/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170410.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 10, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 71 Headlines AAA CAB: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Against Drivers ALL TEMPORARIES: "Vongkhamchanh" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ALLERGAN INC: Seventh Circuit Dismisses No-Injury Class Action ANADARKO E&P: "Thompson" Sues Over "Underpayment" of Royalties ARBY'S: Valley Federal Credit Union Files Data Breach Suit ARMADIO CABINETS: Faces "Ortega" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law BREX INC: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Unpaid Wages CANADA: RCMP Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Passes CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Averts Unpaid Overtime Class Action CK RICHTON: "Sanchez-Lagunes" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay CLARENCE DAVIDS: Workers' Suit Granted Class Certification DIAMOND FOODS: California Court Dismisses "McGee" Suit DIOCESE OF BUNBURY: Glover Sex Abuse Class Action Mulled DIRECT HEATING: Faces "Pozo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ENDO INTERNATIONAL: PERS Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. ENERGY RECOVERY: Securities Class Settlement Has Prelim. OK ENSIGN UNITED: "Salazar" Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages ETHICON: Canadian Patients Launch Class Action Over Recalled Mesh EXPRESS COURIER: Suggs et al. Sue Alleging Violation of FLSA FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Mustang Overheating Issue GALILEE MEMORIAL: Appeals Court Grants Suit Class Action Status GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages HARTE-HANKS DIRECT: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages HOME DEPOT: Financial Institutions May Get Settlement Payout INVENTURE FOODS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action IOVATE HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Kline" JELLY BELLY: "Gomez" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California JOHNVINCE FOODS: Deal Concludes Dwindling Franchise Class Actions KENGARD MANOR: Residents Mull Class Action Over Apartment Fire LMI AEROSPACE: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action LIFECARE SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Solicitation Calls MEAD JOHNSON: Faces "Walters" Securities Suit Over Reckitt Merger METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Faces Shareholder Class Action MLS PLAYERS: Court Dismisses Class Action Over RSTP Rules MORRIS AUTO: Snap Parking's Suit Proceeds Without Arbitration MYLAN INC: Pa. Fund Alleges Price-Fixing of Albuterol Sulfate NATIONWIDE BUSINESS: "Cunningham" Case Dismissed NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: MAO-MSO Seeks Medical Expense Reimbursement NATURE'S WAY: Class Action Over Made In USA Label Can Proceed NATURMED INC: Can File Cross-Claim Against Bactolac NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: July 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set NEW YORK: Port Authority Faces Class Action Over Gay Men Arrest NORTHERN CHILDREN'S: Faces "Pratt" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Laws ONTARIO: Top Court Certifies Crown Wards' Class Action PAYPAL: Settles Class Action Over Account Closures for $4 Million PRECISION DRILLING: "Montez" Hits Misclassification, No OT Pay RADIO RENTALS: Customer Sues Over "Rent, Try $1 Buy" Scheme RADIO RENTALS: Class Action May Drag on for Years, Parent Says ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: PERS Hits Overpriced Shares SCHWARTZ: Negligence Claim Certified as Global Class Action SIGNET JEWELERS: May 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set SP AUSNET: Black Saturday Survivors Get $418.5MM Compensation SUTHERLAND MORTGAGE: "Rapp" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime TAURUS PROCESSING: "Milosch" Sues Over Telemarketing Calls THEBERGE DEVELOPMENTS: Ottawa Condo Owners File $3MM Class Action TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Claimant Objection Could Complicate Settlement TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Hears Arguments on Settlement Objection U.S. CONCRETE: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas U.S. PHYSICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action UNIQUE BEVERAGE: Sued Over Misleading Coconut Water Label VOLKSWAGEN: Proposed Settlement Not in Consumers' Best Interest WALGREENS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Price Scheme WELLS FARGO: Settles Class Action Over Unauthorized Accounts ZOCDOC INC: "Geismann" Case Not Moot, 2nd Circ. Says * Employers Seek Clarity on Mandatory Arbitration Agreement Issue * House Passes Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 * Law Firms Mull Class Action Over Play-to-Play Audition * New Law May Unlock Class Action Litigation in Poland * Robinson+Cole Attorney Shares Thoughts on H.R. 985 Bill ********* AAA CAB: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Against Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed an order denying the motion for partial summary judgment of the Appellants and granting the summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on all claims in the appeals case captioned, IVAN PENTCHEV IONTCHEV; YAW BOATENG; ABRAHAM DENG, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. AAA CAB SERVICE, INC., DBA AAA Sedan, DBA AAA Yellow Cab Company, DBA Aguila's, DBA Checker, DBA Courier, DBA Fiesta, DBA Neal's, DBA TLC, DBA Yellow, an Arizona corporation; H&M ENTERPRISES, INC., an Arizona corporation; YELLOW CAB COMPANY, an Arizona corporation; MIR MASOOD SHAMSA, husband; AHOU SHAMSA, wife; HOSSEIN DIBAZAR, husband; LEILA DIBAZAR, wife; JACK GILMET, husband; JANE DOE GILMET, wife, Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-15789 (9th Cir.). The issue of the case is about whether the Appellees properly classified the drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. This led to the Appellants' allegations against the Appellees for their failure to pay timely and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206, and Arizona law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) Secs. 23-351, 23- 363. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Drivers were not economically dependent upon the Appellees. Rather, as a matter of economic reality, they were in business for themselves when they leased their taxicabs from AAA Cab and utilized them to earn a profit. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, when it properly held that, as a matter of law, the Drivers were not employees under the FLSA and Arizona law. The Ninth Circuit said each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/Tvxewd from Leagle.com. ALL TEMPORARIES: "Vongkhamchanh" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ ARIENE VONGKHAMCHANH, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ALL TEMPORARIES MIDWEST, INC., Defendant, Case 0:17-cv-00976 (D. Minn., March 30, 2017), alleges that Defendant has suffered and permitted Plaintiff to regularly work more than 40 or 48 hours in certain workweeks without being properly compensated in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is an agency that provides health care staffing services in nursing homes. Plaintiff has been employed by All Temporaries Midwest, Inc. as an hourly or non-salaried health care worker, specifically as a Certified Nurse Assistant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: fisher@nka.com - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: (225) 925-5297 Fax: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com ALLERGAN INC: Seventh Circuit Dismisses No-Injury Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Lammi at Forbes reports that in creating the federal judicial branch, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not intend that courts would right every possible wrong. Article III authorizes federal courts to resolve "Cases" and "Controversies." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that power to mean that civil-litigation plaintiffs must prove they suffered an "injury in fact," which is concrete and particularized, and not speculative. We've discussed Article III standing jurisprudence here in numerous contexts, most frequently in consumer class actions targeting food labels or data-security breaches, areas where the ever-amorphous concept of "economic harm" is often alleged. A March 6, 2017 Seventh Circuit decision, Eike v. Allergan, Inc. et al., shot down an especially outlandish attempt to expand standing based on an alleged economic injury. Ms. Eike purportedly represents thousands of other users of eye drops that treat glaucoma. The plaintiffs argue that the size of each individual drop violates state consumer-protection laws. The plaintiffs don't claim physical injury; they don't argue that the drops are ineffective; and they don't assert the companies misled purchasers about the dose size. The complaint simply accuses the drops of being needlessly large, and argues that smaller-sized drops would be more effective and cost less. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief--a court order requiring manufacturers to alter their FDA-approved packaging and drug-delivery method. In an August 15, 2016 order, Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois certified the suit as a class action without bothering to scrutinize the plaintiffs' concocted theory of harm. The nine drug-company defendants appealed to the Seventh Circuit. Only one month after oral argument in the case, the Seventh Circuit reversed Judge Yandle in an opinion written by Judge Richard Posner. In five pages of meandering yet persuasive legal reasoning, Judge Posner deployed an unusual analogy and cited only two court decisions in holding that Eike lacked Article III standing to sue. Judge Posner summarized the plaintiffs' theory of harm as one "based simply on dissatisfaction with a product ... or with its price." From there, he analogized the case to cat breeders who suggest to purchasers of pedigreed cats that they "feed the cats kibble during the day and Fancy Feast at night and buy a fountain for each cat because cats prefer to drink out of a fountain." Cat buyers unhappy with the price of the food or the fountain, Judge Posner posited, could not sue the breeder if it "made no representation [or] concealed no information." In response to the plaintiffs' assertion that smaller eye drops would be more effective, the court noted the drop contained a tiny amount of active pharmaceutical ingredient. A smaller drop would thus deliver less medicine, rendering it less effective. Judge Posner did not directly address the plaintiffs' argument that a smaller drop would be less expensive.* [GN] ANADARKO E&P: "Thompson" Sues Over "Underpayment" of Royalties -------------------------------------------------------------- TYRONE J. THOMPSON, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE, LLC; ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; ANADARKO E&P COMPANY, LP; MITSUI E&P USA, LLC; and STATOIL USA ONSHORE PROPERTIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00557-MEM (M.D. Pa., March 30, 2017), alleges underpayment of royalties and/or the materially confusing and inaccurate reporting of royalty payments by Defendants on natural gas produced under common oil and gas leases entered by Plaintiff and similarly situated proposed Class members in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC provides drilling services. The company owns and operates gathering, saltwater disposal, compression and dehydration facilities in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Michelle R. O'Brien, Esq. THE O'BRIEN LAW GROUP LLC 4099 Birney Avenue Moosic, PA 18507 Phone: (570) 209-7901 Fax: (570) 309-0147 E-mail: mobrien@theobrienlawgroup.com - and - Larry D. Moffett, Esq. DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, P.A. 265 North Lamar Boulevard, Suite R P.O. Box 1396 Oxford, MS 38655 Phone: (662) 232-8979 Fax: (662) 232-8940 E-mail: lmoffett@danielcoker.com - and - John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP Post Office Drawer 927 Lexington, MS 39095 Phone: (662) 834-2488 Fax: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Fax: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Alexandra C. Warren, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Fax: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com - and - David S. Stellings, Esq. Daniel Seltz, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Phone: (212) 355-9500 Fax: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com dseltz@lchb.com ARBY'S: Valley Federal Credit Union Files Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Dillon Kato, writing for Missoulian, reports that a Montana credit union is leading a class action lawsuit against the parent company of fast food chain Arby's, saying the company did not do enough to protect customers from and notify them of a 2016 data breach. Valley Federal Credit Union of Montana -- which has branches in Billings, Columbus and Roundup -- filed the lawsuit in late February in U.S. District Court in Georgia where Arby's Restaurant Group Inc. is headquartered. According to the credit union's complaint, computer hackers were able to use software to break into point-of-sale systems at Arby's locations around the country sometime around October. The data breach allegedly included the debit and credit card numbers of customers being stolen. The credit union said Arby's was unaware of the breach until Brian Krebs, a prominent computer security writer, reached out to the company after being told about the breach by several financial institutions in early February. Later in February, Arby's issued a statement to Krebs acknowledging that the security breach had occurred. Arby's did not comment on how many locations were affected, exactly how long the malware was on their systems or how many cards were stolen. Valley Federal Credit Union said they and other banks were forced to cancel and reissue cards involved in the breach, and that they had to reimburse customers for fraudulent purchases made on cards that were stolen. "This information was compromised because of Arby's acts and omissions and its overall failure to properly protect the payment card data of its customers," the credit union says in its lawsuit. "Despite the well-publicized and ever-growing threat of cyber breaches involving payment card networks and systems, Arby's failed to ensure that it maintained adequate data security measures which likely would have prevented the data breach or led to its earlier discovery." The Montana credit union also alleges that Arby's had not transitioned its stores over to using EMV chip technology by the October 2015 deadline, and that they are liable for damages from data breaches using the older magnetic stripe technology. The lawsuit is asking a federal judge to certify it as a class action case, with Valley Federal Credit Union saying any financial institution that issued cards used to make purchases at Arby's while the malware was on its system should be able to join the suit. Neither Arby's, the credit union or its attorney Kenneth Canfield returned a request for comment. ARMADIO CABINETS: Faces "Ortega" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Ortega, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Armadio Cabinets, Inc., and Mateusz Fafara, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02426 (N.D. Ill., March 30, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Armadio Cabinets, Inc. is a cabinet maker. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a sander and finisher. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea., Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Phone: 312-800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com BREX INC: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Madison Record, reports that a technician has filed a class-action lawsuit against an automotive repair shop for allegedly failing to compensate them for overtime work. Tom Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on March 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Brex Inc., doing business as Carx, John Keeley and Kevin Floyd, alleging they violated the Fair Labor Standards and Illinois Minimum Wage Law. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between August 2015 and December 2016, technicians were required to clock out prior to completing repairs or maintenance work, preventing them from receiving actual pay for all hours worked. As a result, he claims he and other technicians were not compensated for all hours worked, including overtime pay for work performed in excess of the 40-hour work weeks. The plaintiff alleges the defendants failed to pay regular and overtime wages for unrecorded work and failed to pay overtime premiums for recorded overtime work. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for compensatory damages, pre and post-judgment interest and such other relief as the court deems fair and equitable. He is represented by Mark Potashnick -- markp@wp-attorneys.com -- of Weinhaus and Potashnick in St. Louis and Jack R. Daugherty of Law Office of Jack Daugherty, PC in Alton. