or routed to Defendants' toll-free customer service telephone numbers without warning or disclosing to inbound callers that their calls might be recorded or monitored in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. P.F. Chang's is a restaurant chain with locations all across the country. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Rachael G. Jung, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street Sar. Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415)543-1305 Fax: (415) 543-7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com riung@kellergrovcr.com - and - Scot Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916)447-0100 Fax: (916) 933-5533 E-mail: swampadero@bernsteinlaw.com PACIFIC WEST: Faces "Applebaum" Suit for Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------------- ARNOLD N. APPLEBAUM, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC WEST CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; ANDREW B. CALHOUN IV, an individual; and MILLS, POTOCZAK & COMPANY, PC, as Trustee of the PWCG TRUST; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 652 409 (Cal., Super., March 1, 2017), alleges violations of the California Corporations Code in the sale of fractionalized interests in universal life insurance policies, or "life settlements," by Defendants. Pacific West and Calhoun sell investments structured around when life insurance policies "mature" (when the insured dies) and the benefits are paid. Allegedly, Pacific West and Calhoun have, among other things, misled investors about, inter alia, their likely annual returns, the risks that investors would have to make future, out-of-pocket payments to keep the policies in force to protect their principal, the amount of expected future premiums, the data utilized in choosing investments, and that the investments had nothing to do with Pacific West's efforts and fortunes. The PWCG Trust purchases life insurance policies in its name as instructed by Pacific West and issues interests in those policies to investors solicited by Pacific West. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Esq. Kevin Gamamik, Esq. FOLEY, BEZEK, BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP 15 West Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 962-9495 Fax: (805) 962-0722 E-mail: tfoley@foleybezek.com kgamarnik@foleybezek.com - and - Richard E. Donahoo, Esq. Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq. DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC 440 West First Street, Suite 101 Tustin, CA 92780 Phone: (714) 953-1010 Fax: (714) 953-1777 E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com skokonas@donahoo.com PANERA BREAD: Defends "Friscia" Suit in New Jersey District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Panera Bread Company is defending itself against a purported class action lawsuit filed by Jacqueline Friscia in New Jersey, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2016. On June 26, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company by Jacqueline Friscia, an employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law on behalf of the plaintiff and all similarly situated non-exempt assistant managers. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. The Company says it has retained counsel to represent the Company in this matter and believes that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations asserted in the case. Panera Bread Company is a national bakery-cafe concept with 2,036 Company-owned and franchise-operated bakery-cafe locations in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Ontario, Canada. PANERA BREAD: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suits Win Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------ Panera Bread Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2016, that the terms and conditions of the parties' settlement agreement have received preliminary approval from California Superior Courts. On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. In addition, several other purported class action lawsuits based on similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed against the subsidiary: on October 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino by Jazmin Dabney, a former subsidiary employee; on November 3, 2015 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California by Clara Manchester, a former subsidiary employee; and on November 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County of Yolo by Tanner Maginnis, a current subsidiary assistant manager. On May 6, 2016, the parties of all four pending cases reached a Memorandum of Understanding For Three Settlement Classes regarding the class action lawsuits. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount to purported class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, Private Attorney General Act payments, and costs of administering the settlement. The Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of the parties' settlement agreement have received preliminary approval from California Superior Courts. The Company says it maintained an appropriate accrual in accrued expenses for this settlement in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 27, 2016. Panera Bread Company is a national bakery-cafe concept with 2,036 Company-owned and franchise-operated bakery-cafe locations in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Ontario, Canada. PENNSYLVANIA: PHEAA Faces "Salvatore" Class Suit in M.D. Penn. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency a/k/a PHEAA a/k/a FedLoan Servicing. The case is captioned Danielle Salvatore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency a/k/a PHEAA a/k/a FedLoan Servicing, Case No. 1:17-cv-00385-YK (M.D. Penn., March 1, 2017). Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency is the quasi- governmental agency that administers several State higher education student financial aid programs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@prwlegal.com - and - Marion K. Munley, Esq. MUNLEY, MUNLEY & CARTWRIGHT The Forum Plaza 227 Penn Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7401 E-mail: mmunley@munley.com PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Fisher and Fish industry Subclass Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Andrews et al., the Plaintiffs v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv- 04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification, and denying motions to strike, the Court: 1. certifies the fisher and fish industry subclass, but denies Plaintiffs' certification for the property owner, oil industry, and tourism industry subclasses because Plaintiffs have not shown that those classes satisfy the Rule's predominance requirement; 2. denies Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, given that the Court has found that a single injunction cannot be crafted to meet the class's varying needs; and 3. appoints counsel at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Keller Rohrback, L.L.P., Cappello & Noel, and Audet & Partners as lead counsel for the fisheries subclass. The litigation arises from an oil spill that occurred at Refugio State Beach near Santa Barbara County on May 19, 2015. In the aftermath of the oil spill, and as early as June 1, 2015, Plaintiffs started to file class action complaints with the Court. On November 9, 2015, the Court consolidated many of the cases into this lead case, Andrews et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. et al., and administratively closed all other related cases. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c51YhrAV PRICELINE GROUP: "Laquer" Suit Transferred to Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Richard Laquer, individually and as Class Representative of all similarly situated citizens who transacted business with The Priceline Group Inc. v. Priceline Group, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-00159, was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The District Court Clerk assigned 3:17-mc-00034-MPS to the proceeding. Priceline Group, Inc. is a provider of travel and related online services to consumers and local partners through six primary brands: Booking.com, Priceline.com, agoda.com, KAYAK, Rentalcars.com and OpenTable. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anton J. Rupert, Esq. Darren M. Tawwater, Esq. Geren Steiner, Esq. Larry A. Tawwater, Esq. TAWWATER LAW FIRM PLLC One Tsquared Place 14001 Quail Springs Parkway Oklahoma City, OK 73134 Telephone: (405) 607-1495 Facsimile: (405) 607-1450 E-mail: tony@rupertsteinerlaw.com dtaw@tawlaw.com geren@rupertsteinerlaw.com lat@tawlaw.com PROVIDENCE HEALTH: "Pineda" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- GUS PINEDA, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES, a Washington nonprofit; PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California nonprofit; PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES FOUNDATION/SAN FERNANDO AND SANTA CLARITA VALLEYS SERVICE AREAS, a California nonprofit; DOES 1-10, business entities; DOES 11-20, individuals; and DOES 21-30, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 652 459 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017), alleges failure to pay wages promptly after termination; failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements; failure to provide uninterrupted rest periods; failure to provide uninterrupted meal periods; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages, liquidated damages for failure to pay minimum wages; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair business practices. Providence Health System is a not-for-profit organization which includes hospitals, clinics, senior services, supportive housing. The purported Class Members consist of all non-exempt/hourly current and former employees, including "Security Officers" or similar job titles to perform security and monitoring tasks at Defendants' health care facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody D. Knight, Esq. Chantal Mccoy, Esq. Mahru Madjidi, Esq. KNIGHT EMPLOYMENT LAW 11500 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (310) 444-3039 Fax: (310) 870-7207 E-mail: CodvKnight@KnightEmplovmentLaw.com ChantalMcCov@KnightEmplovmentLaw.com MMadiidi@KnightEmplovmentLaw.com QUEMETCO INC: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Alleging Non-Payment of Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- SALVADOR C. RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. QUEMETCO, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 652 619 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017), alleges that Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation of the California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding off time worked. Defendants, QUEMETCO, INC., a California corporation, provides battery recycling services. Plaintiff is a maintenance mechanic. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone (310) 553-3600 Fax: (310) 553-3603 R & S QUALITY: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ahmed Eikhamissy, individually and R & S Quality Construction Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01155 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2017), seeks recovery of alleged unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid overtime hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendant is a construction company. Plaintiff was employed as a construction worker. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 39 Broadway Suite 1530 New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212 344 9022 Fax: 212 344 0301 RELIABLE COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Diana Kleckley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Reliable Collection Agency, Inc. and S. Robert Cygan, Esq., Case No. 2:17-cv-01442-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., March 1, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants own and operate a debt collection agency in New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. LAWRENCE HERSH, ATTORNEY AT LAW 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com RELIANCE TRUST: Class Certification Status Hearing Set for May 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Gary Feinerman entered an order in the lawsuit entitled Altavia Matthews Plaintiff, v. Reliance Trust Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04773 (N.D. Ill.), continuing status hearing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification May 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 27, 2017, Defendant's motion to suspend class certification briefing pending additional discovery is granted. The Defendant shall respond by May 22, 2017 and reply is due by June 6, 2017. The Defendant's motion for leave to file document under seal is granted. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0RHctQ1o RELIANT CAPITAL: Joint Class Certification Bid Filed in "Etienne" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ESTHER ETIENNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RELIANT CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02359-WFK- JO (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties will jointly move the Court for an Order certifying the case to proceed as a class action, and granting preliminary approval of the settlement, on behalf of the following class: "all consumers nationwide who were sent collection letters and/or notices from Defendant attempting to collect an obligation owed to or allegedly owed to Touro College which state an amount due on which interest or other charges were accruing, but which failed to state that interest or other charges may be accruing on that amount". The Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging that RCS violated the FDCPA by sending consumers written collection communications that misrepresented the amount of the debt. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tom2ATCS The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-Mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com The Defendant is represented by: Arthur Sanders, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C. 30 South Main Street New City, NY 10956 RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dawson" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Kapidra Dawson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Retrieval-Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 1:17-cv-01119 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Retrieval-Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. operates a debt collection firm in Elmsford, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit v. American Tobacco Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct. Orleans Parish, La., filed 1997), the plaintiff brought a class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of a putative class of Louisiana residents who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, allegedly suffered injury as a result of exposure to ETS from cigarettes manufactured by defendants. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2016, the court entered an order staying the case, including all discovery, pending the completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit v. A C & S Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Parsons v. A C & S, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed 1998), the plaintiff brought a class action against asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of a putative class of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiff seeks to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages individually for her purported injuries and an unspecified amount for the class in compensatory and punitive damages. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North America and Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all defendants who filed for bankruptcy. The case remains pending against the other defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco, but it has long been dormant. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit v. American Tobacco Dormant ----------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct., Jackson County, Mo., filed 1998), the plaintiff filed a class action against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of a putative class of Missouri tobacco product users and purchasers who allegedly became addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. There is currently no activity in this case. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lorillard Defending 78 Filter Cases ------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016, Lorillard Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a defendant in 78 Filter Cases. Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. As of December 31, 2016, Lorillard Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a defendant in 78 Filter Cases. Since January 1, 2013, Lorillard Tobacco and RJR Tobacco have paid, or have reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately $47.6 million in settlements to resolve 175 claims asserted in Filter Cases. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter material. On September 13, 2013, the jury in a Filter Case, DeLisle v. A. W. Chesterton Co. (Cir. Ct. Broward County, Fla., filed 2012), found for the plaintiffs on the negligence and strict liability claims; awarded the plaintiffs $8 million in compensatory damages; and found Lorillard Tobacco 22% at fault, Hollingsworth & Vose 22% at fault, and the other defendants 56% at fault. Punitive damages were not at issue. On November 6, 2013, the trial court entered final judgment against Lorillard Tobacco in the amount of $3.52 million. Lorillard Tobacco appealed to the Fourth DCA. On September 14, 2016, the Fourth DCA ordered a new trial because the trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony and concluded that the $8 million compensatory damages award should have been remitted. The plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Fourth DCA on November 9, 2016. The plaintiffs filed an application for discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court on December 6, 2016. The Florida Supreme Court has issued a stay of the proceedings in that court pending its disposition of a pending application for review in another case. The matter has not been stayed in the trial court, and post-appeal motions are pending to vacate the final judgment and discharge the surety bonds. The plaintiffs have filed both a stay motion in the Florida Supreme Court and a motion to recall the mandate in the Fourth DCA, which motions are presently pending. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Bourassa" Class Action in Canada Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that seven putative class actions have been filed against various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in Canadian provincial courts. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege claims based on fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability, and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust enrichment, market share liability, and violations of various trade practices and competition statutes. The plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of proposed classes of persons allegedly suffering from tobacco- related disease as a result of smoking defendants' cigarettes and seek recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, recovery of government health-care benefits, interest, and costs. Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current or former affiliates in these actions. Plaintiffs' counsel have been actively pursuing only the case, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., pending in British Columbia, at this time. The seven putative class action lawsuits are: * In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Jud. Centre, filed 2009), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased or smoked defendants' cigarettes and suffered, or currently suffer, from tobacco-related disease, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. * In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of Queen's Bench, Alberta Jud. Centre of Calgary - filed 2009), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased or smoked defendants' cigarettes and suffered, or currently suffer, from tobacco-related disease, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. * In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Sup. Ct. Nova Scotia, Halifax, filed 2009), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of persons who purchased or smoked defendants' cigarettes for the period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt-out period as set by the court and suffered, or currently suffer, from tobacco-related disease, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health- care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. * In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of Queen's Bench, Jud. Centre of Regina, filed 2009), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who were alive on July 10, 2009, and suffered, or currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan court. * In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (Sup. Ct. of British Columbia, Victoria Registry, filed 2010), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or currently suffer, from chronic respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. The plaintiff filed a motion for certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in support in August 2013. An amended claim was filed in December 2014. * In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (Sup. Ct. of British Columbia, Victoria Registry, filed 2010), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or currently suffer, from heart disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. * In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ontario Super. Ct. of Justice, St. Catherines, filed 2012), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: May 2017 Trial for 5 West Virginia IPIC Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in the West Virginia IPIC, five cases were selected to be the first claims tried, and they were tentatively scheduled to be tried beginning on May 1, 2017. In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases (Cir. Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed beginning in 1999), is a series of roughly 1,200 individual cases asserting claims against Philip Morris USA Inc., Lorillard Tobacco, RJR Tobacco, B&W and The American Tobacco Company based on alleged personal injuries. The cases were consolidated for a Phase I trial on various defense conduct issues, to be followed in Phase II by individual trials of remaining claims. On May 15, 2013, the Phase I jury found that defendants' cigarettes were not defectively designed; defendants' cigarettes were not defective due to a failure to warn before July 1, 1969; defendants were not negligent, did not breach warranties, and did not engage in conduct warranting punitive damages; and defendants' ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964 and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct. In November 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the verdict. On June 8, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari. On the same date, the trial court issued an order finding that only 30 plaintiffs are alleged to have smoked ventilated filter cigarettes in the relevant period. On October 9, 2015, the trial court outlined the procedures for resolving the claims of the 30 Phase II plaintiffs, which claims will focus on whether plaintiffs blocked cigarette vents and, if so, whether blocking proximately caused their alleged injuries. Five cases were selected to be the first claims tried, and they were tentatively scheduled to be tried beginning on May 1, 2017. In June 2016, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel and required the plaintiffs to file additional expert disclosures necessary to attempt to proceed with their claims. The court will set a revised discovery and trial schedule after the expert disclosures are tested for admissibility, and it pushed the tentative trial date to May 2018. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Bid to Dismiss Smokeless Tobacco Claims Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a trial court has denied the defendants' motion to dismiss claims as abandoned in the Smokeless Tobacco Litigation. In 1999, when the IPIC litigation was first filed, the named defendants included manufacturers of smokeless products, including Conwood Company, LLC (now known as American Snuff Company, LLC) and others. When the IPIC plaintiffs filed discovery responses in IPIC listing the products they used, 41 of them listed a smokeless product. Six of those 41 plaintiffs listed a brand owned by American Snuff (Levi Garrett). Seven listed a brand (Beechnut) once manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco (now manufactured by National Tobacco Company). On December 3, 2001, the IPIC court severed all smokeless claims and all smokeless defendants from IPIC. There was no order staying the case during IPIC. In the ensuing 15 years, the plaintiffs in the severed cases did nothing to pursue the cases. The plaintiffs now seek to activate various smokeless claims, including certain plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed in IPIC after severance of the smokeless claims and whose claims are not counted in the 41 claims described. After a status conference on July 11, 2016, the court set a schedule for briefing the issue of whether the severed claims should be dismissed because of the prolonged inaction in the case. On January 25, 2017, the trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss those claims as abandoned. The plaintiffs are now free to move forward with their claims. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a decision is pending in the appeal in the ERISA Litigation. In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds. In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in September 2008. A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. On February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could have made the same decision and thus the plan's loss was not caused by the procedural prudence which the court found to have existed. On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, referred to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district court applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants did not cause any loss to the plan, determined the test was whether a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision and remanded the case back to the district court to apply the "would have standard." On February 18, 2016, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that the defendants have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a fiduciary acting with prudence would have divested the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the time and in the manner that the defendants did. On March 17, 2016, the plaintiff appealed arguing that the district court erred in finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have divested the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the same time and in the same manner as RJR. Briefing before the Fourth Circuit is complete. Oral argument occurred on January 25, 2017. A decision is pending. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: BAT's Motion for Rehearing En Banc Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in a shareholder litigation, an appeals court has denied British American Tobacco's motion for rehearing en banc of the Court of Appeals' opinion. RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors and BAT have been named as defendants in a putative class-action lawsuit captioned Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, et al., brought in North Carolina state court, referred to as the North Carolina Action, by a person identifying himself as a shareholder of RAI. The North Carolina Action was initiated on August 8, 2014, and an amended complaint was filed on November 7, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the RAI board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to RAI shareholders by approving the BAT Share Purchase and the sharing of technology with BAT, as well as that there were various conflicts of interest in the transaction. More specifically, the amended complaint alleges that (1) RAI aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by its board of directors and (2) BAT was a controlling shareholder of RAI and, as a consequence, owed other RAI shareholders fiduciary duties in connection with the BAT Share Purchase. The North Carolina Action seeks injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of costs, among other remedies. On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the North Carolina Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and votes scheduled for January 28, 2015. RAI and the RAI board of directors timely opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was scheduled to occur on January 16, 2015. RAI believed that the North Carolina Action was without merit and that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January 17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that lawsuit. The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release the disclosure claims which were or could have been asserted in the North Carolina Action. In consideration of the partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which it did on January 20, 2015. On August 4, 2015, the trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure claims. The plaintiff appealed. On February 17, 2016, the trial court approved the partial settlement, including the plaintiff's unopposed request for $415,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. The partial settlement did not affect the consideration paid to Lorillard shareholders in connection with the Lorillard Merger. On December 20, 2016, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claims against RAI and RAI's Board of Directors on the grounds that the plaintiff could not state a direct claim against RAI's Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duties. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the claims against BAT. On January 4, 2017, BAT filed a motion for rehearing en banc of the Court of Appeals' opinion, which was denied on February 2, 2017. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: "Curiel" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO J. CURIEL as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC 652703 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017), alleges that Defendants' alleged willful failure to timely pay Plaintiff and the members of the Waiting Time Penalty Class their earned wages upon separation from employment results in a continued payment of wages up to thirty days from the time the wages were due in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendant manufactures, installs, and services automotive windshields and glass. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (424) 292-2350 Fax: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com SAFEWAY INC: "Altamirano" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- LINDA ALTAMIRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY, INC., and DOE ONE through and including DOE ONE HUNDRED, Defendant, Case No. RG 17851392 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda, March 2, 2017), accuses Defendants of failing to pay Plaintiff with wages upon termination; and knowingly and intentionally failing to timely furnish the proper itemized wage statements under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act and the California Labor Code. Safeway Inc. operates as a food and drug retailer in the United States. The Plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of non-exempt employees of Defendant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 N. Central Ave. 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 123.962.3777 Fax: 323.962.3004 E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Pronstroller" Sues Over Washing Machines -------------------------------------------------------------- TRACY PRONSTROLLER, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., THE HOME DEPOT, INC., LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., BEST BUY CO., INC., SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00163 (W.D. Tex., March 1, 2017), was brought over the recalled Samsung home washing machines of model number WA56H9000AP/A2. Plaintiff in the case seeks relief in the form of: (1) an injunction against Defendants from any further sales of the Recalled Washing Machines and to take such other remedial action as may otherwise be requested herein; and (2) money damages to adequately and reasonably compensate owners of the Recalled Washing Machines who have, through no fault of their own, purchased defective and dangerous Samsung washing machines. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics and digital products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 2926 Maple Ave. Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Appeals Decision in "Mendis" Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Schneider National Carriers, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Balapuwaduge Mendis, et al. v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00144-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was initiated in the King County Superior Court (Case No. 14-2- 34534-8 SEA) and was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle). The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. The appellate case is captioned as Balapuwaduge Mendis, et al. v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc., Case No. 17-80025, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs-Respondents BALAPUWADUGE MENDIS, On his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MICHAEL FEOLA, on their own behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated; ANDREA ARBAUGH, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated; and EDWARD ASH, On his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Erika L. Nusser, Esq. Toby James Marshall, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 350-3528 E-mail: enusser@tmdwlaw.com tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com - and - Hardeep Rekhi, Esq. REKHI & WOLK, P.S. 529 Warren Avenue N., Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: (206) 388-5887 Facsimile: (206) 577-3924 E-mail: hardeep@rekhiwolk.com Defendant-Petitioner SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., a Nevada Corporation, is represented by: Matthew Kane, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com - and - Katherine Grace Mims Crocker, Esq. Brandon Hasbrouck, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 800 East Canal Street Gateway Plaza Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-4747 Facsimile: (804) 698-2184 E-mail: kcrocker@mcguirewoods.com - and - Michael R. Phillips, Esq. Brian E. Spang, Esq. Joel H. Spitz, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 750-8902 Facsimile: (312) 920-6181 E-mail: mphillips@mcguirewoods.com bspang@mcguirewoods.com jspitz@mcguirewoods.com SEI INVESTMENTS: Stanford Trust-Related Suits Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Several lawsuits arising from a subsidiary's provision of back- office services to Stanford Trust Company remain pending, according to SEI Investments Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts; four of the cases also name SEI Private Trust Company as a defendant. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank so as to be a "seller" of the certificates of deposit for purposes of primary liability under the Louisiana Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable under that statute for sales of certificates of deposit made by Stanford Trust Company. Two of the actions also include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. The procedural status of the seven cases varies. The Lillie case, filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is procedurally the most advanced of the cases. SEI and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and permitting the claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go forward. On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the Northern District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford Entities Securities Litigation ("the Stanford MDL"), is pending. On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations pled by plaintiffs. On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs still pending before the District Court in Lillie are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being "all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice of the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class members on October 4, 2016. On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana, alleging claims essentially the same as those in Lillie. In January 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the proceeding to the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL. SEI's response to the Complaint is expected to be filed during the first quarter of 2017. Another one of the cases, filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension, also was removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL. The schedule for responding to that Complaint has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in two of the cases remaining in the Parish of East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC indefinite extensions to respond to the petitions. In the two additional cases, filed in East Baton Rouge and brought by the same counsel who filed the Lillie action, virtually all of the litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no material activity has taken place since that date. While the outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the lawsuits. SEI Investments Company is a leading global provider of investment processing, investment management and investment operations solutions. The Company helps corporations, financial institutions, financial advisors, institutional investors and ultra-high-net-worth families create and manage wealth by providing comprehensive, innovative, investment and investment- business solutions. As of December 31, 2016, through its subsidiaries and partnerships in which the company has a significant interest, SEI manages or administers $751.1 billion in hedge, private equity, mutual fund and pooled or separately managed assets, including $283.1 billion in assets under management and $468.0 billion in client assets under administration. SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bivens" Suit Over RESPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Steven Bivens, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv- 00760-ODE-WEJ (N.D. Ga., March 2, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. operates a loan servicing company headquartered in West Valley City, Utah. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wayne Charles, Esq. WAYNE CHARLES, PC 395 Highgrove Drive Fayetteville, GA 30215 Telephone: (770) 241-8936 E-mail: wc115@bellsouth.net SHIRE PLC: Sao Paulo's Class Claims in ELAPRASE Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals in Sao Paulo issued a final decision on merit in favor of Shire plc and dismissed claims in a class action relating to ELAPRASE, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On September 24, 2014, Shire's Brazilian affiliate, Shire Farmaceutica Brasil Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the State of Sao Paulo and in which the Brazilian Public Attorney's office has intervened alleging that Shire is obligated to provide certain medical care including ELAPRASE for an indefinite period at no cost to patients who participated in ELAPRASE clinical trials in Brazil, and seeking recoupment to the Brazilian government for amounts paid on behalf of these patients to date, and moral damages associated with these claims. On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and dismissed all the claims under the class action, which was appealed. On February 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals in Sao Paulo issued the final decision on merit in favor of Shire and dismissed all the claims under the class action. The final decision can be appealed through the Superior Court of Justice or through the Supreme Court; however, the Company says, the likelihood of one of those courts accepting the appeal is remote. Shire plc is a global biotechnology company focused on serving people with rare diseases and other highly specialized conditions. SODEXO INC: "Piveronas" Lawsuit Alleges FCRA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT PIVERONAS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. SODEXO, INC., Defendant, Case No. GD-17-003369 (Pa. Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, March 2, 2017), alleges that Defendant Sodexo, Inc. has routinely and systematically violated the basic privacy protections of customers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to make required "clear, conspicuous and accurate" disclosures to consumers before procuring their consumer reports for employment purposes and in using those unlawfully obtained consumer reports to preclude consumers from employment. Sodexo Inc. provides outsourced food and facilities management services. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Pietz, Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 429 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-281-8400 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFF: Faces "Jacobson" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Southern California Off Track Wagering, Inc., Northern California Off Track Wagering, Inc., and Does 1-25. The case is captioned Jeffery Jacobson, Linda Dixon, and Don Barth, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Southern California Off Track Wagering, Inc., Northern California Off Track Wagering, Inc., and Does 1-25, Case No. RG17851150 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 1, 2017). The Defendants own and operate off track betting facilities in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD 1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 337-1001 Facsimile: (510) 337-1023 E-mail: drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net SOUTHERN CO: Cook County Court Refuses to Certify Customers Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Southern Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on February 8, 2017, a state court judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Southern Company Gas' motion for summary judgment in the putative class action lawsuit pending in Cook County, Illinois. Northern Illinois Gas Company Gas and Nicor Energy Services Company, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Southern Company Gas, and Nicor Inc. are defendants in a putative class action initially filed in 2011 in state court in Cook County, Illinois. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the customers who purchased the Gas Line Comfort Guard product from Nicor Energy Services Company and variously allege that the marketing, sale, and billing of the Gas Line Comfort Guard product violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, constituting common law fraud and resulting in unjust enrichment of these entities. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the classes they purport to represent, actual and punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. On February 8, 2017, the judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Southern Company Gas' motion for summary judgment. The Company says the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time. Southern Company was incorporated under the laws of Delaware on November 9, 1945. Southern Company is registered and qualified to do business under the laws of Georgia and is qualified to do business as a foreign corporation under the laws of Alabama. Southern Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power, each of which is an operating public utility company. The traditional electric operating companies supply electric service in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi. Southern Company owns all of the common stock of Southern Power Company, which is also an operating public utility company. Southern Power constructs, acquires, owns, and manages generation assets, including renewable energy projects, and sells electricity at market-based rates in the wholesale market. SOUTHERN CO: Defends Securities Class Suit by Monroe County ERS --------------------------------------------------------------- The Southern Company is defending itself and certain of its subsidiaries against a purported class action lawsuit initiated by the Monroe County Employees' Retirement System, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On January 20, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint was filed against Southern Company and certain of its and Mississippi Power's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, by Monroe County Employees' Retirement System on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of Southern Company's common stock between April 25, 2012 and October 29, 2013. The complaint alleges that Southern Company and certain of its and Mississippi Power's officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Kemper IGCC in violation of certain provisions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and litigation costs and attorneys' fees. Southern Company believes this legal challenge has no merit; however, an adverse outcome in this proceeding could have an impact on Southern Company's results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. Southern Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter, and the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time. Southern Company was incorporated under the laws of Delaware on November 9, 1945. Southern Company is registered and qualified to do business under the laws of Georgia and is qualified to do business as a foreign corporation under the laws of Alabama. Southern Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power, each of which is an operating public utility company. The traditional electric operating companies supply electric service in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi. Southern Company owns all of the common stock of Southern Power Company, which is also an operating public utility company. Southern Power constructs, acquires, owns, and manages generation assets, including renewable energy projects, and sells electricity at market-based rates in the wholesale market. SOUTHERN CO: Has Filed for Writ of Certiorari in Georgia Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Southern Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court in connection with the purported class action lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of Fulton County. In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the Company in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that the Company's collection in rates of municipal franchise fees (all of which are remitted to municipalities) exceeded the amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain state tort law claims. On November 16, 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's previous dismissal of the case and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Company has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court. The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims have no merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company says the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time. Southern Company was incorporated under the laws of Delaware on November 9, 1945. Southern Company is registered and qualified to do business under the laws of Georgia and is qualified to do business as a foreign corporation under the laws of Alabama. Southern Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power, each of which is an operating public utility company. The traditional electric operating companies supply electric service in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi. Southern Company owns all of the common stock of Southern Power Company, which is also an operating public utility company. Southern Power constructs, acquires, owns, and manages generation assets, including renewable energy projects, and sells electricity at market-based rates in the wholesale market. SPIRIT CRUISE: Midnight Party Cruise Passengers File Crash Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press, citing The Baltimore Sun, reports that more than two dozen passengers on a midnight party cruise on a ship that crashed into a pier in Baltimore last summer are suing the vessel's company. A total of 28 people have filed claims, ranging from $5,000 to $1 million, against Spirit Cruises LLC following the Aug. 28 crash. Coast Guard investigators said about 400 people were aboard the Spirit of Baltimore when the ship's captain dozed off and the vessel struck the pier at Henderson Wharf Marina. Two passengers were hospitalized with chest and back pain. Court records show other passengers suffered injuries to their necks, backs and knees. An attorney for Spirit Cruises declined to comment on the case. Officials say the captain was fired. STANDARD PARKING: "Huda" Suit Alleges Violation of WARN Act ----------------------------------------------------------- SARAH HUDA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs, v. STANDARD PARKING CORPORATION IL, a Delaware corporation, SP PLUS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 8522218 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 1, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs who are former non-exempt, employees were not provided sufficient notice of termination, and were terminated on February 28,2017, without payment of all wages due, and were not provided accurate wages, in violation of the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Defendant SP Plus is in the automobile parking management services business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond A. Gallenberg, Esq. Rosa Vigil-Gallenberg, Esq. GALLENBERG PC 800 S Victory Blvd., Suite 203 Burbank CA 91502 Phone: (818)237-5267 Fax: (818)330-5266 E-mail: ray@gallenberglaw.com E-mail: rosa@gallenberglaw.com STAR HOME: "Paradysz" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN PARADYSZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. STAR HOME HEALTH, INC. and CLEMENTINA IKWUEZUNMA, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00655 (S.D. Tex., March 1, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked a significant number of hours, including overtime hours, but Defendants did not pay Plaintiff or other nurses overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants provide in home health care services. Plaintiff is a licensed vocation nurse. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Sullivan, Esq. OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP 712 Main Street, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 401-3555 Fax: (713) 401-3547 E-mail: ed@osattorneys.com - and - Mark J. Oberti, Esq. OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP 712 Main Street, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 401-3555 Fax: (713) 401-3547 E-mail: mark@osattorneys.com - and - Clayton D. Craighead, Esq. THE CRAIGHEAD LAW FIRM, PLLC 440 Louisiana, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (832) 798-1184 Fax: (832) 553-7261 E-mail: clayton.craighead@thetxlawfirm.com STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Summary Ruling in "Vaquero" Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, reversed the trial court's judgment and directed to vacate the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned RICARDO BERMUDEZ VAQUERO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE LLC, Defendant and Respondent, No. B269657 (Cal. Ct. App.). Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, is a retail furniture company doing business in California as Ashley Furniture HomeStores. From 2009 through March 29, 2014, Stoneledge compensated sales associates pursuant to the Sales Associate Commission Compensation Pay Agreement. After a training period during which new employees received $12.01 per hour, Stoneledge paid sales associates on a commission basis. If a sales associate failed to earn minimum pay of at least $12.01 per hour in commissions in any pay period, Stoneledge paid the associate a draw against future advanced commissions. The commission agreement did not provide separate compensation for any non-selling time, such as time spent in meetings, on certain types of training, and during rest periods. Effective March 30, 2014, Stoneledge implemented a new commission agreement that pays sales associates a base hourly wage of $10 for all hours worked and sales associates can earn various types of incentive payments based on a percentage of sales. Under the new agreement, no portion of a sales associate's base pay is deducted from or credited against incentive payments. Ricardo Bermudez Vaquero and Robert Schaefer worked as sales associates for Stoneledge. After termination of their employment, Vaquero and Schaefer filed a class action complaint alleging that Stoneledge's commission pay plan did not comply with California law. Vaquero and Schaefer filed a putative class action alleging causes of action for failure to provide paid rest periods under Labor Code section 226.7 and the applicable wage order, failure to pay all wages owed upon termination under section 203, unfair business practices, and declaratory relief. Stoneledge filed a motion for summary judgment or in the alternative for adjudication, arguing that the rest period claim failed as a matter of law because Stoneledge paid its sales associates a guaranteed minimum for all hours worked, including rest periods. With respect to the claim for violation of section 203, Stoneledge argued a claim for rest period premium pay is not an action to recover wages under section 203 and, in any event, Stoneledge did not willfully fail to pay wages, as required for a violation of section 203. Stoneledge argued that, because the class claims for failure to pay for rest periods and for wages owed at termination failed as a matter of law, the derivative claim for unfair business practices also failed. The trial court granted Stoneledge's motion and entered judgment for Stoneledge and without examining the merits of the remaining claims, concluded they all failed because they were derivative of the rest period claim. Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and directed the trial court to vacate its order granting Stoneledge's motion for summary judgment and enter a new order denying the motion for summary judgment and motion for summary adjudication on the cause of action for violation of section 226.7. The Court of Appeals pointed out that the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication on the plaintiffs' cause of action for violation of section 226.7., since Stoneledge did not separately compensate sales associates for rest periods as required by California law. The trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs' other causes of action failed because the section 226.7 claim failed was also erroneous, the Court of Appeals held. The trial court is directed to rule on the merits of Stoneledge's motion for summary adjudication on the plaintiffs' other causes of action. A copy of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven's opinion penned by Justice John L. Segal, dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/aqcgci from Leagle.com. Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Jeff Geraci -- jgeraci@ckslaw.com -- at Cohelan Khoury & Singer; Raphael A. Katri -- rkatri@SoCalLaborLawyers.com -- at Law Offices of Raphael A. Katri; Kevin T. Barnes -- Gregg Lander -- at Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, for Plaintiffs and Appellants J. Kevin Lilly -- klilly@littler.com -- Scott M. Lidman -- slidman@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, for Defendant and Respondent The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven panel consists of Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss and Justices John L. Segal and Keeny. SWIFT FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Scott" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason Scott, an individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Swift Financial d/b/a Swift Capital, Case No. 1:17-cv-00032-PMW (D. Utah, February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Swift Financial operates a direct financial services company which provides small business banking products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather M. Sneddon, Esq. John A. Bluth, Esq. Nathan P. Hatch, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W Broadway Ste 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 E-mail: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com jbluth@aklawfirm.com nhatch@aklawfirm.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: May 15 Class Cert. Hearing in "Mckinsty" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned RAFAEL MCKINSTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, AND DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-01317-VAP-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 15, 2017 at 2:00 P.M. for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all California based current and former truck drivers employed by Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC who worked for at least four consecutive hours in California, and who were compensated via a piece-rate compensation system, at any time during the period from April 16, 2011 through the conclusion of this action"; and 2. appointing Rafael McKinstry as representative of the Plaintiff class and his counsel of record, Michael Malk, Esq., as counsel for the Plaintiff class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kR1ZyFqe The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Malk, Esq. 1180 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE, SUITE 302 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 203 0016 Facsimile: (310) 499 5210 E-mail: mm@malklawfirm.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: May 15 Class Cert. Hearing in "Mares" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SADASHIV MARES, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZON, LLC, a business entity, form unknown; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07920-VAP-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 15, 2017, at 2:00 pm for an order: 1. certifying Plaintiff's claims for an additional hour of pay as a class action on behalf of a class of: "all California residents who (a) were employed by Defendants as truck drivers at any time on or after 27, 2011 and (b) were paid on a piece rate basis." 2. certifying Plaintiff Sasashiv Mares as the representative of the class; and 3. appointing Joseph Clapp, Esq. Aiman-Smith & Marcy, as class counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H27E4tQS The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Clapp, Esq. AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150 Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone: (510) 590 7115 Facsimile: (510) 562 6830 E-mail: jc@asmlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: John D. Ellis, Esq. Babak G. Yousefzadeh, Esq. Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Patricia M. Jeng, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Fl. San Francsico, CA 94111 TGI FRIDAYS: "Calabrese" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ADAM CALABRESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. TGI FRIDAYS INC., et al., the Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-00868-JCJ (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order: 1. granting conditional collective certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2. authorizing issuance of Notice to all members of the putative Collective Class in accordance with Hoffman-La Roche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989); and 3. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff of all names and addresses of members of the collective class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dp5QedMm The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com rgray@cwglaw.com - and - Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq. Demetri A. Braynin, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364 5030 Facsimile: (215) 364 5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com dbraynin@kalraylaw.com TOTAL WEALTH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Calderon" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Albert Calderon, Susan Antonucci, Chistopher Bryant, Jolie Cartier, Donald Clugston, James Matthew Console, Choyunn Cornell, Amy Durschlag, Michael Durschlag, Inga Gleason, Laurence Gleason, David Green, Anthony N. Leonard, Kimberly A. McKinney, Kathleen Mellor, Richard Mellor, John Paterick, George Rasor, Alon Saado, Michael Sitto, Gloria Templin, David Kip Willett, Stephen Wood, Jack Wynne, Tuula Wynne, Donn Yover and Jodel Yover filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Albert Calderon, et al. v. Total Wealth Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01632-BAS-NLS. The appellate case is captioned as Albert Calderon, et al. v. Andesite Finance Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-55217, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego (Case No. 37-02014-00015682), and was removed to the District Court. The Plaintiffs allege that they were "investment advisory clients" of Defendant Total Wealth Management and were caused to invest funds to be placed in various investments and assets created or maintained by various defendants other than Defendant First Trust Company of Onaga ("FTCO") based on misrepresentations regarding various non-FTCO-defendants' expertise, the assets and investments, and how Plaintiffs' funds were being managed. The Plaintiffs allege that the class consists of "all TWM's investment advisory clients whose funds were placed in or passed through TWM, ACOF or the series of unregistered fund of funds referred to as the 'Altus Portfolio Series' who suffered damages." The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening brief of Appellants Albert Calderon, Susan Antonucci, Chistopher Bryant, Jolie Cartier, Donald Clugston, James Matthew Console, Choyunn Cornell, Amy Durschlag, Michael Durschlag, Inga Gleason, Laurence Gleason, David Green, Anthony N. Leonard, Kimberly A. McKinney, Kathleen Mellor, Richard Mellor, John Paterick, George Rasor, Alon Saado, Michael Sitto, Gloria Templin, David Kip Willett, Stephen Wood, Jack Wynne, Tuula Wynne, Donn Yover and Jodel Yover is due on May 30, 2017; -- Answering brief of Appellees Andesite Finance Company, LLC, Andesite Mortgage Pool, LLC, Mark Dionne, LJL Funding, LLC, LJL Secured High Yield Income Fund, LLC, Susan Lakosil and SoCal Accounting, Inc. is due on June 27, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants Albert Calderon, Susan Antonucci, Chistopher Bryant, Jolie Cartier, Donald Clugston, James Matthew Console, Choyunn Cornell, Amy Durschlag, Michael Durschlag, Inga Gleason, Laurence Gleason, David Green, Anthony N. Leonard, Kimberly A. McKinney, Kathleen Mellor, Richard Mellor, John Paterick, George Rasor, Alon Saado, Michael Sitto, Gloria Templin, David Kip Willett, Stephen Wood, Jack Wynne, Tuula Wynne, Donn Yover and Jodel Yover are represented by: Paul Michael Jonna, Esq. Charles S. LiMandri, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. LIMANDRI, APC P.O. Box 9120 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Telephone: (858) 759-9930 Facsimile: (858) 759-9938 E-mail: pjonna@limandri.com cslimandri@limandri.com - and - Michael Aguirre, Esq. Maria C. Severson, Esq. AGUIRRE, MORRIS & SEVERSON LLP 501 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 876-5364 Facsimile: (619) 876-5368 E-mail: maguirre@amslawyers.com mseverson@amslawyers.com Defendants-Appellees ANDESITE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company; ANDESITE MORTGAGE POOL, LLC, a limited liability company; LJL FUNDING, LLC, a limited liability company; LJL SECURED HIGH YIELD INCOME FUND, LLC, a limited liability company; and SUSAN LAKOSIL are represented by: Christina Lenore Geraci, Esq. GERACI LAW FIRM 2302 Martin Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 379-2600 Facsimile: (949) 379-2610 E-mail: Christina@geracilawfirm.com Defendants-Appellees MARK DIONNE, an accountant, and SOCAL ACCOUNTING, INC., a California corporation, are represented by: Samuel Strohbehn, Esq. Jamie M. Ritterbeck, Esq. KLINEDINST P.C. 501 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101-3584 Telephone: (619) 239-8131 Facsimile: (619) 238-8707 E-mail: sstrohbehn@klinedinstlaw.com jritterbeck@klinedinstlaw.com TOWN SPORTS: Has Paid Settlement Amount to Resolve "Labbe" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it paid in the fourth quarter of 2016 the settlement amount in connection with its agreement resolving the class action lawsuit commenced by James Labbe. On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff, commenced a purported class action in New York State court on behalf of personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe was seeking unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping obligations. The Company completed settlement negotiations, pursuant to which TSI, LLC will pay its trainers the aggregate sum of $165,000 in exchange for full releases. The settlement agreement has been executed by the parties, has been approved by the court and the class, and the Company paid the settlement amount in the fourth quarter of 2016. Based on the number of clubs, Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., is one of the leading owners and operators of fitness clubs in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States and one of the largest fitness club owners and operators in the U.S. As of December 31, 2016, the Company, through its subsidiaries, operated 150 fitness clubs. The Company's clubs collectively served approximately 544,000 members as of Dec. 31. The Company owned and operated a total of 102 clubs under the "New York Sports Clubs" brand name within a 120-mile radius of New York City as of December 31, including 35 locations in Manhattan where the Company is the largest fitness club owner and operator. TWILIO INC: Discovery in "Flowers" Suit to Continue Until August ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in the lawsuit initiated by Angela Flowers has already begun, and will continue until August 2017, Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company's products permit the interception, recording and disclosure of communications at a customer's request and are in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. On May 27, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint. On August 2, 2016, the court issued an order denying the demurrer in part and granted it in part, with leave to amend by August 18, 2016 to address any claims under California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff opted not to amend the complaint. Discovery has already begun, and will continue until August 2017, when the plaintiff must file their motion for class certification. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits and believes it has meritorious defenses to each. It is too early in these matters to reasonably predict the probability of the outcomes or to estimate ranges of possible losses. Headquartered in San Francisco, California, Twilio Inc. was incorporated in the state of Delaware in 2008. The Company provides a Cloud Communications Platform that enables developers to build, scale and operate communications within software applications through the cloud primarily as a pay-as-you-go service. The Company's product offerings fit three basic categories: Programmable Voice, Programmable Messaging and Programmable Video. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Singh" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jaswinder Singh filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jaswinder Singh v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 3-16-cv-03044, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was initiated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County (Case no. MON-L-16-01464), and was later removed to the District Court. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. Uber Technologies provides e-commerce services for car hire. The Company offers a Web site that allows users to request a car for hire from any mobile device text message. The appellate case is captioned as Jaswinder Singh v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 17-1397, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant JASWINDER SINGH, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel A. Horowitz, Esq. Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685 7420 Facsimile: (856) 685 7417 E-mail: dhorowitz@swartz-legal.com mmiller@swartz-legal.com Defendant-Appellee UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. is represented by: Paul Calvin Lantis, Esq. William J. Simmons, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Three Parkway, Suite 1400 1601 Cherry Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 402 3073 Facsimile: (267) 276 7776 E-mail: plantis@littler.com wsimmons@littler.com UBS COMMERCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock's California Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit filed by the Blackrock plaintiffs in California, UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C1 said in its Form 10-D filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the monthly distribution period from January 13, 2017, to February 10, 2017, that ... Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain residential mortgage-backed security trusts. On March 25, 2016, Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others (the "Blackrock plaintiffs") filed a state court action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action. On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer, providing plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike. Plaintiffs did not further amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing. UBS COMMERCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock's New York Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit filed by the Blackrock plaintiffs in New York, according to UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C1's February 22, 2017, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from January 13, 2017, to February 10, 2017. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain residential mortgage-backed security trusts. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA"), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by pooling and servicing agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court. In the amended complaint in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim (except as noted below) and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed. On January 26, 2017 the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty. On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties' joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed. On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs' representation and warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers. The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint only as to the first point above. Plaintiffs must inform the court by February 16, 2017 whether they plan to amend. Discovery is ongoing. UNDER ARMOUR: "Stenger" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- BEN STENGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC. (Serve On: The Corporation Trust Incorporated, 351 West Camden Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201), KEVIN A. PLANK (c/o Under Armour, Inc., 1020 Hull Street, 3rd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21230) AND LAWRENCE P. MOLLOY (c/o Under Armour, Inc., 1020 Hull Street, 3rd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21230), Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00611-GLR (D. Md., March 2, 2017), alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies in violation of the U.S. Securities Act. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that one of its largest wholesale retailers, The Sports Authority, was facing bankruptcy and, as a result of its high inventory levels at The Sports Authority, Under Armour was at risk of not meeting its revenue and profit margins. Under Armour, Inc. develops, markets and distributes branded performance apparel, footwear and accessories for men, women and youth. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 333-2121 Email: nporritt@zlk.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: (203) 992-4523 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: shopkins@zlk.com UNITED STATES: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Combat-Related Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Simon A. Soto, on behalf of himself and all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The United States of America, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00051 (S.D. Tex., March 2, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and the putative class -- former members of the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard who were awarded Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) due to their combat-related disabilities -- have been denied the full amount of retroactive CRSC to which they are entitled to due to Defendant's nationwide and unlawful policy to pay no more than six years of Retroactive Payment Cap. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tracy LeRoy, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6000 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-495-4510 Fax: 713-495-7799 - and - Barton F. Stichman, Esq. Thomas A. Moore, Esq. NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM 1600 K Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006-2833 Phone: 202-621-5687 - and - Gerard D. Kelly, Esq. Emily M. Wexler, Esq. Jeff Carroll, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-853-7000 UNITED STATES: Hawaii Files Amended Trump Travel Bank Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Sinco Kelleher and Caleb Jones, writing for The Associated Press, report that Hawaii has filed an amended federal lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's revised travel ban. The amended suit was filed on March 7, a day after Trump signed an executive order for the revised ban that will restrict travel by people from six Muslim-majority countries. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson on March 8 granted the state's request to continue with the case and set a hearing for March 15 - - the day before Trump's revised ban is due to go into effect. The judge will also hear arguments from the state on a motion to impose a temporary restraining order that would prevent the ban from taking place until the lawsuit has been resolved. The lawsuit says the revised travel ban will harm the Muslim population of Hawaii as well as schools and employers. The state's previous suit had been on hold while a nationwide injunction on the initial ban remained in place. Requests for comment from Justice Department lawyers were not immediately returned. The president's new order bars new visas for people from the six countries and temporarily shuts down America's refugee program, affecting would-be visitors and immigrants from Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya. Hawaii's complaint says it is suing to protect its residents, businesses and schools, as well as its "sovereignty against illegal actions of President Donald J. Trump and the federal government." Imam Ismail Elshikh of the Muslim Association of Hawaii became a plaintiff in the state's initial lawsuit. His mother-in-law is a Syrian national living in that country. Trump's "executive order inflicts a grave injury on Muslims in Hawaii, including Dr. Elshikh, his family, and members of his mosque," the lawsuit states. Hawaii has hired a Washington, D.C., law firm to help with the lawsuit. Josh Wisch, a spokesman for the state attorney general's office, has said the firm is giving the state a 50 percent discount on its services. "This new executive order is nothing more than Muslim Ban 2.0," Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said in a statement on March 6. "Under the pretense of national security, it still targets immigrants and refugees." VILLE PLATTE: Loses Exception of Prescription Arguments ------------------------------------------------------- In the appeals case captioned, GLORIA VALLARE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. VILLE PLATTE MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, AND LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE AND INDEMNITY CO, d/b/a BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, Case No. 16-863, Consolidated with No. 16-953 (La. App.), the Louisiana Court of Appeals denied Ville Platte Medical Center, LLC, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana's applications for supervisory writs. Gloria Vallare, insured through Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana (Blue Cross), was involved in a car accident and received treatment for injuries received therein at Acadian Medical Center in Eunice, Louisiana. The bill for her treatment was $3,424.00. Instead of billing her insurance carrier, Ville Platte Medical Center, LLC (VPMC) sent a notice of lien to Farm Bureau Insurance, the insurer of the other party involved in the car accident. Pursuant to the lien, Farm Bureau issued a check made payable to Vallare and the hospital. Vallare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed suit against VPMC for violations of Louisiana Laws Revised Statutes 22:1874. Blue Cross was also made a defendant, and the claims against it were based on allegations that it did not enforce its provider agreement with VPMC. Vallare took the position that the hospital was in violation of its agreement with Blue Cross by demanding an amount in excess of the contracted reimbursement rate set forth in the provider agreement. The Court certified a class of "All persons from January 1, 2004, to June 18, 2013, who received covered health care services as defined by La. R.S. 22:1874(8) provided by Eunice Community Medical Center/Acadian Medical Center and all persons since April 1, 2010, who received covered health care services as defined by La.R.S. 22:1874(8) from VILLE PLATTE MEDICAL CENTER and its predecessors VPMC; and at the time of the covered health care services had Health Insurance Coverage as defined by La. R.S. 22:1874(18); and (b) from whom VPMC attempted to recover any amount in excess of the contracted reimbursement rate as defined by La. R.S. 22:1874(7) and/or who paid VPMC in any manner including but not limited to liability insurance proceeds and/or from proceeds of a settlement or judgment, an amount in excess of the contracted reimbursement rate either directly and/or through their attorney and/or through a liability insurance carrier and/or any third party." This class is composed of the subclasses of "(a) Recover subclass: A subclass of persons who received covered health care services, and who had health insurance coverage, and from whom VPMC attempted to recover any amount in excess of the contracted reimbursement rate from January 1, 2004, through June 18, 2013; and (b) Payor subclass: A subclass of persons who received covered health care services, and who had health insurance coverage, and/or who paid VPMC in any manner including but not limited to liability insurance proceeds and/or from proceeds of a settlement or judgment, an amount in excess of the contracted reimbursement rate either directly and/or through their attorney and/or through a liability insurance carrier and/or any third party, from January 1, 2004, through June 18, 2013." VPMC appealed the class certification. The trial court's ruling certifying the class was affirmed on appeal, but the class definition was amended to delete the subclasses. On remand, BCBS filed an exception of prescription while VPMC filed an exception of prescription and a motion for summary judgment. Both exceptions of prescription were overruled, and the motion for summary judgment was denied following a hearing on September 22, 2016. A written judgment was signed on October 5, 2016. BCBS and VPMC are now before the court seeking supervisory review of the trial court's rulings. In an Order dated February 22, 2017 available at https://is.gd/sxbyaY from Leagle.com, the Louisiana Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not err in denying VPMC's exception of prescription because the proper prescriptive period is ten years and that the claims have not prescribed and that the trial court did not err in denying VPMC's motion for summary judgment because it is not possible to determine whether VPMC attempted to circumvent the Balance Billing Act by alleging that the medical lien statute authorized it to collect more than the contracted rate from Farm Bureau Insurance. As to BCBS, the Court found that the trial court did not err in denying BCBS's exception of prescription because Vallare's claims and those of the class are contractual in nature and subject to a ten-year prescriptive period. Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Co., d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana is represented by Charles A. O'Brien, III, Esq. -- COBrien@gfmlaw.com -- GORDON, FOURNARIS & MAMMARELLA, PA Ville Platte Medical Center, LLC is represented by Kurt S. Blankenship, Esq. -- kblankenship@bluewilliams.com -- Robert I. Baudouin, Esq. -- rbaudouin@bluewilliams.com -- and -- Amanda B. Bensabat, Esq. -- abensabat@bluewilliams.com -- BLUE WILLIAMS, L.L.P. Gloria Vallare is represented by J. Clemille Simon, Esq. -- jsimon@simonlawpc.com -- SIMON LAW OFFICES -- and -- Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq. Jason Z. Landry, Esq. MARTZELL & BICKFORD 338 Lafayette St. New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel:(504) 581-9065 -- and -- J. Lee Hoffoss, Jr., Esq. Claude P. Devall, Esq. Donald W. McKnight, Esq. HOFFOSS DEVALL, LLC 517 W College St, Lake Charles, LA 70605 Tel: (337)433-2053 VOLKSWAGEN AG: Pleads Guilty in Emissions-Cheating Scandal ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Volkswagen pleaded guilty on March 10 to three criminal counts for a scheme to get around U.S. pollution rules. If a federal judge agrees to the Justice Department's sentencing recommendation, the scandal will end up costing the company more than $20 billion in the U.S. alone, not counting lost sales and brand value. With the March 10 plea, VW has resolved a number of big issues in an effort to clean up the corporate mess. That includes a plan to compensate car owners and either buy back or fix their cars, as well as a settlement with dealers. But some hurdles still remain before the German automaker can say the scandal is behind it. Criminal settlement The German automaker has agreed to pay $2.8 billion in criminal penalties and another $1.5 billion in civil fines for a total of $4.3 billion. U.S. District Judge Sean Cox will sentence the company on April 21. $15 billion settlement, 2-liter DIESELs VW previously agreed to spend up to $10 billion compensating owners of roughly 475,000 Volkswagens and Audi vehicles with 2- liter diesel engines -- the bulk of the vehicles caught in the emissions-cheating scandal. VW will buy back cars or fix them. In either case, VW will pay owners $5,100 to $10,000 for their trouble, depending on the age of the car and whether it was in the owner's possession on or before Sept. 18, 2015. VW also will buy out a lease if done through Volkswagen Credit. Owners have until Sept. 1, 2018, to seek a buyback, but many have already applied. VW has agreed to pay attorney fees and costs, including up to $324 million in fees and $8.5 million in out-of-pocket costs. The settlement also includes $2.9 billion for environmental mitigation and an additional $2 billion to promote zero-emissions vehicles. $1.2 BILLION Settlement, 3-liter DIESELs VW has agreed to pay at least $1.2 billion to compensate the owners of roughly 78,000 Volkswagens with 3-liter engines. The amount could rise to $4 billion under certain circumstances. $1.2 BILLION SETTLEMENT, DEALERS VW also has agreed to pay dealers $1.2 billion to compensate them for damage caused by the cheating scandal. What's left? Judge Cox will consider a presentence report before deciding to agree to the $4.3 billion criminal penalty. At least 300 U.S. owners didn't accept the civil settlement, so their lawsuits will proceed toward trial. The company also faces lawsuits from several states. Seven VW employees, including five now in Germany, face criminal charges in the case, and the U.S. investigation is continuing. Two employees were arrested in the U.S. A law firm has finished an internal investigation for VW, and the company faces an investor lawsuit. Volkswagen also faces legal issues in Germany. Prosecutors in Braunschweig are conducting a probe into possible criminal misconduct. Meanwhile investors are seeking 8.2 billion euros ($8.8 billion), arguing that the company did not disclose in a timely way that it was facing potentially costly action from the U.S. regulators. Volkswagen says the investor suit is without merit. Consumer lawsuits have been filed in Munich seeking compensation. WAH MING: Faces "Luna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Hernandez Luna, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Wah Ming, Inc. d/b/a Ming Wok, Chi Yam Tong, Danny Tong, and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:17-cv-01150 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant located at 5346 Trail Lake Dr, Fort Worth, TX 76133. Roberto Hernandez Luna is a pro se plaintiff. WELLS FARGO: Faces "Perez" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM PEREZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00424-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal., March 1, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the alleged illegal actions of defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in negligently and/or willfully or knowingly contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. provides personal, small business, and commercial banking services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 222-7429 Fax: (866) 431-3292 E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com WELLS FARGO: "Volcy" Lawsuit Seeks Injunction of Foreclosures ------------------------------------------------------------- Edna Volcy, Fritz G. Fequiere, each Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all New York residents similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman & Gordon LLP, Wells Fargo Bank, Defendant, (N.Y. Sup., County of Nassau, March 1, 2017), seeks, inter alia, the injunction of foreclosure and Power of Sale proceedings, for themselves and eviction proceedings, for themselves and other similarly situated, based upon Defendant's alleged routine of failing to comply with statutory prerequisites to foreclosure under New York law. WELLS FARGO is a federally chartered bank. The Plaintiff is represented by: Damon Marcus, Esq. c/o 586 Macon Place Uniondale, NY (11553) Phone: (321)-287-1824 WELLS FARGO: Faces "Shadid" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Clarice M. Shadid and Lawrence D., Shadid, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01079 (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2017), was brought for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the alleged illegal actions of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, in negligently and knowingly contacting Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' cellular telephones to collect debts, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. provides personal, small business, and commercial banking services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com WESTAR ENERGY: Merger-Related Suits Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------- Westar Energy, Inc., continues to defend against a class action lawsuit and derivative lawsuit related to the company's merger with Great Plains Energy, Westar said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On May 29, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Great Plains Energy Incorporated, providing for the merger of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Great Plains Energy with and into Westar Energy, with Westar Energy surviving as a wholly- owned subsidiary of Great Plains Energy. At the closing of the merger, the Company's shareholders will receive cash and shares of Great Plains Energy. Following the announcement of the merger agreement, two putative class action complaints (which were consolidated and superseded by a consolidated complaint) and one putative derivative complaint challenging the merger were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. The consolidated putative class action complaint, filed on July 25, 2016, is captioned In re Westar Energy, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 2016-CV-000457. This complaint names as defendants Westar Energy, the members of the Company's board of directors and Great Plains Energy. The complaint asserts that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the proposed merger. It also asserts that Westar Energy and Great Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) the merger consideration deprives the Company's shareholders of fair consideration for their shares, (ii) the merger agreement contains deal protection provisions that unfairly favor Great Plains Energy and discourage third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals, (iii) the disclosures are misleading and/or omit material information necessary for the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision whether to vote in favor of the proposed transaction and (iv) if the proposed transaction is consummated, certain of the Company's directors and officers stand to receive significant benefits. The complaint seeks, among other remedies, (i) injunctive relief enjoining the merger, (ii) rescission of the merger agreement or rescissory damages, (iii) a directive to members of the Company's board of directors to account for all damages caused by them as a result of their breaches of their fiduciary duties and (iv) an award for costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. The putative derivative complaint, filed on July 5, 2016, and as amended on August 25, 2016, is captioned Braunstein v. Chandler et al., Case No. 2016-CV-000502. This putative derivative action names as defendants the members of the Company's board of directors, Great Plains Energy and a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy, with Westar Energy named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the proposed merger. It also asserts that Great Plains Energy and a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The derivative complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the Company's board of directors failed to obtain the best possible price for the Company's shareholders because of a flawed process that discouraged third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals, and that the disclosures are false or misleading due to the omission of certain information. The complaint seeks, among other remedies, (i) a direction that the director defendants exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, (ii) a declaration that the proposed transaction was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable, (iii) rescission of the merger agreement, (iv) the imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff, on behalf of the Company, upon any benefits improperly received by the named defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct, (v) award for costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and (vi) the imposition of an injunction against the defendants and others from consummating the merger on the terms proposed. On September 21, 2016, the parties in the consolidated putative class action and the putative derivative complaint independently agreed to withdraw requests for injunctive relief and otherwise agreed in principle to dismissing the actions with prejudice and to providing releases. In exchange, the parties in the putative derivative complaint agreed that the Company would make supplemental disclosures to the shareholders, which disclosures were made in a Form 8-K filed on September 21, 2016, and the parties in the consolidated putative class action agreed that the Company would (i) make the disclosures in the Form 8-K filed on September 21, 2016, and (ii) grant waivers of the prohibition on requesting a waiver of the standstill provisions in the confidentiality and standstill agreements executed by the bidders that participated in the Company's sale process. These agreements do not constitute any admission by any of the defendants as to the merits of any claims. In the future the parties will prepare and present to the court for approval Stipulations of Settlement that will, if accepted by the court, settle the actions in their entirety. Westar Energy, Inc., is the largest electric utility in Kansas. The Company provides electric generation, transmission and distribution services to approximately 704,000 customers in Kansas. Westar Energy provides these services in central and northeastern Kansas, including the cities of Topeka, Lawrence, Manhattan, Salina and Hutchinson. Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Westar Energy's wholly-owned subsidiary, provides these services in south-central and southeastern Kansas, including the city of Wichita. WESTERN UNION: Awaits Rulings on Pending Motions in "Pincus" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company awaits rulings in the motions currently pending in the putative class action lawsuit filed by Caryn Pincus against Speedpay, Inc., according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who made a payment through Speedpay's bill payment services using a credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the complaint through the date of class certification. On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1) under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2) for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying Speedpay's motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the amended complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a second amended complaint that revised her factual allegations, but added no new claims. On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On May 20, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims. On June 7, 2016, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On June 17, 2016, Speedpay filed a reply brief in support of the motion. On October 28, 2016, Pincus filed a motion seeking class certification. The motion seeks the certification of a class consisting of "All (i) persons in Florida (ii) who paid Speedpay, Inc. a fee for using Speedpay, Inc.'s electronic payment services (iii) during the five year period prior to the filing of the complaint in this action through the present." Pincus also filed a motion to file her motion under seal. On November 4, 2016, the Court denied Pincus' motion for class certification without prejudice and motion to seal and ordered her to file a new motion that redacts proprietary and private information. Later that day, Pincus filed a redacted version of the motion. On November 7, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for summary judgment on Pincus' remaining claims. On December 15, 2016, Speedpay filed an opposition to Pincus' class certification motion. The same day, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's summary judgment motion and requested summary judgment on her individual and class claims. On January 12, 2017, Speedpay filed a reply in support of its summary judgment motion and Pincus filed a reply in support of her class certification motion. As this action is in a preliminary stage, the Company says it is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and payment services, providing people and businesses with fast, reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments around the world. The Company was incorporated in Delaware as a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Data Corporation on February 17, 2006, and on September 29, 2006, First Data distributed all of its money transfer and consumer payments businesses and its interest in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off"). WESTERN UNION: Cannot Estimate Loss in Tennille and Smet Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it is unable to provide a more precise estimate of the range of possible loss over the issue of escheatment relating to its settlement of the lawsuits initiated by James P. Tennille and Robert P. Smet in Colorado. The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company, both of which are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint was served on the Company on April 6, 2010. On September 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory relief claim and WUFSI as a defendant. On April 25, 2011, the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI also moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. On November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed the decision. On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the District Court proceedings pending their appeal. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying the class and granting final approval to the settlement. Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount of the settlement proceeds, as well as all of the class counsel's fees, administrative fees and other expenses, would be paid from the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds, which are included within "Settlement obligations" in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets. These fees and other expenses are currently estimated to be approximately $50 million. During the final approval hearing, the Court overruled objections to the settlement that had been filed by several class members. In July 2013, two of those class members filed notices of appeal. On May 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to overrule the objections filed by the two class members who appealed. On January 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari that were filed by the two class members who appealed. On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement agreement and the Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order, Western Union deposited the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds into a class settlement fund, from which class member claims, administrative fees and class counsel's fees, as well as other expenses will be paid. On November 6, 2013, the Attorney General of California notified Western Union of the California Controller's position that Western Union's deposit of the unclaimed money transfer funds into the class settlement fund pursuant to the settlement "will not satisfy Western Union's obligations to report and remit funds" under California's unclaimed property law, and that "Western Union will remain liable to the State of California" for the funds that would have escheated to California in the absence of the settlement. The State of Pennsylvania and District of Columbia have previously expressed similar views. Other states have also recently expressed concerns about the settlement and many have not yet expressed an opinion. Since some states and jurisdictions believe that the Company must escheat its full share of the settlement fund and that the deductions for class counsel's fees, administrative costs, and other expenses that are required under the settlement agreement are not permitted, there is a reasonable possibility a loss could result up to approximately the amount of those fees and other expenses. However, given the number of jurisdictions involved and the fact that no actions have been brought, the Company is unable to provide a more precise estimate of the range of possible loss. The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and payment services, providing people and businesses with fast, reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments around the world. The Company was incorporated in Delaware as a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Data Corporation on February 17, 2006, and on September 29, 2006, First Data distributed all of its money transfer and consumer payments businesses and its interest in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off"). WESTERN UNION: "Herman" Class Suit in California Underway --------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company is defending itself and certain officers against a purported class action lawsuit commenced by Martin Herman in California, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On January 26, 2017, Martin Herman filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims under sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 against all defendants and a claim under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period, February 24, 2012 through January 19, 2017, defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the effectiveness of the Company's fraud prevention program and the program's compliance with applicable law and best practices; (2) the development and enhancement of the Company's global compliance policies and anti-money laundering program; and (3) the Company's compliance with regulatory requirements. The Company says this action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and payment services, providing people and businesses with fast, reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments around the world. The Company was incorporated in Delaware as a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Data Corporation on February 17, 2006, and on September 29, 2006, First Data distributed all of its money transfer and consumer payments businesses and its interest in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off"). WESTERN UNION: Defends "Smallen" Class Suit Pending in Colorado --------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company is defending itself against a purported class action lawsuit filed by the Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust in Colorado, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On February 22, 2017, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The defendants, class period, claims and bases are the same as those in the purported class action complaint filed by Martin Herman. The Company says this action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and payment services, providing people and businesses with fast, reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments around the world. The Company was incorporated in Delaware as a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Data Corporation on February 17, 2006, and on September 29, 2006, First Data distributed all of its money transfer and consumer payments businesses and its interest in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off"). WESTERN UNION: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Douglas" Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted preliminary approval to the parties' settlement in the lawsuit initiated by Jason Douglas. On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., based on allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to class members' wireless telephones without their consent. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer. However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of amounts already accrued is remote. The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and payment services, providing people and businesses with fast, reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments around the world. The Company was incorporated in Delaware as a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Data Corporation on February 17, 2006, and on September 29, 2006, First Data distributed all of its money transfer and consumer payments businesses and its interest in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off"). WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Oklahoma Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc., awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed in Oklahoma by a unitholder of Williams Partners L.P. (WPZ), according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of WPZ filed a putative class action on behalf of certain purchasers of WPZ units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as defendants us, WPZ, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong, and Donald R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain federal securities laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer's intention to pursue a purchase of us conditioned on us not closing the WPZ Merger Agreement when announcing the WPZ Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 31, 2016. On October 17, 2016, we requested the court dismiss the action." The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this time. The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987. Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Williams is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. The Company's operations are located principally in the United States. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Delaware Court OKs Shareholder Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery granted the voluntarily dismissal of the shareholder class action lawsuit relating to the WPZ Merger Agreement, The Williams Companies, Inc. CCC said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "A purported shareholder filed a separate class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 15, 2016. The putative class action complaint alleged that the individual members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to the WPZ Merger Agreement, which purportedly reduced the merger consideration to have been received in the subsequently proposed but now terminated merger with Energy Transfer. The plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss, which the court granted on January 13, 2017." "On September 2, 2016, the same purported shareholder filed a derivative action claiming that the members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by executing the WPZ Merger Agreement as a defensive measure against Energy Transfer. On September 28, 2016, we requested the court dismiss this action also." The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987. Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Williams is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. The Company's operations are located principally in the United States. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Farmland Appeals Unfavorable Final Judgment --------------------------------------------------------------- Farmland Industries Inc. has appealed a final judgment entered in The Williams Companies, Inc.'s favor, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed an individual and class actions against us, our former affiliate [WPX Energy, Inc.] and its subsidiaries, and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. We have agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter." "In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc. (Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one of our co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such ruling to us, entering final judgment in our favor. Farmland has appealed." "Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss that may be material to our results of operations. In connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated with this matter, and as a result, have exposure to future developments in this matter." The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987. Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Williams is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. The Company's operations are located principally in the United States. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: FHRA Claims Remanded for Further Resolution --------------------------------------------------------------- The Alaska Supreme Court remanded Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC's claims against The Williams Companies, Inc., for contractual indemnification and statutory claims for damages related to off- site sulfolane for further resolution by the trial court, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "In 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska. The suit named our subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants. We owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when we sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA made claims under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. We and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking, among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane contamination." "In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. We and FHRA subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the other's claims. On July 8, 2014, the court dismissed all FHRA's claims and entered judgment for us. On August 6, 2014, FHRA appealed the court's decision to the Alaska Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in October of 2015, and issued a decision on August 26, 2016. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of FHRA's equitable claims and statutory claims for damages related to sulfolane located on the refinery property. The Alaska Supreme Court remanded FHRA's claims against us for contractual indemnification and statutory claims for damages related to off- site sulfolane for further resolution by the trial court." "We currently estimate that our reasonably possible loss exposure in this matter could range from an insignificant amount up to $32 million, although uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might cause our exposure to exceed that amount." The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987. Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Williams is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. The Company's operations are located principally in the United States. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: April & August Trials in Geismar Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Trial dates for additional plaintiffs in the lawsuits arising from the Geismar incident are scheduled in April 2017 and August 2017, The Williams Companies, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "On June 13, 2013, an explosion and fire occurred at our Geismar olefins plant and rendered the facility temporarily inoperable (Geismar Incident). As a result, there were two fatalities and numerous individuals (including employees and contractors) reported injuries. We are addressing the following contingent liabilities in connection with the Geismar Incident." "On October 21, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Inspection Report pursuant to the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program following its inspection of the facility on June 24 through June 28, 2013. The report notes the EPA's preliminary determinations about the facility's documentation regarding process safety, process hazard analysis, as well as operating procedures, employee training, and other matters. On June 16, 2014, we received a request for information related to the Geismar Incident from the EPA under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to which we responded on August 13, 2014. The EPA could issue penalties pertaining to final determinations." "Multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury, have been filed against us. To date, we have settled certain of the personal injury claims for an aggregate immaterial amount that we have recovered from our insurers. The first two trials, for nine plaintiffs claiming personal injury, were held in Louisiana state court in Iberville Parish, Louisiana in September and November 2016. The juries returned adverse verdicts against us, our subsidiary Williams Olefins, LLC, and other defendants. The defendants, including us, intend to appeal the verdicts. Trial dates for additional plaintiffs are scheduled in April 2017 and August 2017." "We believe it is probable that additional losses will be incurred on some lawsuits, while for others we believe it is only reasonably possible that losses will be incurred. However, due to ongoing litigation involving defenses to liability, the number of individual plaintiffs, limited information as to the nature and extent of all plaintiffs' damages, and the ultimate outcome of all appeals, we are unable to reliably estimate any such losses at this time. We believe that it is probable that any ultimate losses incurred will be covered by our general liability insurance policy, which has an aggregate limit of $610 million applicable to this event and retention (deductible) of $2 million per occurrence." The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987. Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Williams is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. The Company's operations are located principally in the United States. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger Still Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated shareholder action arising from The Williams Companies, Inc.'s terminated merger with Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., remains stayed, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "Between October 2015 and December 2015, purported shareholders of us filed six putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery that were consolidated into a single suit on January 13, 2016. This consolidated putative class action lawsuit relates to our terminated merger with Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (Energy Transfer). The complaint asserts various claims against the individual members of our Board of Directors, including that they breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell us through an allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price and by allegedly failing to disclose allegedly material information about the merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction against the merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On March 22, 2016, the court granted the parties' proposed order in the consolidated action to stay the proceedings pending the close of the transaction with Energy Transfer. The plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987. Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Williams is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins. The Company's operations are located principally in the United States. WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Unitholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Williams Partners L.P. awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by a purported unitholder in Oklahoma, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of us filed a putative class action on behalf of certain purchasers of our units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as defendants, us, Williams, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong, and Donald R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain federal securities laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.'s intention to pursue a purchase of Williams conditioned on Williams not closing the WPZ Public Unit Exchange when announcing the WPZ Public Unit Exchange. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 31, 2016." On October 17, 2016, the Company requested the court dismiss the action. The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this time. Williams Partners L.P. is a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership with operations across the natural gas value chain from gathering, processing, and interstate transportation of natural gas and natural gas liquids to petchem production of ethylene, propylene, and other olefins. Based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Company's operations are located principally in the United States. WILLIAMS PARTNERS: More Trials in Geismar Suits in April & Aug. --------------------------------------------------------------- Trial dates for additional plaintiffs in the lawsuit arising from the Geismar Incident are scheduled in April 2017 and August 2017, Williams Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "On June 13, 2013, an explosion and fire occurred at our Geismar olefins plant and rendered the facility temporarily inoperable (Geismar Incident). As a result, there were two fatalities and numerous individuals (including employees and contractors) reported injuries. We are addressing the following contingent liabilities in connection with the Geismar Incident." "On October 21, 2013, the EPA issued an Inspection Report pursuant to the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program following its inspection of the facility on June 24 through June 28, 2013. The report notes the EPA's preliminary determinations about the facility's documentation regarding process safety, process hazard analysis, as well as operating procedures, employee training, and other matters. On June 16, 2014, we received a request for information related to the Geismar Incident from the EPA under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to which we responded on August 13, 2014. The EPA could issue penalties pertaining to final determinations." "Multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury, have been filed against us. To date, we have settled certain of the personal injury claims for an aggregate immaterial amount that we have recovered from our insurers. The first two trials, for nine plaintiffs claiming personal injury, were held in Louisiana state court in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, in September and November 2016. The juries returned adverse verdicts against Williams, our subsidiary Williams Olefins, LLC, and other defendants. The defendants, including us, intend to appeal the verdicts. Trial dates for additional plaintiffs are scheduled in April 2017 and August 2017." "We believe it is probable that additional losses will be incurred on some lawsuits, while for others we believe it is only reasonably possible that losses will be incurred. However, due to ongoing litigation involving defenses to liability, the number of individual plaintiffs, limited information as to the nature and extent of all plaintiffs' damages, and the ultimate outcome of all appeals, we are unable to reliably estimate any such losses at this time. We believe that it is probable that any ultimate losses incurred will be covered by our general liability insurance policy, which has an aggregate limit of $610 million applicable to this event and retention (deductible) of $2 million per occurrence." Williams Partners L.P. is a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership with operations across the natural gas value chain from gathering, processing, and interstate transportation of natural gas and natural gas liquids to petchem production of ethylene, propylene, and other olefins. Based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Company's operations are located principally in the United States. XTO ENERGY: Hutchison Appeals E.D. Arkansas Ruling to 8th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Dana Hutchison, Harold Brumley, Nelda Brumley, and Claude D. Wallace filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuits entitled Dana Hutchison, et al. v. XTO Energy, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 1:16-cv-00012-BRW and 4:16-cv-00094-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Batesville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs sued for alleged breach of contract. XTO Energy Inc. extracts natural gas from shale and produces crude oil and natural gas. Cross Timbers Energy operates oil and gas assets, based in Fort Worth, Texas. The appellate case is captioned as Dana Hutchison, et al. v. XTO Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-8011, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiffs-Petitioners Dana Hutchison; Harold Brumley, Individually and as Trustee of the Brumley Living Trust, dated December 1, 2011; Nelda Brumley, Individually and as Trustee of the Brumley Living Trust, dated December 1, 2011; and Claude D. Wallace, Individually and as Trustee of the Claude D. Wallace Living Trust dated July 31, 2005, are represented by: Keith L. Grayson, Esq. Melanie L. Grayson, Esq. GRAYSON & GRAYSON PA P.O. Box 1447 Heber Springs, AR 72543 Telephone: (501) 206-0905 E-mail: graysonandgrayson@att.net klgmlg@aol.com - and - Charles R. Hicks, Esq. HICKS LAW FIRM 111 Center Street, Suite 1200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 371-0068 E-mail: charleshicks@gmail.com Respondents-Defendants XTO Energy, Inc., and Cross Timbers Energy Services, Inc., are represented by: Russell Rhea Barton, Esq. Michael V. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Andrew Duncan Sims, Esq. HARRIS, FINLEY & BOGLE, P.C. 777 Main Street, Suite 1800 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 870-8700 Facsimile: (817) 332-6121 E-mail: rbarton@hfblaw.com mfitzpatrick@hfblaw.com asims@hfblaw.com - and - Robert M. Honea, Esq. HARDIN, JESSON & TERRY, PLC 5000 Rogers Avenue P.O. Box 10127 Fort Smith, AR 72917-0127 Telephone: (479) 452-2200 Facsimile: (479) 452-9097 E-mail: honea@hardinlaw.com XTO ENERGY: Mobley Lumber Appeals E.D. Ark. Order to 8th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Mobley Lumber Company Limited Partnership, Elizabeth Ann Coon, Beth Morgan and Greg Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuits entitled Mobley Lumber Company Limited, et al. v. XTO Energy, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 1:16-cv-00012-BRW and 4:16-cv-00094-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Batesville. The appellate case is captioned as Mobley Lumber Company Limited, et al. v. XTO Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-8012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 15, 2017, the Hon. Billy Roy Wilson denied the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification. The Court said, "This case is comprised of Plaintiffs from two consolidated cases -- Mobley and Hutchinson. Plaintiffs propose five classes, all of whom assert that XTO defrauded Plaintiffs by selling gas to a subsidiary (Cross Timbers) at below-market price, which resulted in Plaintiffs receiving lower royalty payments. When combined, the proposed classes appear to cover everyone who received royalty payments from XTO after October 2006. In 2009, the Honorable G. Thomas Eisele denied certification of a class of royalty owners who alleged that XTO had underpaid royalties by deducting certain expenses that were hidden through an improper relationship between XTO and Cross Timbers." Petitioners-Defendants Mobley Lumber Company Limited Partnership, Greg Smith, Elizabeth Ann Coon, and Beth Morgan, Individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Blair Arnold, Esq. BLAIR & ARNOLD P. O. Box 2595 Batesville, AR 72503-2595 Telephone: (870) 793-3821 E-mail: mbarnold@swbell.net - and - William Allen Arnold, Esq. MURPHY & THOMPSON 555 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Batesville, AR 72503-0000 Telephone: (501) 793-3821 E-mail: attorneybillarnold@gmail.com - and - Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq. Thomas Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201-0000 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com tomthrash@sbcglobal.net - and - Paul Byrd, Esq. Joseph D. Gates, Esq. PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM 415 N. McKinley Street, Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72205 Telephone: (501) 420-3050 Facsimile: (501) 420-3128 E-mail: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com joseph@paulbyrdlawfirm.com - and - Stephen C. Gardner, Esq. STEPHEN C. GARDNER, P.A. Post Office Box 866 Russellville, AR 72801-0866 Telephone: (479) 968-5333 Facsimile: (479) 968-2373 E-mail: scg@suddenlink.net - and - C. Lance Gould, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Post Office Box 4160 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: lance.gould@beasleyallen.com leslie.pescia@beasleyallen.com Respondents-Defendants XTO Energy, Inc., and Cross Timbers Energy Services, Inc., are represented by: Russell Rhea Barton, Esq. Michael V. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Andrew Duncan Sims, Esq. HARRIS, FINLEY & BOGLE, P.C. 777 Main Street, Suite 1800 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 870-8700 Facsimile: (817) 332-6121 E-mail: rbarton@hfblaw.com mfitzpatrick@hfblaw.com asims@hfblaw.com - and - Robert M. Honea, Esq. HARDIN, JESSON & TERRY, PLC 5000 Rogers Avenue P.O. Box 10127 Fort Smith, AR 72917-0127 Telephone: (479) 452-2200 Facsimile: (479) 452-9097 E-mail: honea@hardinlaw.com YELP INC: Faces "Schram" Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SCHRAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, V. YELP INC., AND DOES 1 through 100, Defendant, Case No. BC 652 472 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017), results from the illegal actions Of YELP INC. and its related entities, subsidiaries and agents in willfully and/or causing to be employed certain recording equipment in order to record the telephone conversations of Plaintiff without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff, in violation of California Penal Code, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Yelp Inc. operates a social networking, user review, and local search website. 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 YUM BRANDS: Appeals in Taco Bell Wage and Hour Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals in the consolidated litigation entitled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions remain pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, YUM! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants in a number of putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. Some plaintiffs also sought penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as well as statutory "waiting time" penalties and alleged violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees. These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action, leaving Taco Bell as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011, the court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and the class notice and opt out forms were mailed on January 21, 2014. Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one of the PAGA claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class. Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim, the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium class claim, and the associated statutory "waiting time" penalty claim was tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the limited rest break claim, and the statutory "waiting time" penalty claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims and plaintiffs' Business & Professions Code Section 17200 claim. On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco Bell on the PAGA claims and the Section 17200 claim. In a separate ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million. Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim and filed a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict. Plaintiffs' also filed various post-trial motions. On July 15, 2016, the court denied Taco Bell's motion to overturn the verdict. The court denied Plaintiffs' motions: (1) for a new trial, (2) for judgment as a matter of law to overturn the verdicts in favor of Taco Bell, (3) challenging the jury instructions and special verdict forms, and (4) to overturn the court's rejection of the Section 17200 claims for meal and rest break violations. The court also denied Plaintiffs' motions for additional costs and for enhanced awards to two of the named Plaintiffs. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the Section 17200 claim regarding the underpaid meal premium claim, but rejected awarding any additional damages, finding that the jury verdict sufficiently compensated the class. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, but awarded only approximately $1.1 million of the $7.3 million requested. The court also granted Plaintiffs' bill of costs, but only awarded approximately $0.1 million of Plaintiffs' $0.2 million. Thereafter, both Plaintiffs and Taco Bell timely filed notices of appeal and the matter is now before the Ninth Circuit. The Company says it has provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently provided for in its Consolidated Financial Statements. YUM! Brands, Inc., was incorporated under the laws of the state of North Carolina in 1997. The principal executive offices of YUM are located in Louisville, Kentucky. YUM consists of three operating segments: the KFC Division, which includes the worldwide operations of the KFC concept; the Pizza Hut Division, which includes the worldwide operations of the Pizza Hut concept, and the Taco Bell Division, which includes the worldwide operations of the Taco Bell concept. ZICO BEVERAGES: Faces "Barrios" Suit in Cent. Dist. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Zico Beverages, LLC. The case is captioned Carlos Barrios, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Zico Beverages, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01712-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal., March 1, 2017). Zico Beverages, LLC is a subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Company that manufactures coconut water. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Cirsch, Esq. Robert K Friedl, Esq. Trisha Kathleen 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 * House Approves Class Action Litigation Reform Bill ---------------------------------------------------- Matthew Daly and Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, report that the House has approved a bill that would make it harder for individuals or groups to bring legal claims against companies in consumer disputes, employment discrimination cases and other areas. Lawmakers approved the Republican-sponsored measure, 220-201, on March 9. The bill heads to the Senate, where its prospects are less clear. The legislation is the latest in a flurry of business-friendly moves by Congress and the Trump administration. Changes mandated in the bill could help reduce legal costs for businesses by putting up more hurdles to bringing class-action lawsuits in federal court. Supporters say the bill is needed to curb abuses in class-action suits that often result in a huge payday for lawyers. "The class-action litigation system has morphed into an expensive enterprise where lawyers are often the only winners, and American businesses and consumers are the losers," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the bill's primary author. "Trial lawyers often profit at the expense of deserving victims." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing business interests, also supported the legislation. Consumer groups and civil rights advocates said the bill penalizes those who have been mistreated by corporations. "This devastating Republican attack on our federal and state civil courts will severely restrict the hallowed right of the American people to have their day in court when they are wrongfully injured or defrauded," said veteran consumer advocate Ralph Nader. The bill would ensure that "judges' and juries' hands are tied by absentee politicians in Washington, greased by corporate campaign contributions," Mr. Nader said. Mr. Nader and other critics point to a history of cases in which class-action suits enabled consumers to recoup losses and compelled companies to stop selling unsafe products. A recent example: a suit by Volkswagen owners in the U.S. who won about $11 billion in compensation from the German company in its emissions cheating scandal. The bill would require individuals seeking to form a legal class to show that each of them suffered the same type and magnitude of personal injury or economic loss as the group's leader. Attorneys in winning class-action suits couldn't collect payment from companies until after the individuals in the class are paid. Republican lawmakers have long cherished the idea of overhauling the legal system. They've looked to rein in trial lawyers -- key campaign donors as a group to Democrats -- whom they portray as greedy and abusing a system tilted toward them. Corporations and businesses, which tend to donate more heavily to Republican candidates, are championed by the GOP lawmakers as bearing excessive legal burdens and costs that raise prices for consumers. "Today, Republicans are championing big corporations with legislation aimed at eroding class actions, an indispensable tool for citizens to hold powerful interests and big corporations accountable for their misdeeds," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement. ********* 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 * * *