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:17-cv-00292 CANADA: RCMP Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Passes ------------------------------------------------------------ Alison Crawford, writing for CBC News, reports that March 29 was the deadline for female Mounties to decide if they want to opt out of a historic sexual harassment class action lawsuit. Any woman who has worked as a public servant, civilian or regular member of the RCMP is eligible to file a claim under the negotiated settlement to compensate for on-the-job harassment and abuse. RCMP Const. Agata Purcell said she's sticking with the class action because she doesn't want to subject her family to the challenges of going it alone with an individual lawsuit. "I hope that by identifying myself as another person involved in this fiasco, I'm able to persuade someone . . . who is sitting on the fence and debating whether they should pursue it or not," she told CBC News from New Brunswick, where she is stationed. Ms. Purcell alleges she was subjected to continuous sexual harassment during her first five years on the job when she worked in B.C.'s Lower Mainland. It started almost 10 years ago, when she was two months into her new job and still in training. Ms. Purcell recounted how a senior officer approached her and demanded she disclose to him the details of any intimate relationships so he could protect her from appearing -- as he put it -- "the town bicycle." "You don't know what the rules are. You don't know what the norm is. You don't know if this is a thing that just happens as part of your training process, right? It's really hard to evaluate at the time. You go with the flow because you really have a desire to prove yourself," she recalled. Harassment continued for years Yet the harassment, sexualized comments and eventual taunting about getting engaged to another Mountie continued for five years. "A supervisor, a sergeant at the time and on duty, had seen me walking my dog. He came out of his way to approach me, to talk to me and to let me know my taste in men was similar to my taste in dogs because my dog was 'f---ing ugly.' It's upsetting. It's demeaning. It's degrading and it's hard to deal with. Just one of many incidents," she said, her voice quavering with emotion. After reporting the harassment, Purcell said she was told it was being dealt with but that she would not be told the outcome. In the end, she and her husband were posted to a new detachment and, ever since, Purcell reports they've worked in supportive environments, free of harassment. Compensation levels vary by abuse Thousands of women make up the class-action sexual harassment lawsuit against the RCMP, which was certified in January. The settlement is expected to formally receive court approval at the end of May. The federal government has set aside $100 million to compensate the women. CBC News has obtained a copy of the negotiated compensation schedule: Level 1 - $10,000 Culpable conduct includes: sexualized comments and jokes, inappropriate questioning regarding complainant's personal life. Effect on victim includes: anxiety, loss of self-esteem, feelings of discomfort. Level 2 - $35,000 Culpable conduct includes: exposure to pornography, bullying, simulating sexual intercourse or masturbation, sexual touching. Effect on victim includes: physical wound, loss of confidence in others, panic attacks, feelings of rage. Level 3 - $70,000 Culpable conduct includes: gender-based putdowns, persistent kissing or touching, exposure of genitals to complainant, persistent exposure to pornography. Effect on victim includes: severe anxiety, mild drug or alcohol abuse, loss of desire to communicate feelings of love or desire. Level 4 - $100,000 Culpable conduct includes: touching of complainant's genitals, forcing oneself on victim physically, exposure to violent pornography. Effect on victim includes: severe stress affecting health, post- traumatic stress, drug or alcohol abuse, absenteeism. Level 5 - $150,000 Culpable conduct includes: persistent intimidation, bullying or aggression, forcing complainant to perform non-penetrative sex acts, assigning menial tasks. Effect on victim includes: obsessional tendencies, suicidal thoughts, wound leaving a permanent mark. Level 6 - $220,000 Culpable conduct includes: forcing complainant to engage in penetrative sex acts, acts to denigrate and affect career development, acts meant to cause emotional stress. Effect on victim: chronic psychiatric condition, personality problems, severe post-traumatic stress. "We're talking about criminal acts here. That some of these women have been sexually assaulted and molested. That was one of the biggest things for me. How do you put a price on that?" asked Purcell. The document notes that amounts were calculated by analyzing decisions from human rights tribunals and the courts, along with analysis from professionals on the impact of the culpable conduct. "We must also be alive to the fact that not all people react the same way to a traumatizing event," reads the document. Settlement offers protections Megan McPhee, a lawyer with Kim Orr Barristers and class counsel to the plaintiffs, said anyone who wants to pursue their own lawsuit had until the end of day on March 29 to opt out. But Ms. McPhee feels the settlement offers unique protections. "It's completely confidential. It's determined by an outside administrator, and the RCMP doesn't respond. They don't get to learn who's filing a claim," she said. Some women have told CBC News they're holding back because they believe the class action could cause them to lose benefits they're receiving from Veterans Affairs Canada. "We've been able to negotiate that the receipt of a VAC pension does not preclude a woman from filing a claim," said Ms. McPhee. Purcell said she doesn't care about the money. For her, it's about finally getting closure. "I've come to terms with the fact that it's OK to speak openly about being a victim. That has been the biggest part of it -- is not wanting to talk about it . . . not wanting to classify myself as a victim to the harassment." As for another lawsuit in the works for male employees of the RCMP who allege workplace bullying and harassment, Ms. McPhee said her firm intends to proceed soon. CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brad Perriello at Mass Device reports Cardiovascular Systems escaped a purported class-action lawsuit brought over allegations that it ran an off-label promotion and kickbacks scheme, but the reprieve could be short-lived because the case was dismissed without prejudice. St. Paul, Minn.-based CSI paid CAD8 million to settle a federal False Claims Act suit in July 2016 that accused CSI of inducing physicians to use its products by offering free, all-expense-paid training programs "followed by explicit demands by CSI employees that attendees use CSI products on future patients," giving away product for free, 3rd-party referral channel marketing, and "sham Speaker Bureau payments for high-prescribers and others whom CSI sought to cultivate," according to the complaint. Plaintiff Travis Thams worked for CSI as a district sales manager from 2012 to 2013, according to the suit. The lawsuit also accused the company of running an off-label promotion scheme to push sales of its unapproved 4 French catheter. It alleges that CSI also promoted its devices for use in areas of the body it's not approved for, such as the coronary arteries, and for conditions such as chronic total occlusion for which it is not approved. The class-action suit, seeking to represent shareholders who bought CSII stock between Sept. 12, 2011, and Jan. 21, 2016, alleged that the company and its management misled investors about the alleged scheme, which caused a sharp drop in the company's share price. Judge Donovan Frank of the U.S. District Court for Minnesota dismissed the suit with leave to amend, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to prove their allegations, in part because of their reliance on confidential witnesses. "Because plaintiffs' claim is predicated on illegal conduct, plaintiffs must plead facts that, if true, would constitute illegal conduct. Here, plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead that CSI was engaged in illegal conduct. The court therefore dismisses plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice and grants their request for leave to amend the complaint," Frank wrote. "Allowing shareholders to sue based on conclusory allegations that a company has engaged in widespread illegal conduct without adequately pleading facts that demonstrate illegal conduct would just allow strike suits by another name." The plaintiffs' reliance on confidential witnesses failed to adequately specify their roles or how they came into their information, the judge wrote. "Here, plaintiffs, for the most part, have failed to adequately plead the confidential witnesses' roles or how they came into possession of the information. In particular, plaintiffs have failed to allege the job duties for the confidential witnesses. As a result, the court disregards the statements of those confidential witnesses for whom plaintiffs did not provide a description of the witnesses' job duties," Frank wrote. "Additionally, plaintiffs' confidential witnesses, at times, merely relay office gossip. For example, [confidential witness 3] 'heard' about allegedly illegal sales practices. Similarly, vague allegations from witnesses that CSI had implemented 'shady' practices or that CSI was a 'different place' after [vice president of sales Jim] Breidenstein left are not detailed enough to be reliable. Thus, the court also disregards the confidential witnesses' statements to the extent they are vague or based on 2nd-hand knowledge." [GN] CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Averts Unpaid Overtime Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that a federal judge on March 29 granted a bid by Chipotle Mexican Grill to undo a class action lawsuit by manager trainees in six states who say they were unlawfully denied overtime pay. U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter in Manhattan said the former Chipotle "apprentices" from New York, Illinois and four other states had varying duties depending on where they worked and could not show they were all eligible for overtime pay. The plaintiffs in the 2012 lawsuit said that when they worked in the temporary, salaried positions training to manage new restaurants, they often performed basic tasks that could be assigned to hourly workers. That entitled them to overtime pay under state wage laws, the workers said. Judge Carter's decision blocks the seven workers who filed the lawsuit from representing a class of more than 500 people, which could end the case altogether. The company's victory on March 29 came as it faced a larger 2014 lawsuit filed in federal court in Colorado by 10,000 hourly workers who say they were required to work off the clock for no pay. A U.S. appeals court in Colorado on March 27 rejected Chipotle's bid to undo the nationwide class of workers in that case. Denver-based Chipotle, which operates more than 2,000 U.S. restaurants, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the March 29 ruling. Nor did lawyers for the plaintiffs. Unlike most other fast food chains that operate on a franchise model, Chipotle owns its restaurants and is responsible for wages and other employment decisions. Salaried workers like the Chipotle apprentices are automatically eligible for overtime pay under federal law if they earn less than $23,660. Employees who earn more must be paid overtime if they do not have management or administrative duties. Last year, a federal judge blocked a controversial Obama administration rule that would have doubled the salary threshold to about $47,500 and extended overtime pay to more than 4 million workers. The U.S. Department of Labor appealed the judge's ruling, but it is unclear whether the administration of President Donald Trump will pursue the case. Trump's nominee for U.S. labor secretary, R. Alexander Acosta, told a U.S. Senate panel that he had not made a decision about how to proceed on the rule, but was concerned about its impact on businesses and workers. CK RICHTON: "Sanchez-Lagunes" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Sanchez-Lagunes, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. CK Richton Park, Inc. and Constantine Kanavos, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02504, (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation for all hours worked by Plaintiff in excess of forty hours per week, statutory interest damages in the amount of two percent per month of the amount of underpayments, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in filing and prosecuting this action, and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. CK Richton Park, Inc., an Illinois corporation, operates a restaurant at 3941 Sauk Trail in Richton Park, Illinois, where Plaintiff worked as a food preparer and dishwasher. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. Nicholas P. Cholis, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 322-1100 Fax: (312) 322-1106 Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com ncholis@nolanwagelaw.com CLARENCE DAVIDS: Workers' Suit Granted Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard Jones, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a group of current and former workers at a Matteson-based landscaping contractor was recently granted class certification on claims that the company took improper deductions from workers' paychecks for uniforms. U.S. District Court Judge John Z. Lee granted the plaintiffs' case in a lawsuit brought in Chicago federal court alleging Clarence Davids and Company recovered the cost of uniforms by taking deductions from employee paychecks without written authorization, as required by the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The suit was originally filed in 2015 by four former workers who performed maintenance and landscaping work for the company. The defendant acknowledged that, over time, it had several different policies regarding uniform deductions and, at some point, employees were not required to fill out forms accepting this deduction, according to the ruling. In 2013, the company started having all employees fill out standard forms for the deductions, the defendant said. The plaintiffs allege the forms required for returning, new and seasonal employees in 2013 caused a level of confusion and thus were not representative of the guidelines outlined in by the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The main issues before the court centered on which employees qualified to be included in the class and time period during which they were employed by the company. In the ruling, Lee said the plaintiffs met the burden for class certification for their claims pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides the initial requirements of all federal class-action suits. The defendant argued that not all of the proposed members of the class action shared a common claim and therefore did not meet the "commonality" prerequisite of Rule 23. Lee rejected that claim, finding the different claims presented would only play a part in determining the potential amount of damages awarded to the individuals in question, and does not absolve the company of liability. "As the Seventh Circuit (U.S. Court of Appeals) has made clear, the fact that 'individualized remedies and damages may have to be determined for each plaintiff or perhaps for subclasses of plaintiffs . . . does not prevent certification the class,'" the judge said. The plaintiffs are represented by the Billhorn Law Firm and the Farmworker and Landscaper Advocacy Project. The defendant is represented by Seyfarth Shaw LLP. DIAMOND FOODS: California Court Dismisses "McGee" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JACQUELYN McGEE, Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-2446 JAH (DHB), (S.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Houston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The case involves the Plaintiff filing a class action against the Defendant, asserting claims for unfair and unlawful business practices. The Court agreed that the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim because the Plaintiff has no injury in fact and still lacks Article III standing. Therefore, the Court dismisses the entire action with prejudice. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/ZwcKox from Leagle.com. Jacquelyn McGee, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory S. Weston -- greg@westonfirm.com -- The Weston Firm. Jacquelyn McGee, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew C. Hamilton, The Weston Firm & David Elliot. Diamond Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Leigh Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Sean D. Meenan -- smeenan@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn & Shawn Rieko Obi -- sobi@winston.com -- Winston & Stawn LLP. DIOCESE OF BUNBURY: Glover Sex Abuse Class Action Mulled -------------------------------------------------------- Georgia Loney, writing for ABC, reports that lawyers are preparing a class action against the Catholic Diocese of Bunbury on behalf of three people who say they were sexually abused by a high- profile priest in the southern WA town of Esperance in the 1960s and '70s. Father Kevin Glover, who died in the late 1990s, was the parish priest in Esperance but is understood to have worked at parishes throughout the South West. It is alleged the offences took place at Our Lady of Star of the Sea church in Esperance, and also while he was visiting sick children at the Esperance District Hospital. Jason Parkinson, from the law firm Porters, said although Glover was never convicted, it was time for people to speak up. "We've been asking for witnesses, who may know something about Glover's activities, to come forward and help, and sadly, it's my experience that while we're acting for three people, this means there'll be dozens of victims," he said. Mr Parkinson said Father Glover had been well-respected and well- loved within the community, and had access to vulnerable children, including young patients at the Esperance Hospital. He said that when the Catholic Church became aware of Father Glover's offending against children, they moved him to the Solomon Islands. Mr Parkinson said the impact of Father Glover's actions on his clients -- two men and a woman -- has been long lasting. "When you sexually assault a child, you give them a psychiatric injury which lasts a lifetime," he said. "To have someone of the same gender, someone in the position of authority, someone with some voodoo relationship with God, sexually assaulting you, would give you a psychiatric injury that lasts until the day you die, quite sadly. "That is depression, post-traumatic stress and everything which goes with that." Mr Parkinson said he was preparing to launch a claim in the WA Supreme Court, but it was likely the case would be hamstrung by the existing statute of limitations for sexual abuse civil claims. "The new Labor Party (Government) has said they're going to get rid of the statute of limitations in child abuse cases, that will be of great assistance to victims, because the statute of limitations only helps the paedophiles, and it helps the Church," he said. The current Bishop of Bunbury Gerard Holohan, was travelling late yesterday, but said through a spokesperson that Father Glover had died before Bishop Holohan came to the diocese, and would not comment further. DIRECT HEATING: Faces "Pozo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Maykol Pozo and Michael Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Direct Heating & Cooling, Inc. and Mitzie Fox-Lerner, Case No. 2:17-cv-00170-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., March 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs performed heating and cooling maintenance work as technicians for the Defendants. The Defendants operate a Heating and Air Conditioning repair company in Cape Coral, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria R. Alaimo, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC 6350 Presidential Court, Suite A Fort Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 334-3933 Facsimile: (239) 334-7105 E-mail: Maria@vilesandbeckman.com ENDO INTERNATIONAL: PERS Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Public Employees' Retirement System Of Mississippi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Endo International PLC,, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay, Daniel A. Rudio, Roger H. Kimmel, Shane M. Cooke, John J. Delucca, Arthur J. Higgins, Nancy J. Hutson, Michael Hyatt, William P. Montague, Jill D. Smith, William F. Spengler, Goldman, Sachs & Co., J .P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., TD Securities (USA) LLC, and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2017-02081 (Pa. Com. Pleas, February 28, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 31, 2017 under Case No. 2:17-cv- 01466. Endo develops, manufactures, and distributes pharmaceutical products and devices worldwide. Endo's revenue relies in part on favorable arrangements with companies that manage prescription drug benefits for members of health plans. However, it but made false and/or misleading statements with respect to the migraine therapy Frova, and included questionable incentives intended to increase sales revenues to such companies. Because of this, company stock price fell $11.32 per share, or 42.57%, in two days of trading. Plaintiff is a pension plan who purchased Endo common stock and lost substantially. Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Goldman, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO PENNY, PC. 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Tel: (484) 341-0700 Email: goldman@lawgsp.corn - and - Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Serena Howell, Esq. Thomas Watson, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 907-0700 Email: jgardner@labaton.com shallowe11@1abaton.corn twatson@labaton.com - and - Scott A. Edelman, Esq. Jed M. Schwartz, Esq. Grant R. Mainland, Esq. MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY MCCLOY LLP 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Email: sedelman@mi1bank.com jschwartz@milbank.com gmainland@milbank.com Defendant is represented by: J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq. Laura H. McNally, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 Email: gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com lauramcnally@morganlewiscom - and - Miles N. Ruthberg, Esq. James E. Brandt, Esq. Jeff G. Hammel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 Email: miles.ruthberg@lw.com james.brandt@lw.com jeff.hammel@1w.com ENERGY RECOVERY: Securities Class Settlement Has Prelim. OK ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE ENERGY RECOVERY INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 15-cv-00265-EMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California conditionally granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of class action settlement. The Court is prepared to unconditionally grant the motion if the parties are able to agree on: (a) providing for a reminder postcard if the response rate is low (the parties should specify a threshold); (b) providing for the same timing for a response to the class notice -- i.e., claims, objections, and opt-outs are all due on the same day; (c) allowing a class member to respond to the notice by fax or e-mail (e.g., PDF) in addition to mail; and (d) disclosing the dollar amounts for claim administration fees ($120,000-$135,000) and the incentive fee for Lead Plaintiff ($5,000) for both the long and summary notices. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/KVYyDl from Leagle.com. Joseph Sabatino, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Henry Low, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt, Levi and Korsinsky, pro hac vice, Adam Marc Apton, Levi Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice & Mark Punzalan -- markp@punzalanlaw.com -- Punzalan Law, P.C. Thomas C. Mowdy, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. Thomas Rooney, et al., Defendants, represented by David Malcolm Furbush -- david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP & James M. Lindfelt -- james.lindfelt@gmail.com - - Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. David Barnes -- cbaker@bakerlp.com -- Movant, represented by Christopher David Baker, Baker Curtis & Schwartz, P.C. ENSIGN UNITED: "Salazar" Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Marco Salazar, on behalf of himself individually, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ensign United States Drilling Inc. and Express Payroll Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00991, (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment interest on all amounts and all such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ensign United States Drilling Inc. manufactures drilling rigs for customers in the oil and gas industry. Express Payroll Inc. provides drilling services for its customers throughout the oil and gas industry. Ensign United States Drilling Inc. retained Express Payroll Inc. to assist in building land rigs where Marco Salazar worked as a welder. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com ETHICON: Canadian Patients Launch Class Action Over Recalled Mesh ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Coorsh, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that some Canadian hernia surgery patients have launched a class-action lawsuit against the maker of a now-recalled surgical mesh, claiming they weren't warned of its dangers. Patients are speaking out about a surgical device called Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh, which was used in Canada up until last year, when it was recalled and pulled from the market over concerns about higher rates of complications. The mesh is made by Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. It became available on the Canadian market in September, 2010. In June 2016, Health Canada issued a recall for Physiomesh after the manufacturers learned that the recurrence and reoperation rates after hernia repair using the mesh were higher than the average rates of other meshes. Ethicon said, at the time of the recall, the higher rates were "a multifactorial issue" including possible product characteristics and patient factors, but the company hadn't been able "to fully characterize these factors." Now, a group of people who had the mesh surgically implanted are speaking out, saying they believe their pain and health problems are linked to the product. According to the class action's statement of claim, the plaintiffs allege that there is a "design defect" in the Physiomesh that causes it to contract, tear, or migrate, leading to such injuries as perforations, abscess and adhesion formations, infections, and the need for further surgery. One of the complainants who filed the class-action is 34-year-old Colleen Copland. Doctors used the plastic mesh on a hole in her abdomen following routine hernia surgery. Ms. Copland has since learned her mesh "stretched out," causing her hernia to recur and become more painful than ever. "The pain is always there," Ms. Copland told CTV News. "It feels like my insides are going to explode." She added: "If I cough or sneeze I have to hold my stomach. It is a horrible pain, to be honest." Not long after Ms. Copland's surgery in February 2016, she learned the mesh was recalled and taken off the market. Jaqueline Deschenes of Laval, Que. also suffered ongoing pain after her hernia surgery, during which she also received the mesh implant. She told CTV News, in French, that a surgeon told her the product was not good and they weren't using it anymore. Ms. Deschenes had the mesh removed in January 2015. But the pain has never left. She said she feels something "like a mass" inside her all the time. Ms. Deschenes has also joined a class-action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, claiming she wasn't warned of the dangers. "It is our understanding that there are more people out there and there's probably more people that are experiencing these kinds of side effects," says lawyer Jill McCartney, who is representing plaintiffs. She added there are likely others who have had their hernias "come back with a greater severity" and likely are experiencing pain and discomfort. In a statement, the Johnson & Johnson unit that produced the mesh wrote: "At Ethicon, our first priority is to our customers and their patients, and that includes the safe and effective use of our products. Ethicon will defend itself against lawsuits concerning the use of our hernia mesh products." As many as 30,000 Canadians may have received this brand of mesh. Dr. John Morrison, a Chatham, Ont.-based surgeon who specializes in mesh removal said what happens with recalled hernia mesh after it's been implanted in patients depends on the patient's symptoms. "Unfortunately, there is not a whole lot to do for patients that have it, and my advice for patients is to leave it alone and if they have any problems with it, then it will have to be dealt with at that time," Dr. Morrison said in an interview with CTV News. Ms. Copland said she wonders how the mesh was approved for use in the first place and is now awaiting surgery to remove it at the Shouldice Hernia Centre, which specializes in usually mesh-free hernia repairs. "I think there should be more testing on these products and not so quick to get them onto the market if they're not ready," he said. Ms. Copland is currently awaiting a second surgery to remove the mesh. There have been other problems with hernia mesh. A class action lawsuit was launched over the Kugel mesh, which allegedly caused complications, including bowel perforations. EXPRESS COURIER: Suggs et al. Sue Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ JANICE SUGGS, CHRIS AVERETTE, JOSHUA BURRUS, TRACI CALBERT, KENNETH CHAMPION, NICHOLAS CORNWELL, JACOBY CURRY, ALAN HODGE, PHILIP HULETT, NATHANIEL JACKSON, TYRONE JOHNSON, ADRIEL JOHNSON, MICHAEL JOHNSON, JAMES JONES, JASON LOFTIS, DARYL OWENS, BRENDA PAGE-DOVER, JAMIL PRIDE, DONALD RELIFORD, DARWIN ROBERSON, DEANGELO SMITH, TONY SMITH, JERRYL TODD, JOSEPH WALKER, RYAN WERTZ, SHERYL WHITE, CALVIN WILLIAMS, BART WISHOUN and SHAUN YOUNGER, Each Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., and DEFENDANTS EMP LSO HOLDING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-00275 (W.D. Tex., March 30, 2017), alleges that the proposed class is entitled to (i) minimum wages for the first 40 hours worked each week; (ii) overtime premiums for all hours worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours in any week; and (iii) reimbursement for vehicle-related expenses. The proposed class is composed of individuals who (a) worked for Express Courier International, Inc., as a "driver," "courier," or "owner-operator." Express Courier International, Inc. provides same-day logistics, courier, and warehousing solutions to healthcare, financial services, office products, pharmaceuticals, auto parts, manufactured goods, and other businesses in the Southeast. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AK 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Mustang Overheating Issue ------------------------------------------------------------- Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a nationwide class action over a pricey Ford Mustang was filed in Miami federal court, adding to the district's blossoming reputation as an attractive jurisdiction for automotive defect cases. The lawsuit, filed by Coral Gables firm Grossman Roth Yaffa Cohen and well-known Seattle plaintiffs lawyer Steve Berman, claims the 2016 Shelby GT350 Mustang can dangerously overheat at high speeds -- a big problem for a car designed for racing. The alleged defect hasn't caused any injuries yet, but plaintiffs lawyers say there have been close calls, including a highway driver who narrowly avoided a head-on collision when his Shelby Mustang overheated while he was trying to pass a semi truck. "If it overheats, it goes into 'limp mode' -- it's sort of like going into a fetal position," said Stuart Grossman, the Grossman Roth co-founder who filed the suit. "You don't quite know what to do, because you'll be stepping on the gas and you're not going to get a response." The named plaintiffs, led by Baptist Health surgeon George Tershakovec of Homestead, say they each paid about $57,000 for the car. The 2017 model of the car includes external coolers that address the transmission and rear differentials' tendency to overheat, according to the complaint. Ford "belatedly and inconspicuously admitted the defect" by advising owners of the 2016 model to pay $7,000 to add coolers, plaintiffs counsel said. "But we're not sure that the aftermarket repair works because it's sort of an external device that they're offering to put on the transmission, as opposed to something built-in, as in the newer cars," Mr. Grossman said. With at least 3,500 of the vehicles sold, the cost of repairs for the plaintiffs class would be about $24.5 million. But if discovery shows the repair doesn't fix the alleged defect, Grossman said the economic loss to the plaintiffs would be much larger, since the value of their cars would be dramatically diminished. The economic loss theory has been hotly debated in the Southern District of Florida in high-profile automotive cases, most notably the Takata air bag multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno. Plaintiffs lawyers in that case argue millions of Americans whose vehicles had the recalled air bags are owed money -- not because they were physically injured but because they were misled into overpaying for their cars. (Personal injury cases were consolidated separately.) Judge Moreno let the litigants know he was closely watching a case a few miles up the road before Fort Lauderdale-based U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas. The case, which alleged some Ford Explorers leaked exhaust into the passenger cabin, sought to establish a new model for calculating economic damages in automotive defect cases. The case settled in October before a jury could accept or reject the method, called conjoint analysis, but it's since begun to spread throughout the country. With the Shelby Mustang case, Ford may see it pop up again -- and the motor company will be making its arguments to a judge who knows the legal issues well. "We were fortunate enough to draw Judge Federico Moreno," Mr. Grossman said. "Of all the judges to get, look who we got. . . . He understands economic loss maybe better than any other district court judge. So we feel like it was certainly an appropriate jurisdiction." Ford offered no response to the allegations about the 2016 Shelby GT350 Mustang. "Ford is committed to providing our customers with top-quality vehicles," company spokesperson Brad Carroll said in an email. "However, we do not comment on pending litigation." Mr. Grossman said anger about the alleged defect is spreading through online forums. Those who love the cult car joke that its namesake, the late Texan automotive designer and racer Carroll Shelby, might have resolved the issue in a less civilized manner than a lawsuit. "He was really a perfectionist, and he died a short time ago [in 2012]," Mr. Grossman said. "And as one of the blog writers said, if he were alive now he would have to stick his cowboy boot up somebody's rear end at Ford." GALILEE MEMORIAL: Appeals Court Grants Suit Class Action Status --------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Bailey at The Commercial Appeal reports families of loved ones buried at troubled Galilee Memorial Gardens have enough common ground to grant class-action status to their complaint against 35 funeral homes, the state Court of Appeals said in a ruling filed. The action upheld a local Chancery Court decision that funeral homes were responsible for assuring proper disposal of a relative's remains as part of their contract with the family members, including burial, the appeals court said. "This is an important ruling that means that all of the families impacted by this tragedy can stand together in seeking justice," said Kathryn Barnett of Morgan and Morgan, who along with Howard Manis of The Cochran Firm, is representing families in the action. The appeals court decision upholds a previous ruling by Shelby County Chancellor Jim Kyle. The cemetery on Ellis Road in Bartlett has faced scrutiny for questionable practices and eventually was closed by court order in January 2014. Owner Jemar Lambert faced criminal charges for improper handling of bodies and encroaching on adjacent property - - owned by a trust; not the cemetery -- for burials. Witnesses said they saw Galilee employees put multiple bodies in the same grave and even crush caskets to create more space for several burials in the same spot. Cemetery records were in such disarray, officials could not determine where bodies were buried. The actions sent the case down separate criminal and civil paths. Lambert eventually received a 10-year suspended sentence and 10 years probation after entering an Alford Plea in March 2015. That left civil cases and the pursuit of class-action status against Galilee and funeral homes involved with burials at Galilee. Meanwhile, the cemetery remains closed and officials acknowledge they will never know which bodies are buried in what graves. "It is undisputed," the appeals court stated, "that there are at least 1,288 deceased individuals in the purported class, some of whom are part of the lawsuit and some of whom are not." The families affected are pursuing action against the funeral homes, saying their contract with the businesses included proper handling of the bodies, and contending the funeral homes did not uphold that part of the agreement by delivering the remains to Galilee, which did not have a license from the state to operate between 2011 and 2014. The appeals court said whether the agreement with the funeral homes was written, verbal or informal, "the respective (families) came away from the meeting with the respective defendant funeral homes with the understanding that there would be proper disposition of the decedent's remains." [GN] GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a consumer recently filed a class action lawsuit against Grubhub for alleged violations of telephone harassment statutes. Victoria Flores filed the lawsuit on March 27 in Cook County Circuit Court alleging the food delivery service sent several unsolicited text messages to her. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges she, in February 2016, received several automated text messages after registering on the website to order food. The plaintiff holds the defendant responsible for allegedly sending automated text messages to her cellphone without consent, which the lawsuit alleges violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunction, actual and statutory damages, court costs and any further relief the court grants. She is represented by Jay Edelson and Benjamin H. Richman of Edelson PC in Chicago. Cook County Circuit Court case number 2017CH01106 HARTE-HANKS DIRECT: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado at Northern California Record reports a Fullerton woman has filed a class action against marketing materials producers over allegations of labor code violations. Silvia Valdez filed a complaint on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated on March 23 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division against Harte-Hanks Direct Marketing/Fullerton Inc., Harte-Hanks Direct Inc. and Does 1-10 citing the Fair Labor Standards Act and other counts. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was employed as a production worker. The plaintiff holds Harte-Hanks Direct Marketing/Fullerton Inc., Harte-Hanks Direct Inc. and Does 1-10 responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to provide adequate meal and rest periods and failed to pay adequate overtime wages. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory damages, interest, statutory penalties, restitution, general damages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just. She is represented by James R. Hawkins -- james@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- and Gregory Mauro -- greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- of James Hawkins APLC in Irvine. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division Case number 8:17-cv-00525-DOC-KES [GN] HOME DEPOT: Financial Institutions May Get Settlement Payout ------------------------------------------------------------ Shelby Liesch Esq. -- SLiesch@blg.com -- and Robert Dawkins, Esq. -- RDawkins@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that financial Institutions rarely wear the "plaintiff hat" when it comes to class action proceedings. However, 50 financial institutions in the US found themselves on the other side of the negotiating table in 2014 when they launched 25 class actions against Home Depot in response to the massive breach of the retailer's payment data systems, which compromised 56 million credit and debit cards. These individual actions were eventually consolidated into a single complaint. In a proposed settlement submitted for preliminary approval to the Georgia federal court on March 8, 2017, Home Depot has agreed to implement new data security measures going forward and pay $25 million into a non-revisionary fund for distribution to financial institutions that have not already released their claims. In addition, certain financial institutions who were persuaded to release their claims against Home Depot after receiving misleading communications from the retailer would also receive up to $2.25 million. The privacy breach occurred when cyber hackers installed malware onto Home Depot's self-checkout kiosks around the US in order to obtain customers' personal financial information, including full names, card numbers and other security credentials. The hackers sold this sensitive information to thieves over the internet, resulting in a massive number of fraudulent transactions. While consumers impacted by the breach launched a separate class action to recover their personal losses, the financial institutions sought to recover the substantial costs they incurred when they were forced to cancel and reissue compromised cards, reimburse customers for any fraudulent charges and other out of pocket expenses. If the settlement is approved, eligible financial institutions that file a claim to the fund will receive a fixed payment of approximately $2 per compromised card without having to submit documentation to prove their actual loss. Class members that are able to submit proof of losses will be eligible for a supplemental award of up to 60% of their documented losses arising from the data breach. With the increasing threat posed by cyberattacks, increasing expectations and duties on holders of personal information to implement reasonable cyber security protections and incident response plans, outsourcing of services to common third party suppliers, and use of cloud storage, there may be increasing opportunities for financial institutions to sit at the plaintiff side of the class action table. INVENTURE FOODS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on March 29 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of persons and entities that acquired Inventure Foods, Inc. ("Inventure Foods" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SNAK) securities between March 3, 2016, and March 16, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice, to serve as lead plaintiff. Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. On March 9, 2017, the Company disclosed that it would not be able to timely file its annual report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 and that it expected to file a notification of late filing on Form 12b-25 with the SEC to obtain a 15-day extension of the filing deadline for the Form 10-K. The Company claimed it needed additional time to complete certain intangible asset and goodwill impairment tests, and that, as a result, the Company's independent registered public accounting firm had not completed its audit of the Company's financial statements and the assessment of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Then, on March 16, 2017, the Company filed the notice of late filing on Form 12b-25. Therein, the Company disclosed that it anticipated that its statements of operations contained in its 2016 annual report would differ materially from those reported for its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2015 in its press release filed with the SEC on March 3, 2016. On this news, the price of Inventure Foods common stock fell $0.13 per share, or 2.5%, to close at $4.91 per share on March 17, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to decline in the following trading days, falling $0.48 per share (9.7%) on March 20, 2017, and $0.41 per share (9.2%) on March 21, 2017, to close at $4.02 per share on March 21, 2017. The filed complaint alleges claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; (2) that, as a result, the Company's statements of operations in its fiscal year 2015 results press release contained incorrect figures; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Inventure Foods's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of Inventure Foods during Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com IOVATE HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Kline" ---------------------------------------------- In the case, RONALD PATRICK KLINE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-02387 (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims with respect to California False Advertising Law (FAL) claim, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claim, California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the negligent misrepresentation claims, and denied the Defendant's motion in all other claims. The Court ordered the Plaintiffs that, if they wish to file a second amended complaint (SAC), they must do so no later than April 20, 2017. The Defendant is further ordered to file a response, if any, to the second amended complaint within the time set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3). According to the complaint, Iovate intentionally packages its products in opaque containers comprised of more than 40% empty space to mislead consumers. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's FAL and CLRA claims were time barred, while the UCL claim did not allege the required particularity. Likewise, the Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim is dismissed for failure to allege sufficient facts. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/ff3A88 from Leagle.com. Ronald Patrick Kline, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerounian Law Group, APC. Ronald Patrick Kline, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Naomi B. Spector, KamberLaw LLP & Jason A. Ibey, Kazerouni Law Group, APC. Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by David W. Reid, Newport Trial Group, Scott J. Ferrell, Newport Trial Group & Richard H. Hikida -- rhikida@pacifictrialattorneys.com -- Newport Trial Group. JELLY BELLY: "Gomez" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Jessica Gomez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jelly Belly Candy Company and Does 1-25, Inclusive, Case No. CIVDS 1703007 filed on March 24, 2017, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside) on March 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00575-CAS-FFM to the proceeding. Headquartered in Fairfield, California, Jelly Belly Candy Company manufactures Jelly Belly jelly beans and other candy. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Wolfe Kohler, Esq. Ryan M. Ferrell, Esq. APEX TRIAL LAW 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 438-0033 Facsimile: (949) 299-0133 E-mail: tkohler@apextrial.com rferrell@apextrial.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexander A. Guney, Esq. Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP 333 Bush Street 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 781-7900 Facsimile: (877) 547-2700 E-mail: alexander.guney@sedgwicklaw.com anthony.anscombe@sedgwicklaw.com - and - Karen E Woodward, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP 801 South Figueroa Street 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5556 Telephone: (213) 426-6900 Facsimile: (213) 426-6921 E-mail: karen.woodward@sedgwicklaw.com JOHNVINCE FOODS: Deal Concludes Dwindling Franchise Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Evan Thomas, Esq. -- ethomas@osler.com -- Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the recent settlement in the Zwaniga v Johnvince Foods class action concludes yet another of the dwindling number of franchise class actions before the Canadian courts, highlighting the risks of class actions in general and franchise class actions in particular. The case In 2011, the plaintiffs, the Zwanigas, commenced a proposed class action against Revolution Food Technologies, a vending machine distributor, and Johnvince Foods, a vendor of candies and confections. A companion class action was also commenced against the directors of Revolution. The plaintiffs had a distribution agreement with Revolution for the distribution of candies and peanuts through vending machines supplied by Revolution. Johnvince Foods, the distributor of Planters peanuts in Canada, granted Revolution a licence to use the Planters trademark and sell Planters products. Revolution used this licence to promote its distributorship business but managed and directed the distributorship business on its own. The plaintiffs brought claims against both Johnvince Foods and Revolution under the Arthur Wishart Act for rescission and damages based on alleged misrepresentations and breaches of the statutory duty of fair dealing. The plaintiffs alleged that Johnvince Foods was a franchisor's associate of Revolution. Johnvince Foods brought and obtained summary judgment dismissing the action against it on the basis that it did not control Revolution. This dismissal was upheld on appeal. Although the proposed class actions continued against Revolution and its directors, by 2017 Revolution had been dissolved and its directors lacked any insurance to respond to the claims. The parties agreed to settle the proposed class actions on the basis of distributing approximately CAD63,000, less approved legal fees and other amounts, to class members who filed claims. The court certified the cases for settlement purposes and approved both the settlement and class counsel's fee of just more than CAD10,000. After deductions for legal fees and other amounts, the amount available to the 342 class members was approximately CAD47,000 -- about CAD135 per class member. Takeaway Although the settlement decision does not establish any new legal principles, the settlement itself extends the declining trend in class actions by franchisees against franchisors over the past decade. Since 2002, there have been 15 franchise class actions commenced in Ontario. Of these, eight were started during the years 2008 to 2010. None have commenced since 2013, and only three are known to still be before the courts. Furthermore, although most franchise class actions have been certified, all of those that have proceeded to judgment have ended in victory for the franchisor and, in this case, the minimal recovery for class members under the settlement can hardly be seen as a win for the class members. [GN] KENGARD MANOR: Residents Mull Class Action Over Apartment Fire -------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Klassen, writing for CFJC Today, reports that residents of a burned-out apartment complex in Merritt are weighing their options, including a class-action lawsuit to recoup some of their belongings, for what they call "negligence" from the owners. Debbie Walter and a handful of other residents of the Kengard Manor have reached out to a law firm in Kelowna, which confirmed to CFJC Today that it has committed to looking into their grievance. The Merritt Fire Department hasn't yet to determine the cause of the fire -- not able to enter the north side of the building that's been deemed structurally unsafe. But Ms. Walker and other residents are putting the blame on the owner. "We just want anything. Anything is better than nothing. If we have to sue, we are going to sue," said Ms. Walter. "I'm going to look into it. If I can get a group of people on my side, and there's lots. I've already called Karen from [Columbia] Property Management and told her I'm going ahead. I said there's so much wrong here. Something good has to come back to us out of all this." The fire, which happened on March 16, forced around 60 residents out of their homes. Only five of the 36 units were insured. Residents who have been staying in local motels had until Monday, April 3, before finding their own place. In the meantime, Ms. Walter and others have been overwhelmed by the community support. "We are so thankful and overwhelmed with the support we have received, that we continue to receive, and that is going to keep coming through funding, through cash, through a set of pots, a dish, a blanket, a chair, anything," noted Ms. Walter. "People are just so supportive, because I'm sure they would not want to be in our position." LMI AEROSPACE: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against LMI Aerospace, Inc. ("LMI Aerospace" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LMIA) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of current stock holders of LMI Aerospace, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On February 17, 2017, LMI and Sonaca announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to which Sonaca will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of LMI for USD14.00 per share (the "Merger Consideration"), in cash (the "Proposed Transaction"). The Proposed Transaction is expected to close in mid-2017. The Complaint alleges that the Proposed Transaction was approved by a conflicted Board, which stands to receive windfall financial benefits from the automatic vesting of restricted stock and stock options. The Complaint alleges that while the consideration to be received by LMI's shareholders is inadequate, the Board and the Company's executive management will profit substantially from the Proposed Transaction. On October 13, 2016, LMI announced that it had delivered the first of its aileron and flap assemblies to Honda Aircraft Company ("Honda"), to be utilized in Honda's first aircraft the Honda HA- 420 HondaJet ("HondaJet"). The Complaint also alleges that one analyst that covers advances in aviation remarked that the HondaJet is a "game-changer for the business aviation market" and expects the jet to "foreshadow a wholesale change in the business aviation marketplace," echoing what Honda and Toyota had done to the automobile industry in the 1970's. By entering into the Proposed Transaction, however, the Complaint alleges that LMI stockholders will not be able to share in the Company's success and profits. The Complaint also alleges that Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement (the "Proxy") to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on March 15, 2017. The Proxy recommends that LMI shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction whereby Merger Sub will merge with and into LMI, and become a wholly owned subsidiary of Sonaca. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] LIFECARE SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Solicitation Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a West Covina resident has filed a class-action suit against a medical supply company over claims it unlawfully called her to solicit. Carolyn Navarro filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on March 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Lifecare Solutions Inc. and Does 1 through 10 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that beginning in August 2016, she suffered damages from receiving several unwanted calls from the defendant in its attempt to solicit its services. The plaintiff holds Lifecare Solutions Inc. and Does 1 through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly called the plaintiff despite being her number being registered to the National Do Not Call Registry. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory damages, treble damages of $1,500 and any other relief as the court deems just. She is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon and Meghan E. George of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Woodland Hills. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 2:17-cv-02214-BRO-PJW MEAD JOHNSON: Faces "Walters" Securities Suit Over Reckitt Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN WALTERS, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY, JAMES M. CORNELIUS, STEVEN M. ALTSCHULER, M.D., HOWARD B. BERNICK, KIMBERLY A. CASIANO, ANNA C. CATALANO, CELESTE A. CLARK, Ph.D., STEPHEN W. GOLSBY, MICHAEL GROBSTEIN, PETER KASPER JAKOBSEN, PETER G. RATCLIFFE, MICHAEL A. SHERMAN, ELLIOTT SIGAL, M.D., Ph.D., and ROBERT S. SINGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00344-UNA (D. Del., March 30, 2017), alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in relation to the proposed merger between Mead Johnson and Reckitt Benckiser Group plc under which Reckitt Benckiser will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Clayton for $17.9 billion in cash. The case alleges that Defendant filed materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement. In particular, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (1) certain material projections for Mead Johnson, including a reconciliation of the non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) projections to the most directly comparable GAAP measures and the line items used to calculate the non-GAAP measures, and (2) a fair summary of the financial analyses performed by Goldman and Morgan Stanley. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company is a pediatric nutrition company. The Company manufactures, distributes and sells infant formulas, children's nutrition and other nutritional products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Banko, Esq. Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 482-3182 Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Phone: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Faces Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that on March 22, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against Metaldyne Performance Group ad members of MPG'S board. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On March 23, the plaintiff filed motion for preliminary injunction, request for expedited hearing before special meeting. On March 28, the plaintiff filed notice with the court voluntarily withdrawing his motion for preliminary injunction as moot. MLS PLAYERS: Court Dismisses Class Action Over RSTP Rules --------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Carlisle, writing for ESPN FC, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed by three youth clubs against the MLS Players Union, as well as players Michael Bradley, Clint Dempsey, and DeAndre Yedlin has been dismissed by order of the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. In dismissing the suit, the court ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the MLSPU and specific jurisdiction over the players involved. A third motion, asking for a change of venue to the U.S. District Court Massachusetts District, was rendered moot given that the original suit had been dismissed. The original class-action lawsuit -- filed last July by Redmond, Wash.-based Crossfire Premier, the Chicago Sockers, and the Dallas Texans -- aimed to settle the question of whether FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) are legal in the U.S., and whether the youth clubs in question can then recoup training fees for the players it developed who later become professionals. At one point, Bradley played for the Chicago Sockers, Dempsey for the Dallas Texans, and Yedlin for Crossfire Premier. RSTP stipulates that training compensation is charged when a player signs his or her first pro contract and there is a change of national association, while solidarity payments are collected when a player is transferred before the expiration of their contract, and there is a change of national association. The U.S. Soccer Federation, citing U.S. law, has long forbidden U.S. youth clubs from collecting training compensation and solidarity fees, and MLS has followed their lead. Specifically, the concern is that implementing RSTP in the U.S. could result in a restraint of trade and thus violate U.S. anti-trust law. In a bid to collect the fees they feel are owed them, the three clubs have taken their case to FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), and are awaiting a decision. Meanwhile, they are also moving to establish the system's legality in the U.S. "We have said consistently that training compensation and solidarity payments are bad for players, and would treat players differently than employees in any other industry, including sports," MLSPU executive director Bob Foose said in a statement. "For example, it's absurd to think that a business school could demand a fee from a company that hired one of its students. Yet, that's the kind of payments the youth clubs seek. No player should have the market for his services adversely affected by these payments. "This is not to say that players and the Players Union don't believe in and support youth development. We do, but it should not be funded through a tax on randomly selected professional players' contracts. We have said all along that we do not understand why the youth clubs sued players and their union, and we certainly do not believe that the suit was filed in the appropriate court. We're very satisfied that the court has agreed and brought this case to a close by dismissing it in its entirety." Lance Reich, the attorney representing the three youth clubs told ESPN FC in an interview last year that the lawsuit was a preemptive strike against the MLSPU. In a meeting back in May of 2016, it was alleged that Foose said that implementing a system of training compensation and solidarity payments would violate anti- trust law. It was also alleged by the clubs that a representative of MLS told them that the MLSPU had threatened to file an antitrust lawsuit against the clubs, the U.S. Soccer Federation and others if the DRC awarded the clubs training compensation or solidarity contributions. ESPN FC's Taylor Twellman believes Christian Pulisic made a 'massive statement' with the fight he showed against Panama. The MLSPU countered with three motions. The first stated that the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas, lacked personal jurisdiction over the MLSPU in the matter, since the union had minimal contacts in the state of Texas had no offices there, and that its Collective Bargaining Agreement is with MLS and not any specific entity in Texas. A second motion argued that the players "lack sufficient contact with the state of Texas" for them to be under specific jurisdiction by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The third was for a change of venue, in the event that the suit wasn't dismissed. The three clubs argued that the fact that the MLSPU contained members in the state of Texas, occasionally held meetings there, and was threatening litigation against one of the youth clubs was sufficient to give the Texas court jurisdiction. Ultimately the court sided with the union and the three players. With regard to the MLSPU, the court said in its decision that having some members located in the state of Texas and holding meetings there wasn't sufficient to establish the court's jurisdiction. The court added, "A defendant's threat of litigation does not establish specific jurisdiction over the defendant in a declaratory judgment action." The court used similar reasoning in dismissing the suit against the players. "The Court does not need to determine whether an agency relationship existed between the Player Defendants and the Players Union. Even if the Players Union threat of litigation could be attributed to the Defendant Players, the threat of litigation does not establish specific jurisdiction over the defendant in a declaratory judgment action." Reached by telephone, Mr. Reich said he was "still mulling over the full import of the opinion." But Mr. Reich did state that the ruling contained a silver lining. The court found that, "The Players' Union is not a party to the trade contract between the professional soccer clubs that would give rise to Plaintiffs' claim for solidarity fees in Texas. The Players' Union's contacts with Texas do not give rise to the cause of action." Mr. Reich said, "The key we're focused on is the specific ruling by the judge that the MLSPU is not a party to a player transfer, therefore they don't have a cause of action, so they can't sue us for antitrust." Given that interpretation, Mr. Reich said the three clubs have no intent to refile the suit against the MLSPU "in any other jurisdiction right now." In the meantime, the three clubs will await the ruling by FIFA's DRC. "Once we get that, and hopefully they rule on our favor, we'll push forward from there on getting solidarity payments and training compensation enforced," he said. MORRIS AUTO: Snap Parking's Suit Proceeds Without Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed an order denying the Defendant's motion to stay, pending arbitration, and to compel individual arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims in the case, SNAP PARKING, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MORRIS AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a PERFORMANCE FORD and PERFORMANCE FORD LINCOLN, Defendant-Appellant, No. A 4733-15T4 (S.C. N.J.). The case involves the validity of an arbitration agreement submitted by the Defendant in his motion to stay the action and compel individual arbitration. The agreement required that (a) all claims, disputes, or controversies arising from the transaction of the parties must be arbitrated; (b) that the parties waive their right to other proceedings, including court actions; and (c) that the parties agree that any arbitration shall not be conducted as a class action. The Superior Court concluded that the Agreement under review is not enforceable based on the plain meaning of its terms. The Superior Court further concluded that the "class action arbitration" waivers were not stated with sufficient clarity to constitute a complete abandonment of court proceedings to pursue a class action. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at https://is.gd/tKSTcq from Leagle.com. Bruce E. Baldinger -- info@baldingerlaw.com -- attorney for appellant. The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Henry P. Wolfe, Andrew R. Wolf and Matthew S. Oorbeek -- moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net -- on the brief). MYLAN INC: Pa. Fund Alleges Price-Fixing of Albuterol Sulfate ------------------------------------------------------------- Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01461-CMR (E.D. Pa., March 30, 2017), accuses Defendants of engaging in a conspiracy to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of generic Albuterol Sulfate tablet products. Mylan Inc. is a global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867 2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C. 8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington St. Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (484) 342-0700 Fax: (484) 580-8747 E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com NATIONWIDE BUSINESS: "Cunningham" Case Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ In the case styled CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-4542-MWF-KS (C.D. Cal.), Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the individual claims of the named Plaintiff, Craig Cunningham, with prejudice, and his alleged putative class action claims, without prejudice. The Court further ordered each party to bear its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/4xDRKD from Leagle.com. Craig Cunningham, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian Robert Bacon, Law Offices of Todd Friedman PC. Craig Cunningham, Plaintiff, represented by Meghan Elisabeth George, Law Offices of Todd Friedman PC, Thomas Edward Wheeler, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC & Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC. Nationwide Busines Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by David George Hagopian -- dhagopian@cdflitigation.com -- Carothers DiSante and Freudenberger LLP & Jeffrey L. Sikkema -- jsikkema@cdflitigation.com -- Carothers DiSante and Freudenberger LLP. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: MAO-MSO Seeks Medical Expense Reimbursement -------------------------------------------------------------- MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, MSP Recovery, LLC, MSPA Claims 1, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, an Ohio company, Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-04646 (S.D. Ohio, March 31, 2017), seeks reimbursement of double damages, equitable relief by issuing an injunction ordering Defendant to comply with its statutory duties, prejudgment and post-judgment, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the Medicare Act. The complaint says Defendant failed to fulfill its statutorily- mandated duty under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare Act to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations for medical treatments or expenses paid by Plaintiffs on behalf of Defendant's insured clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tracy L. Turner, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 5093 Heath Gate Drive New Albany, OH 43054 Phone: (614) 657-3454 Email: tturner@pbclawfirm.com - and - Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. Courtney L. Stidham, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Phone: (504) 355-0086 Fax: (504) 523-0699 Email: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com cstidham@pbclawfirm.com - and - Michael L. Baum, Esq. R. Brent Wisner, Esq. Pedram Esfandiary, Esq. BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 207-3233 Fax: (310) 820-7444 Email: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com NATURE'S WAY: Class Action Over Made In USA Label Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that a consumer's proposed class action against vitamin manufacturer Nature's Way alleging it misrepresented its products as "made in the USA" can proceed, an Illinois federal judge ruled on March 28, saying the consumer provided enough proof she was damaged to avoid having the case tossed. District Judge Sara L. Ellis did throw out Angel McDonnell's claims under Illinois's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act in response to the manufacturer's motion to dismiss, however, saying that law requires proof of continuing harm, something that's unlikely to occur given Ms. McDonnell is well aware of the alleged misrepresentations by Nature's Way at this point. But she found McDonnell's claim that she paid a premium for the "made in the USA" label because she is a "patriotic American" was enough to proceed on charges of unjust enrichment and violations of Illinois's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. "Although the allegations are relatively bare-bones, they" are sufficient, Judge Ellis wrote, citing relevant case law. "Nature's Way does not cite any cases that required McDonnell to provide more specificity . . . [and] the court will not require McDonnell to plead more." Judge Ellis also declined to take up Nature's Way's argument that McDonnell shouldn't be allowed to pursue claims under other states' consumer fraud statutes, as she has proposed, saying that question can be settled if and when the proposed class is certified. She also said that although the ICFA itself does not provide for a jury trial, in this case she would allow it since the Seventh Amendment "allows for jury trials in certain cases even where no such right exists in state court." Ms. McDonnell filed the suit in May, alleging she'd purchased bottles of "Alive! Women's Energy Supplement" in 2013 and 2014, in part because of the "made in the USA" representations on the label. McDonnell says the pills contain Vitamin C from primarily foreign sources, however, and not the United States, making the use of that phrase "on the labels deceptive," her complaint said. The complaint says she's "willing to pay a premium for American- made goods," and cites a 2015 survey by Consumer Reports that concludes nearly "80 percent of Americans are willing to pay more for American-made goods," as well as several similar reports, to bolster her argument. Nature's Way moved to have the case tossed in December, saying her allegations weren't specific enough and didn't allege actual injury, among other things. Ms. McDonnell also alleged that Nature's Way misrepresented other products as "made in the USA" when they were not, but Judge Ellis tossed those claims because McDonnell didn't actually purchase any product other than the Women's Alive supplements, according to her complaint. Nature's Way is represented by Donald E. Mrozek -- dmrozek@hinshawlaw.com -- Joel Bertocchi, Barry F. MacEntee and James Vlahakis -- jvlahakis@hinshawlaw.com -- of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Ms. McDonnell is represented by John E. Norris -- jnorris@davisnorris.com -- Frank Davis -- fdavis@davisnorris.com - - Wesley W. Barnett -- wbarnett@davisnorris.com -- Dargan Ware -- dware@davisnorris.com -- and Kristan Rivers -- krivers@davisnorris.com -- of Davis & Norris LLP; and Gerald Bekkerman and Jennifer Bekkerman of Bekkerman Law Offices LLC. The case is Angel McDonnell v. Nature's Way Products LLC, case number 1:16-cv-05011, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. NATURMED INC: Can File Cross-Claim Against Bactolac --------------------------------------------------- In the case, KAYE WINK, Individually and as next of Kin of Donald Wink, deceased, and also on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. NATURMED, INC., d/b/a THE INSTITUTE FOR VIBRANT LIVING, an Indiana Corporation, and BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00090-JHM (W.D. Ky.), Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted the Defendant, NaturMed's motion for leave to file an amended answer and cross-claim against Bactolac. The case involves a statewide class action lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff alleging that NaturMed's dietary supplement products made customers sick and it's product called All Day Energy Greens was the reason for Donald Wink's death on October 27, 2015. The Court noted that there will be no prejudice to Bactolac if NaturMed's motion is granted because the deadlines in the scheduling order can be extended to accommodate Bactolac's circumstances. Therefore, justice requires granting NaturMed's leave to file the proposed amended answer and cross-claim. A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at https://goo.gl/8Oxtvn from Leagle.com. Kaye Wink, Plaintiff, represented by Frank L. Watson, III -- fwatson@watsonburns.com -- Watson Burns, PLLC. Kaye Wink, Plaintiff, represented by John T. Edwards, Ballin Ballin and Fishmen, Kevin M. McCormack, Ballin Ballin and Fishmen, P.C. & William F. Burns -- bburns@watsonburns.com -- Watson Burns, PLLC. NaturMed, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Andrew M. Palmer, Frost Brown Todd LLC, John Kendrick Wells, IV, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Kelly L. Wilkins, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Sheila Carmody -- scarmody@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer, LLP & Stephen E. Embry, Frost Brown Todd LLC. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by James E. Looper, Jr., Hall Booth & Smith PC. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: July 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- This is a notice of a settlement of class action lawsuits. This is not a notice of lawsuits against you. If you received any telephone calls or text messages from Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") at a number that was assigned to a cellular telephone service, between May 4, 2011 and January 26, 2017, which were wrong number calls--in that the subscriber or customary user of the phone number called was different from the party that NSI was trying to reach you may be entitled to compensation as a result of the settlement in the class actions captioned: Randy Johnson. v. Navient Solutions, Inc., f/k/a Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-0716-LJM (S.D. Ind.) Shelly Toure and Tony Heard v Navient Solutions, Inc., f/k/a Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00071-LJM-TAB A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. Please read this notice carefully. It explains your rights and options to participate in a class action settlement. What are your legal rights and options? SUBMIT A TIMELY CLAIM FORM: If you submit a timely claim form, you will receive a proportionate share of the $19,744,650 settlement fund after attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, service awards for named plaintiffs and the costs of administration are deducted, and you will release claims you may have against NSI related to this case. DO NOTHING: If you do nothing, you will not receive a share of the settlement fund, but you will release claims you may have against NSI related to this case. EXCLUDE YOURSELF: If you exclude yourself from the settlement, you will not receive a share of the settlement fund, and you will not release any claims you have against NSI. OBJECT: You may object to the settlement. Why is this notice available? This is a notice of a proposed settlement in class action lawsuits. The settlement would resolve the lawsuits, which Randy Johnson ("Johnson") filed against NSI, along with similar claims filed by Shelly Toure ("Toure") and Tony Heard ("Heard"). Please read this notice carefully. It explains the lawsuits, the settlement and your legal rights, including the process for receiving a settlement check, excluding yourself from the settlement or objecting to the settlement. What are the lawsuits about? Johnson filed this lawsuit against NSI, alleging that NSI violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, when calling consumers on their cellular telephones, via an automatic telephone dialing system, at wrong numbers--in that the subscriber to or user of the phone number called was different from the party that NSI was trying to reach. Toure and Heard filed a similar lawsuit. NSI denies the allegations. The parties have agreed to a settlement. Why is this a class action? In a class action, one or more people called "class representatives" file a lawsuit on behalf of people who have similar claims. All of these people together are a "class" or "class members." The Court accordingly resolves claims for all class members, except for those who exclude themselves from the class. Why is there a settlement? Johnson, Toure, and Heard, on the one hand, and NSI, on the other, have agreed to settle the lawsuits to avoid the time, risk and expense associated with it, and to achieve a final resolution of the disputed claims. Under the settlement, participating class members will obtain a payment in settlement of the claims raised in the lawsuits. Johnson, Toure, and Heard, and their attorneys think the settlement is best for all class members. How do you know if your claims are included in the settlement? This settlement resolves claims on behalf of the following class: Each person and entity throughout the United States: (a) to whom Navient Solutions Inc. placed one or more telephone calls; (b) directed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service; (c) by using an automatic telephone dialing system; (d) after Navient Solutions Inc. designated the telephone number to which it placed the call(s) as a wrong number; (e) between May 4, 2011 and January 26, 2017. What does the settlement provide? NSI will establish a settlement fund in the amount of $19,744,650. Out of the settlement fund, NSI will pay: a. Settlement compensation to the class members; b. The costs and expenses of administrating the class action settlement; c. An award of attorneys' fees in an amount up to one-third of the settlement fund, subject to the Court's approval; d. Costs and expenses incurred litigating this matter, not to exceed $55,000, subject to the Court's approval; and e. Service awards to Johnson in an amount up to $25,000, and to Toure and Heard in an amount up to $5,000 each, subject to the Court's approval. Each class member who submits a timely and valid claim form will be entitled, subject to the provisions of the settlement agreement, to his or her equal share of the settlement fund as it exists after deducting: the costs and expenses of administrating the class action settlement; the attorneys' fees, subject to the Court's approval; the costs and expenses of the litigation, subject to the Court's approval; and the service awards for Johnson, Toure and Heard, subject to the Court's approval. How much each class member receives depends on how many people make approved claims. Class Counsel estimates that the amount of the cash award may be within the range of $200 to $350. Any remaining monies from uncashed settlement awards may be redistributed in a second distribution to class members who submitted a valid and timely claim. However, if a second distribution would result in less than $5 per qualifying claimant, the remaining monies will instead be donated to the National Endowment for Financial Education. How can you get a payment? You must mail a valid claim form to the Johnson Settlement Administrator, postmarked by May 26, 2017. Or you must submit a valid claim through www.johnsontcpasettlement.com by May 26, 2017. When will you be paid? If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, settlement checks will be mailed to class members who timely mailed or submitted valid claim forms no later than 45 days after the judgment if the lawsuits become final. If there is an appeal of the settlement, payment may be delayed. What rights are you giving up in this settlement? Unless you exclude yourself from the settlement, you will be considered a member of the class, which means you give up your right to sue or continue a lawsuit against NSI over the released claims. Giving up your legal claims is called a release. Unless you formally exclude yourself from the settlement, you will release your claims against NSI. For more information on the release, released parties and released claims, you may obtain a copy of the class action settlement agreement by writing to the settlement administrator at Johnson v Navient Solutions PO Box 2578 Faribault, MN 55021-9578 or on the settlement website, www.johnsontcpasettlement.com. How can you exclude yourself from the settlement? You may exclude yourself from the settlement, in which case you will not receive a payment. If you wish to exclude yourself from the settlement, you must mail a written request for exclusion to the settlement administrator, at the addresses set forth below, postmarked by May 26, 2017. You must include in your request for exclusion your: a. Full name; b. Address; c. Telephone number demonstrating that you are a person in the Settlement Class; and d. A clear and unambiguous statement that you wish to be excluded from the settlement, such as "I request to be excluded from the settlement in the Johnson action." You must sign the request personally. If any person signs on your behalf, that person must attach a copy of a power of attorney or other official document authorizing that signature. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement? The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on July 13, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. The hearing will take place in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, before the Honorable Larry McKinney. At the final fairness hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and, if so, whether final approval of the settlement should be granted. The Court will hear objections to the settlement, if any. The Court may make a decision at that time, postpone a decision or continue the hearing. Do you have to attend the hearing? No. You are not required to attend the hearing. But you are welcome to attend the hearing at your own expense. You cannot speak at the hearing if you have excluded yourself from the class settlement. Once you have excluded yourself, the class settlement does not affect your legal rights. What if you want to object to the settlement? If you do not exclude yourself from the settlement, you can object to the settlement if you do not believe it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If you wish to object, you must mail a written notice of objection, postmarked by May 26, 2017, to class counsel, NSI's attorneys, and to the Court, at the following addresses: Class Counsel: Aaron D. Radbil GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 NSI's Counsel: Lisa M. Simonetti VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana 46 East Ohio Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 You must include in your objection your: a. Full name; b. Address; c. Telephone number called by NSI to demonstrate that you are a person in the Settlement Class; d. A statement of the specific objection(s); e. The grounds for the objection(s); f. Identification of any documents to show that you are a person in the Settlement Class or which you desire the Court to consider; and g. A statement noting whether you intend to appear at the fairness hearing. By when must you enter an appearance? Any class member who objects to the settlement and wishes to enter an appearance must do so by May 26, 2017. To enter an appearance, you must file with the Clerk of the Court a written notice of your appearance and you must serve a copy of that notice, by U.S. mail or hand-delivery, upon class counsel and NSI's attorneys, at the addresses set forth above. What if you do nothing? If you do nothing and the Court approves the settlement agreement, you will not receive a share of the settlement fund, but you will release any claim you have against NSI related to the allegations. Unless you exclude yourself from the settlement, you will not be able to sue or continue a lawsuit against NSI over the released claims. What will happen if the Court does not approve the settlement? If the Court does not finally approve the settlement or if it finally approves the settlement and the approval is reversed on appeal, or if the settlement does not become final for some other reason, you will receive no benefits and the lawsuits will continue. Who are the attorneys for Johnson, Toure and Heard? The attorneys are: Aaron D. Radbil GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 Michael L. Greenwald James L. Davidson GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 The Court has appointed these attorneys to act as class counsel. You do not have to pay class counsel. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, and have that lawyer appear in Court for you in this case, you must hire one at your own expense. Who are NSI's attorneys? NSI's attorneys are: Lisa M. Simonetti VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Where can you get additional information? This notice is only a summary of the settlement. All documents filed with the Court, including the full class action settlement agreement, may be reviewed or copied at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. In addition, pertinent case materials are available at the settlement web site, www.johnsontcpasettlement.com. If you would like additional information about this matter, please contact: Johnson v Navient Solutions Settlement Administrator c/o Rust Consulting, Inc. PO Box 2578 Faribault, MN 55021-9578 1-877-740-6998 Please do not call the Judge about this case. Neither the Judge, nor the Clerk of Court, will be able to give you advice about this case. Furthermore, neither NSI nor NSI's attorneys represent you, and they cannot give you legal advice. NEW YORK: Port Authority Faces Class Action Over Gay Men Arrest --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS New York and The Associated Press report that a class action lawsuit claims Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police are wrongly arresting gay men on public lewdness and other charges after using the bus terminal's bathrooms. The suit, filed on March 27 in Manhattan federal court, claims Port Authority police officers engage in discrimination by falsely arresting men perceived as gay at the Port Authority Bus Terminal on baseless charges. The complaint accuses officers of roaming bus station bathrooms, sometimes trying to engage the interest of men they find there, then charging them with lewd conduct, CBS2 reported. The complaint accuses PAPD officers of targeting gays to boost quality of life arrest statistics. "The PAPD have continued to make such targeted arrests knowing or believing that most of those arrested will ultimately be forced to plead to lesser charges to avoid public embarrassment and humiliation, costly legal fees, and jail sentences, as well as reputational and professional harm associated with the false charges," the suit explained. The suit was filed by Winston & Strawn LLP and the Legal Aid Society. The plaintiffs are seeking a stop to the practice, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. "The use of police assets and resources in this unconstitutional and unconscionable way is particularly stunning in light of the world in which we live," said Thomas Patrick Lane, partner with Winston & Strawn. The Port Authority declined to comment. NORTHERN CHILDREN'S: Faces "Pratt" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- Tanea Pratt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northern Children's Services, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01433-NIQA (E.D. Pa., March 30, 2017), alleges that Defendant permitted Plaintiff to regularly work more than 40 hours in certain workweeks without being paid proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and/or Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Defendant offers school therapeutic services to support children and youth who have emotional and/or behavioral problems. Plaintiff is employed as hourly therapeutic staff support worker. [BN] ONTARIO: Top Court Certifies Crown Wards' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The law firms Koskie Minsky LLP and Watkins Law Professional Corporation disclosed that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled on March 30 that abused, neglected and victimized Crown wards may proceed with their class action against the Province of Ontario. In this case, the plaintiffs were removed from their families and made Crown wards when they were children. They were apprehended by the Province of Ontario because they suffered criminal assaults, neglect or abuse at the hands of their family members or others. Many Crown wards suffered further abuse while in the care of the Crown. The plaintiffs allege that there was a Province-wide failure to protect and advance the children's claims for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or in the civil courts. By failing to do so, the plaintiffs were deprived of compensation that could have dramatically changed their lives for the better. On March 30, 2017, the Honourable Madam Justice H.M. Pierce released reasons certifying the case as a class action, clearing the way for this case to go to trial. Justice Pierce concluded that a class action would foster access to justice, promote judicial economy and lead to behavior modification on the part of the Province. Justice Pierce certified the class action in part because of the vulnerability of the Crown ward class. Her decision states, "The class of former Crown wards is, by its nature, a vulnerable group. Many suffered abuse or neglect as children to the extent that they were removed permanently from their families. Some suffered abuse as foster children. At the tender age of 18, they were deemed independent. Against this life experience, it would not be surprising that they would encounter barriers in access to justice if required to litigate their claims individually." The proposed class action includes all children who were Crown wards at any time from January 1, 1966, the date that the Province of Ontario voluntarily accepted legal responsibility and guardianship of Crown wards. There may be more than 90,000 class members who will be affected by this case. The representative plaintiffs are Toni Grann, Robert Mitchell, Dale Gyselinck and Lorraine Evans. Toni, Robert, Dale and Lorraine are former Crown wards of the Province of Ontario, seeking justice for the rest of the class. "I'm just happy we can get this case moving. The Province has fought us on every step so far," said Toni Grann upon learning about his victory. "We have waited long enough for justice. Now we can go to trial." Currently, over 500 class members have contacted class counsel. Class counsel encourages former Crown wards to contact them to assist in these claims being advanced. "Ontario has wrongly taken the position from day one that they do not even owe Crown wards any duties at all and has tried to shift blame to Children's Aid Societies," said Jonathan Ptak, co-lead counsel in this case and a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP. "What is outrageous is that on the one hand, the Child and Family Services Act specifically mandates that the Province of Ontario is the parent for each Crown ward. On the other hand, the Province of Ontario administers the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It's intimately familiar with its policies, procedures, and what is required to prove a claim. What happened here? Why did Ontario fail to consider claims to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on behalf of children in its care? Now that the class action is certified, we can finally get the court to answer these questions and ensure the Crown fulfils its duties as a parent and take appropriate Crown wards in its care." Ontario Crown wards and former Ontario Crown wards are encouraged to visit www.kmlaw.ca/ocwclassaction, email -- ocwclassaction@kmlaw.ca -- or call 1 (866) 778-7985 or -- www.watkinslawforthepeople.com -- or call (807) 345-4455 to provide information about their wardship to support the case and to be in a position to make a claim, if the case is successful. Jonathan Ptak of Koskie Minsky LLP, and Chris Watkins of Watkins Law Professional Corporation are lead counsel in this proposed class action. The claim was issued in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost class action, pension, labour, employment and litigation firms. Its class actions group has been a leader in class actions since 1992 and has prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area. For example, Koskie Minsky LLP was counsel in Cloud v. Canada, the first Indian Residential Schools class action certified in Canada which was settled for CAD5 billion. Koskie Minsky LLP was also counsel in Dolmage v. Ontario and three other related cases against the province of Ontario on behalf of thousands of people with disabilities which were settled for more than CAD107 million. [GN] PAYPAL: Settles Class Action Over Account Closures for $4 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Maynard, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that no one ever accused the litigation process of being overly expeditious, but a $4 million settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong will finally put an end to a class action lawsuit that has spanned nearly seven years. The original suit was filed by lead plaintiff Moises Zepeda, who sued PayPal in 2010 for allegedly closing his account and pocketing the money and interest that he had stored in it. While that may seem like a cut and dried case if proven true, actions taken by attorneys representing consumers with similar complaints derailed settlement talks and elongated the process. A long journey Sometime after Mr. Zepeda filed his claim in 2010, another PayPal user named Devinda Fernando attempted to sue both PayPal and eBay on similar charges, claiming that the companies closed customer accounts without notice for supposed suspicious activity. All parties entered mediation in 2011 and reached a global settlement, but attorney Marina Trubitsky attempted to negotiate individual settlements with both PayPal and eBay, a series of actions that Judge Armstrong believes was "ostensibly intended to derail the Zepeda settlement" in order to "[resurrect] her dormant motions to consolidate Zepeda and Fernando." Judge Armstrong denied Ms. Trubitsky's motions and set a global settlement conference for 2012; however, Ms. Trubitsky and her Fernando clients did not attend, so no settlement could be reached. Those actions began a string of proposed settlements by the Zepeda party, which were denied by Armstrong for varying reasons ranging from vagueness and lack of money damages to improper citations of previous settlement orders. Finally, on March 24, Judge Armstrong approved a settlement that had been well-received by the majority of class members; of the 100 million PayPal users who had been sent email notices of the settlement, only 11 objected to it and 75 opted out. "These numbers indicate that the notice process has been remarkably successful -- and the settlement class's reaction to the settlement has been overwhelmingly positive, which favors approving the settlement," she wrote in her decision. Best to settle Judge Armstrong notes that the plaintiffs' claims were generally "weak," a fact that she said "militates in favor of settlement. "There is no question that maintaining this case as a class action through trial would be highly uncertain," she wrote. Under the agreement, PayPal will pay $4 million to the settlement fund, modify the disclosure of its reserve and hold practices, and clarify its dispute resolution process. Judge Armstrong granted $800,000 to counselors but denied Ms. Trubitsky any award. "[Trubitsky's] actions resulted in additional delay and litigation costs -- all to the detriment of the class. The court finds that she is not deserving of attorney's fees or costs on the ground that her actions, on balance, did not provide a substantial benefit to the class," she wrote. PRECISION DRILLING: "Montez" Hits Misclassification, No OT Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Montes on behalf of himself individually, and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Precision Drilling Company LP, PD Supply Inc. and Precision Drilling Corporation Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01012, (S.D. Tex., April 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as well as other damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants manufacture drilling rigs and provide drilling services for customers in the oil and gas industry where Joel Montes worked as a Welder. Montez claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor thus denied overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com RADIO RENTALS: Customer Sues Over "Rent, Try $1 Buy" Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- Marty Silk, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that struggling Wagga Wagga mother of five Casey Simpson paid Radio Rentals $3320 for a used bed worth $480, and she still doesn't own it. Ms Simpson, who is leading a $50 million class action launched by Maurice Blackburn lawyers against Radio Rentals on March 29, says its "Rent, Try, $1 Buy" contract misled her. She says instead of letting her buy the used bed for $1 when her 18-month contract ended, the appliance rental giant continued to deduct weekly payments from her Centrelink account. "That could come in handy for me and my children, I could have done a lot with that money," she said. "I think it's a big scam, from the start when I signed the contract." Thorn Group, which owns Radio Rentals, saw its shares slump on March 29 after the class action was revealed, accusing the home appliance rentals giant of "unfair and unconscionable practices" that have hurt up to 200,000 customers. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers principal Ben Slade claims the "Rent, Try $1 Buy" scheme is misleading and has led to customers paying up to seven times the true retail cost of home appliances they have rented. The Radio Rentals website tells potential customers that at the end of a 24-, 36- or 48-month rental plan for an appliance or piece of furniture: "you can make it yours for just $1". Mr Slade said that was not correct, as customers do not automatically get to buy their rented items outright for $1. Instead, the fine print stated that the impetus is on customers to negotiate to buy rented appliances or furniture for a price agreed by Radio Rentals. If customers fail to secure a purchase, their contracts automatically roll over into another 24-, 36- or 48-month term. "Here we have a national company that deals with vulnerable people promising them one thing but signing them up to another, at a much higher price than is reasonable," he said in a statement on March 29. "It's not rent, try, one dollar buy, it's rent now, pay forever," Mr Slade said. Mr Slade estimates that up to 200,000 Radio Rental customers are eligible to join the class action with Ms Simpson. He said under Australian consumer law, contracts must be fair and companies must not act in a manner that misleads or deceives. Mr Slade said if Radio Rentals' advertising stated that customers could pay up to seven times the value of a rented product, it would not be misleading but consumers would avoid it. "Would I think that was a sensible product? No. Would the community think it was a sensible product? No. They would say it was stupid and they would not go anywhere near the shop," he said. Thorn Group has been contacted for comment. Its shares were down 8.7 per cent at $1.365 as of 2:59 pm. The class action news comes a week after the company warned shareholders it may have to pay compensation to customers who did not meet minimum income thresholds for their contracts, following a probe by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The matter involves Radio Rentals stores owned and operated by the Thorn Group in states other than South Australia. The South Australian Radio Rentals brand is not associated in any way. In South Australia, Thorn Group stores trade as Rentlo Reinvented. RADIO RENTALS: Class Action May Drag on for Years, Parent Says -------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that Thorn Group says a $50 million class action involving past lending practices of its subsidiary Radio Rentals could drag on for years. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers announced the action against Radio Rentals on March 29 on behalf of customer and lead plaintiff Casey Simpson. The legal firm alleges that the home appliance rental company's "Rent, Try, $1 Buy" contracts are misleading and deceptive as customers do not get to buy rented goods for $1 at the end of their contract periods. Thorn Group on March 30 confirmed it had been served with a statement of claim but warned the case could drag on. "Thorn Australia Pty Limited will defend the claim in the ordinary course of the class action process," the company said in a statement to the ASX. "It is anticipated that the process could take a significant length of time (perhaps years) to run its course." The Radio Rentals website tells potential customers that at the end of a 24, 36 or 48 month rental plan for an appliance or piece of furniture: "you can make it yours for just $1". However, Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said the contract fine print states that the impetus is on customers to negotiate to buy rented appliances or furniture for a price agreed by Radio Rentals. If customers fail to secure a purchase, their contracts automatically roll over into another 24, 36 or 48 month term. Additionally, Radio Rentals' website states that goods available to buy under those contracts "are similar to (the) rented good in age, dimension and features." ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: PERS Hits Overpriced Shares ------------------------------------------------------ Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. and Mark A. Diblasi, Peter R. Armbruster, Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-00474 (E.D. Wis., March 31, 2017) seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs under the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and applicable Wage Orders issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. Plaintiff provides retirement, disability, and survivor benefits to employees of the State of Mississippi's public school districts, municipalities, counties, community colleges, state universities, and such other public entities as libraries and water districts. Roadrunner is an asset-light transportation and logistics service provider, offering a suite of global supply chain solutions with principal executive offices located at 4900 S. Pennsylvania Ave., Cudahy, Wisconsin 53110. DiBlasi and Armbruster served as the Company's President and Chief Financial Officer respectively. The complaint says Defendants concealed material adverse facts about Roadrunner's business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of its securities, to artificially inflate prices. Defendants failed to disclose that the Company's financial statements were not stated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nola J. Hitchcock Cross, Esq. Mary C. Flanner, Esq. CROSS LAW FIRM, S.C. The Lawyers' Building 845 N. 11th Street Milwaukee, WI 53233 Tel: (414) 224-0000 Fax: (414) 273-7055 Email: mflanner@crosslawfirm.com njhcross@crosslawfirm.com - and - Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE STEPHEN R. BASSER 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 Email: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE STEPHEN R. BASSER 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 Email: jbarrack@barrack.com SCHWARTZ: Negligence Claim Certified as Global Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Case, Esq. -- rcase@lerners.ca -- and Alex Sharpe, Esq. -- asharpe@lerners.ca -- of Lerners, in an article for Mondaq, report that Excalibur Special Opportunities LP v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman, is a recent example of a global class proceeding being certified in Ontario. The majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal certified this action for auditor's negligence despite 98% of the proposed class members being non-residents of Ontario. Ultimately, the jurisdictional analysis turned on how the proposed claim was characterized with the majority of the Court of Appeal holding that it is for the plaintiff to plead their claim as they see fit and to fail or succeed on that basis.2 The fact that all but one of the class members could be contacted directly was also important. Background Excalibur Special Opportunities LP ("Excalibur") was one of 57 investors (50 of which were American and only two of which were Canadian) that lost money in an expressly high-risk investment in an American corporation, Southern China Livestock International Inc. ("Southern China"). Excalibur was one of the largest investors having invested almost one million USD after reviewing a Private Placement Memorandum that included an audit report prepared by the defendant, a Montreal and Toronto based accounting firm. Approximately one year later, "Southern China Livestock went dark, and its shares and warrants [were] now worthless." Excalibur's motion to certify the global class action was dismissed at first instance and this decision was upheld by the Divisional Court. While preferable procedure and deference were also issues, we focus here on the question of whether there was a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the subject matter of the dispute. The motion judge held that the class definition criterion was not satisfied because the proposed claim lacked a real and substantial connection to Ontario. Although Excalibur and the defendant auditor were both based in Ontario, all of the remaining proposed class members were non-residents of Ontario, Southern China was based in the United States, and the transactions were governed by American law. The majority of the Divisional Court deferred to and affirmed the motion judge's decision. However, in dissent, Sachs J held the motion judge "erred in failing to find a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the proposed action." The Importance of the Characterization of the Claim Justice MacFarland, writing for the majority of the Court of Appeal, essentially agreed with Sachs J and held that the motion judge erred in failing to assume jurisdiction over the global class due ultimately to his mischaracterization of the nature of the claim. What was disputed was the import of the expectations of non- resident class members to have their rights determined in Ontario. The majority held that whether it is reasonable for non-resident class members to expect that their rights would be determined by a foreign court is not an independent factor to be considered when determining whether to take jurisdiction in a global class action. The test to determine whether to take jurisdiction begins with examining the presence of jurisdiction simpliciter. Jurisdiction simpliciter was present as the defendant was resident in Ontario, carried on business in Ontario and the audit report was prepared in Ontario. This was accepted by all. The majority of the Court of Appeal found that considerations of order and fairness were not seriously challenged in this case. Procedural interests could be protected as the identity of all but one class member was known and they could be notified directly about the claim and their ability to opt-out. It was found to be an error in law that taking jurisdiction had to be exercised with restraint on the basis of Currie in this case. The claim is for negligence with respect to an audit report that was prepared in Ontario. Once properly characterized, the real and substantial connection to Ontario is clear. Focusing on the fact that the private placement took place in the United States led to the jurisdictional error. This is an action in auditor's negligence brought by an Ontario resident against an auditor who performed the work in its Ontario office, which defendant had no assets in the United States. In dissent, Justice Blair held that the motion judge accepted that the Ontario court could assume jurisdiction but nevertheless concluded that it should not assume jurisdiction over the non- resident class members as there was insufficient connection between Ontario and the subject of the dispute. Viewed in this manner, Blair JA saw no error in the motion judge's consideration of the reasonable expectations of the non-resident class members or in focusing on a broader characterization of the subject matter of the proposed class proceeding, i.e. the private placement transaction in the United States. Both of these were appropriate given the focus of the motion judge on whether jurisdiction should be assumed and the built-in approach of jurisdictional restraint in our system. Justice Blair further noted that just because the class members could be notified did not assist as the motion judge did not rely on Currie with respect to procedural protections but rather with respect to jurisdictional restraint. As it stands, this class action brought by a resident of Ontario against an Ontario based defendant over work done within the province but relied upon by others in foreign jurisdictions has been certified as a global class action in Ontario. SIGNET JEWELERS: May 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 30 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Signet Jewelers Limited securities (SIG) from August 29, 2013 through February 27, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Signet investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Signet class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1064.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The complaint alleges that defendants during the Class Period issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that alleged sexual harassment by employees of Signet's Sterling Family of Jewelers division ("Sterling"), including numerous incidents of sexual assault and rape, which were detailed in approximately 249 declarations signed under penalty of perjury by current and former Sterling employees, made it unlikely that Signet would be able to avoid paying a sizable amount of damages in connection with a class action lawsuit filed by Sterling employees. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, Signet's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $150.94 per share. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 30, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases- 1064.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. SP AUSNET: Black Saturday Survivors Get $418.5MM Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Flower, writing for Herald Sun, reports that Black Saturday survivors have been handed $418.5 million as part of a class action over the Kilmore East-Kinglake and Murrindindi fires. Cheques have been mailed out to those affected by the devastating fires, 2973 days after the February 7, 2009, events. Chris Hobbs, who lost his house on Black Saturday, said the money had been a long time coming. "But you have to get these things right," he said. "Had I not got this settlement, I probably would have had to have sold and moved somewhere cheaper, which is the last thing at my age I wanted to do. I'm very happy here." The Kilmore East-Kinglake bushfire resulted in 119 deaths, the destruction of 1242 homes, damage to a further 1084 homes, and the burning of more than 125,000ha of land. Forty people died in the Murrindindi fire and an estimated 500 homes were destroyed. The Kinglake fire was caused when a live power line hit a power pole cable stay, igniting surrounding vegetation while the Murrundindi blaze was sparked by a break in an electrical conductor on a power pole near the Murrindindi Saw Mill. Power company SP AusNet and four other defendants reached an agreement to settle the class action for the record settlement in July 2014. The Supreme Court approved it and the proposed settlement distribution scheme in December that year. Maurice Blackburn is administering the settlement, which saw more than 10,000 individual claims registered as part of the class action. The Supreme Court advised that nearly all of the group members who suffered personal injuries because of the bushfire had received their compensation payment of about $158.5 million. Survivors who claimed economic loss or property damage had, or would be, receiving about $260 million. Maurice Blackburn spokesman Cameron Scott said about 4000 claimants would receive payments, totalling more than $496 million. The payments come on top of more than $192.4 million paid to 1800 claimants in personal injury money last year. The figure pushes the amount paid to Black Saturday survivors as part of the class action to more than $688 million. Mr Hobbs, who received his cheque, said the money offered him some much-needed breathing space. "The money just clears all those things like credit cards . . . I won't have to beg, borrow or whatever," he said. "Most people I know here are very happy with the outcome." Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson said it had achieved the two highest class action settlements in Australian history on behalf of survivors of the Black Saturday fires. SUTHERLAND MORTGAGE: "Rapp" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- William Rapp and Larry Eggett, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Sutherland Mortgage Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01010 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2017), seeks actual damages in the amount of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and all other relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant provides mortgage loan services. Rapp and Eggett are former mortgage loan officers who worked for the Defendant. They claim to be denied overtime when they worked more than forty hours in a workweek. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Sullivan, Esq. OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP 712 Main Street, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 401-3555 Fax: (713) 401-3547 Email: ed@osattorneys.com - and - Mark J. Oberti, Esq. OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP 712 Main Street, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 401-3555 Fax: (713) 401-3547 Email: mark@osattorneys.com - and - Clayton D. Craighead THE CRAIGHEAD LAW FIRM, PLLC 440 Louisiana, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (832) 798-1184 Fax: (832) 553-7261 Email: clayton.craighead@thetxlawfirm.com TAURUS PROCESSING: "Milosch" Sues Over Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- Chris Milosch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taurus Processing and Does 1 through 10, inclusive and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00588 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2017) seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Taurus Processing is in the business of marketing and research, including offering live-transfer lead generation services for merchant funding businesses. Taurus contacted Milosch on his cellular telephone number in an attempt to solicit its services. Plaintiff incurred charges for incoming calls and Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive such calls. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, 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 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com THEBERGE DEVELOPMENTS: Ottawa Condo Owners File $3MM Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Burke, writing for CBC News, reports that an Ottawa woman has launched a $3-million class action on behalf of more than 100 condo owners, claiming builder Theberge Developments Ltd. failed to deliver on its promises and blindsided purchasers with hidden costs. Sabrina Heyde, 31, alleges the builder "tricked" her into signing an agreement to rent her forced air heating system. She put a $20,000 deposit down on a two-bedroom unit in the Alta Vista Ridge development on Everest Private, south of St. Laurent Shopping Centre, in 2011. The building was not yet constructed at the time. Two years later Ms. Heyde was asked to meet with the builder to pick out tiles and paint colours. She claims that during that meeting the developer slipped the heating system rental agreement into a pile of unrelated paperwork, and she signed it without realizing what it was. Ms. Heyde and other condo owners now pay $89 a month for their combined heating system and hot water tank, a cost some of them claim was never disclosed by the developer. "It's an issue of being tricked, it's an issue of being lied to," Ms. Heyde said. Theberge, which operates as Theberge Homes, disputes the claims of breach of contract, breach of the Condominium Act and negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation, and intends to file an appeal to have the case thrown out. 'We just got stuck with it' Experienced real estate investor Kevin Marshall claims he never signed the agreement to rent a heating system. "We just got stuck with it," said Mr. Marshall, who also sits on the condo board. "It was unknown and it wasn't explained." Mr. Marshall has purchased five investment properties including a triplex and a four-unit building, and said furnaces have always been included. Mr. Marshall said he went to a lawyer to try to get out of the condo purchase, but claims Theberge refused. Valeda Babineau and Joe Corkery said they feel "cheated" and "deceived" by Theberge. The couple is nearing retirement and recently decided to downsize to a condo. "We were lied to," said Ms.Babineau. "We didn't know that when we purchased we were going to have to pay an extra $89 a month . . . Otherwise I think we would have thought twice about purchasing." Ms. Babineau and Mr. Corkery said they were told about the heating system rental during their upgrades meeting and were so upset they also went to a lawyer to try to get out of the deal. The couple said they spent $3,000 in legal fees, but couldn't get out of the purchase. Builder promised storage lockers The lawsuit also accuses the developer of reneging on a promise to provide more than 60 condo owners with storage lockers, even though the lockers were included in their original purchase agreements, according to court documents. The company blamed a drafting error in an original contract, which stated storage lockers were included in the purchase price. "I would have not purchased the place without storage," said Ms. Babineau. "They manipulated us," said Mr. Corkey. An Ottawa judge certified the class action earlier in March. Justice Robert Smith wrote in his decision that purchasers "were in a vulnerable position when dealing with the developer," and said they either had to close the transaction and sue for damages, or forfeit their deposits. The Law Foundation of Ontario has reviewed the merits of the class action and is covering the costs of the case under its class proceedings fund. Theberge disputes claims Class actions against condo developers are a growing trend in Toronto, where the market has been booming for years, but it's believed this is the first lawsuit of its kind in Ottawa. According to a statement submitted by Theberge president Joey Theberge, Reliance Home Comfort approached him in 2013 and sold him on the idea of a rented heating system. According to court documents, Theberge tasked his agent with speaking to buyers about the rental fee at upgrade meetings so they had an opportunity to ask questions or raise concerns. "I wanted to ensure that each purchaser understood and accepted the rental fees," he wrote. "If almost every purchaser had not executed the rental acknowledgement, I would have not have installed the . . . system," he wrote in his submission. CBC spoke to two condo owners who said they understood the agreement and what they were renting. Joey Theberge did not provide CBC News with an interview by the deadline provided, but did a provide a statement, in which he claims he "offered to install storage prior to this litigation at no cost to the home buyers as a goodwill gesture." Past and present condo board members say condo owners have yet to be presented with this offer. Ms. Heyde said she hopes the lawsuit encourages other condo buyers to stand up to developers. "This is the only way really to stop them from doing it," said Ms. Heyde." TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Claimant Objection Could Complicate Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Maynard at Consumer Affairs reports that former Trump University students may be seeing big payouts on their class- action suit. More than 3,700 of the 6,000 plaintiffs had filed a claim on the USD25 million settlement, with each person standing to make as much 90 cents on the dollar of their original investments, according to class attorney Rachel Jensen. However, a claim by one woman and her Florida attorney may end up throwing a wrench into things and may derail the whole settlement, according to Courthouse News. Claimant Sherri Simpson, represented by Gary Friedman -- gfriedman@fklaw.com -- of Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, filed an objection to the settlement on March 6 saying that she was not afforded a second opt-out opportunity after the settlement was reached, a promise that was made in the 2015 class notices mailed to each plaintiff. Friedman said that not allowing Simpson to opt out of the settlement forfeited her right to file an objection to the settlement as a pre-condition for her to seek cash payment on any potential settlement agreement. Simpson is looking to file her own fraud lawsuit against Trump that could secure her triple damages if she wins the case. Derailing the Settlement Class attorney Jason Forge has called Simpson's and Friedman's actions "outrageous," and said that the move jeopardizes the case for all other claimants simply because Simpson wants an apology from Trump. "You can't do better than getting money back," he said. "If you get back 90 cents on the dollar, isn't that better than someone saying, 'Hey I'm sorry?'" Others have called the ethical implications of the action into question. Simpson apparently did not know about the exact clause in the class notice that guaranteed a second opt-out opportunity, but Friedman allegedly contacted her to offer his legal services after learning of the matter. Class attorney Patrick Coughlin points to an "admission" by Friedman in court stating that fact, saying that "we just had an admission she didn't have this parenthetical but had a vague understanding she would be able to opt out." Friedman said that contacting Simpson and essentially soliciting her as a client was "not relevant," stating that "[Simpson] was unhappy with the settlement and had expected she would be able to opt out. In terms of me calling her representing an ethical breach -- I believe that's false." Elderly class members at risk So, what does all of this mean for the other members of the class? For right now, nothing. U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel still needs to issue a written ruling and approve the settlement before it goes forward. However, if he doesn't give approval based on Simpson's objection, attorneys say that many older members of the class may suffer. Jensen points out that lead plaintiff John Brown is turning 66 and that he planned to use the settlement money to pay off credit card debt and retire debt-free. Other members undoubtedly would use the money to "replenish retirement funds, send kids to college and put a down payment on a house," she said. Unfortunately, derailing the settlement could mean that many elderly members never see the money they're allegedly owed. "If this selfishness persists there is no question some people would die before getting their money back," said Forge. [GN] TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Hears Arguments on Settlement Objection --------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge was set to hear arguments on March 30 over whether to grant final approval to a $25 million settlement of fraud lawsuits against President Donald Trump over his Trump University real estate investment seminars, with at least one former student objecting to the deal. Sherri Simpson of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who paid $19,000 to learn Trump's investing "secrets," filed court papers earlier in March arguing the class action settlement should not have contained a provision barring her and other students from opting out and suing Trump on their own. The objection raises the possibility the litigation could continue to dog Trump's presidency. During the campaign, Trump vowed to fight the fraud claims but agreed to the settlement soon after the election. Under the deal, Trump admitted no wrongdoing. Lawyers for Trump and those representing thousands of other students in two class actions will urge U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego to overrule the objection and approve the deal. The students, who paid as much as $35,000 for the seminars, are expected to recover more than 80 percent of the money they paid. Though Ms. Simpson's lawyer, Gary Friedman, called the settlement "laudable," he said his client wanted to press for a full recovery, as well as punitive damages and other relief. He is planning to argue the deal should be rejected unless she is allowed to do so. "What Ms. Simpson seeks is her day in court," Friedman said in court papers. Ms. Simpson and other students claim they were lured into the seminars by false promises that they would learn Trump's investment strategies from his "hand-picked" instructors. Trump admitted he did not personally select the instructors but said the claim was sales "puffery." Rachel Jensen, a class action lawyer for the students, said in a court filing that some 3,730 students submitted claim forms. Two filed objections but only Simpson's lawyers are expected at the hearing. In court papers, both Jensen and Daniel Petrocelli, a lawyer for Trump, suggested Ms. Simpson's objection might be politically motivated. They noted she appeared in an anti-Trump political ad in February 2016. "Defendants paid $25 million to avoid the uncertainty that political opponents might solicit opt-outs to force a high-profile trial," Ms. Jensen said. Mr. Friedman denied any political motive and said he would appeal if the judge overruled the objection. Trump accused Judge Curiel of bias last year based on the Indiana- born judge's Mexican ancestry. U.S. CONCRETE: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas ----------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on March 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Concrete, Inc. ("U.S. Concrete" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:USCR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and docketed under 17-cv-00266 is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired U.S Concrete securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased U.S. Concrete securities between March 6, 2015 and March 23, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until May 29, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e- mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. U.S. Concrete, Inc. produces and sells ready-mixed concrete, aggregates, and concrete-related products and services for the construction industry in the United States. It operates through two segments, Ready-Mixed Concrete and Aggregate Products. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, U.S. Concrete's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 24, 2017, U.S. Concrete filed a Current Report on Form 8- K with the Securities and Exchange Commission, announcing the resignation of the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Joseph Tusa, and advising investors that the Company had dismissed its previous auditor, Grant Thornton LLP, and engaged Ernst & Young LLP as its new public accounting firm. On this news, U.S. Concrete's share price fell $5.90, or 8.84%, to close at $60.80 on March 24, 2017. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. U.S. PHYSICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc. securities (USPH) from May 8, 2014 through March 16, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for U.S. Physical Therapy investors under the federal securities laws. To join the U.S. Physical Therapy class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1088.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) U.S. Physical Therapy had a material weakness in its internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; (2) U.S. Physical Therapy improperly accounted for redeemable non- controlling interests of acquired partnerships in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) U.S. Physical Therapy's financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, and all quarters within 2014 and 2015, and the first three quarters of 2016 contained material errors; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about U.S. Physical Therapy's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 30, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases- 1088.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. [GN] UNIQUE BEVERAGE: Sued Over Misleading Coconut Water Label --------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against the maker of a beverage marketed as coconut water, alleging the drink was misleadingly labeled because it contains no coconut water at all and has no coconut health benefits. Vicky Silva filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on March 9, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against Unique Beverage Co. LLC, alleging that the corporation falsely advertises the actual contents of its coconut water product. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she suffered damages from being misled into purchasing a falsely advertised product. The plaintiff holds Unique Beverage responsible because the defendant allegedly labels its product with the word "Coconut" even though the beverage doesn't taste like coconut. This misleads consumers into purchasing the product, the complaint said. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks to enjoin the defendant and order the defendant to preserve all sales records and other consumer data. She is also asking for actual, statutory and punitive damages, interest and reimbursement for all legal fees and any other relief the court deems just. She is represented by Michael Fuller of Olsen Daines PC in Portland, Ore. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon Case number 3:17- cv-00391-HZ VOLKSWAGEN: Proposed Settlement Not in Consumers' Best Interest --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Wallcraft at Autonews reports an Ontario Superior Court hearing to approve the Volkswagen class action settlement was held over on March 31 as the presiding judge said the outlined proposal is "nowhere near" being in the best interests of consumers directly affected by VW's diesel-cheating scandal. The proposed system for compensation would see owners of VW's 2.0- liter TDI diesel-powered cars from the model years 2009 to 2015 receive Canadian Black Book value for their vehicle as of September 2015 -- just before their market value was affected by news of the emissions scandal -- plus additional damages ranging from CAD5,100 to CAD8,000. Under the proposal, which was agreed upon by Volkswagen Canada and the counsel representing affected owners, VW's projected total estimated payout would be CAD2.1 billion. (Claims for cars with 3.0-liter TDI engines are not included in the settlement and have not yet been determined.) Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba addressed his concerns by citing section 18.2 of Ontario's Consumer Protection Act. Under it, because of Volkswagen's demonstrated intentional misrepresentation of its diesel emissions, TDI owners would be legally entitled to a refund of their full original purchase price. While Justice Belobaba accepted that depreciation could be a valid factor in valuation, he stated that lawyers representing both VW and the vehicle owners need to demonstrate why it is fair and reasonable for the difference in payouts between purchase price and settlement compensation to be in the range of CAD10,000 or more. Because it's a proposal already agreed upon by lawyers for both sides, both sides must prove to Justice Belobaba why the difference in payouts is fair and reasonable. Of the 105,000 Canadians represented in the class action, approximately 500 written objections to the current settlement have been received by the court. Ten were delivered orally at the hearing. The majority of those heard by the court noted that Canadian Black Book values are at wholesale rather than retail and that the settlement does not compensate consumers for extra costs such as dealer accessories, extended warranties, fees or taxes. Several objectors added that they were able to use their TDIs for only four or five years instead of an expected decade or more. Lawyers on both sides committed to file the requested memorandum to Belobaba within a week. The hearing will reconvene after that. During March 31's proceedings, it was confirmed that an import- export clause has been added to the settlement that would see the Canadian registration requirement for compensation waived if the vehicle was registered in the U.S. during the qualifying period, with a similar clause being made available to U.S. consumers. This is the second Canadian hearing on the VW settlement in as many weeks. On March 22, Justice Marie-Claude Lalande of the Superior Court of Quebec presided over a hearing in Montreal. Her decision is pending. Should both hearings result in approval, affected consumers will be able to begin filing for claims on April 28. [GN] WALGREENS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Price Scheme --------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a multi-state class action complaint filed March 23 in federal court in Chicago accuses Walgreens of fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment in relation with the way it prices prescription drugs. Named plaintiffs Dorothy Forth, Troy Termine, Cynthia Russo and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Health and Welfare Fund accused Walgreens of a "fraudulent and deceptive price scheme to artificially inflate the 'usual and customary' prices reported and used to charge" themselves and putative class members for generic drugs. The lawsuit doesn't specify how much the plaintiffs believe Walgreens has allegedly overcharged, saying only that the amount in controversy exceeds the procedural threshold of $5 million. According to the complaint, likely millions of individual customers who use health insurance to buy generic prescription drugs from Walgreens are paying more for certain drugs than cash- paying Walgreens customers enrolled in the company's Prescription Savings Club, which is not a form of health insurance. The complaint cites a Generic Pharmaceutical Association report indicating 89 percent of all prescriptions dispensed in the U.S. now are generic drugs. The plaintiffs also maintain pharmacies are not allowed to charge customers or third-party payors more for prescription drugs than its usual price. Under the PSC, customers without insurance can buy prescription generics in tiers -- $5, $10 and $15 for 30-day supplies and $10, $20 and $30 for 90-day supplies. The pricing package, per the complaint, "includes some of the most commonly used generics for cardiovascular, diabetes, pain, psychiatric illnesses, gastrointestinal disorders and other common ailments. The complaint alleges Walgreens breaks the law by artificially inflating prices for generics on reimbursement claims submitted to third-party payors, such as Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers. The practice allegedly dates to 2007, and the action seeks either nationwide class certification or for action to be brought under fraud laws of Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin. Forth, of Texas, said she bought more than 20 generic medicines at Walgreens since 2012 using Medicare Part D coverage. She said she's overpaid at least $285 compared to what she believes she would have paid if she'd used cash and participated in the PSC. Russo, of Florida, also uses Medicare Part D and said she overpaid by $130 since 2012. Termine, of Lousiana, had a Humana policy and said he overpaid by $8 -- $7.15 for one 30-day prescription and $10.89 for another, both $5 tier one drugs under the PSC. IBEW Local 38 has beneficiaries in the 15 states named in the action. The complaint incorporated a table showing drug prices in Suffolk County, N.Y., Orlando, Fla., and Philadelphia, at Walmart, Target, Shoprite and Winn-Dixie, contrasted with the usual and customary prices Walgreens submits to third-party payors, and the PSC cash price it charges. It argues against any tolling of statute of limitations, noting that "because Walgreens affirmatively concealed its pricing scheme, plaintiffs and the class had no knowledge until recently of the alleged fraudulent activities or information which would have caused a reasonably diligent person to investigate whether Walgreens committed the actionable activities detailed herein." In addition to class certification and a jury trial, the plaintiffs seek monetary, compensatory, consequential, statutory treble, punitive or exemplary and general damages and injunctive relief. They say all class members "are owed at least the difference between the amount they paid and the (usual and customary) offered to the general public." The plaintiffs sent a copy of their complaint to attorneys general in Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri. Representing the plaintiffs in the action are Halunen Law, of Minneapolis; Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, of Colchester, Conn., and New York; Lemmon Law Firm LLC, of Hahnville, La.; Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, of Raleigh, N.C.; Brandner Law Firm, LLC, of New Orleans; and Tusa P.C., of Southold N.Y. WELLS FARGO: Settles Class Action Over Unauthorized Accounts ------------------------------------------------------------ Ken Sweet, writing for Associated Press, reports that Wells Fargo has agreed to pay $110 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over up to 2 million accounts its employees opened for customers without getting their permission, the bank announced on March 28. It's the first private settlement that Wells Fargo has reached since the company paid $185 million to federal and California authorities late last year. Authorities said bank employees, driven by high-pressure sales tactics, opened the bank and credit card accounts without customer authorization. The settlement will include customers who had accounts opened without their permission, or were signed up for a product they did not agree to, going back to Jan. 1, 2009. Wells Fargo says it believes this settlement, which is subject to court approval, will resolve the 11 other pending class-action lawsuits filed against it over the accounts. Notably, Wells Fargo said it is waiving its right to take customers into third-party arbitration, which lets the bank take complaints to a private mediator instead of a court of law. The practice has been a source of controversy for the bank, and customer advocates and politicians had been pressuring Wells Fargo to give up its right to use arbitration. "We believe this is an outstanding result obtained for the benefit of a proposed nationwide class, notwithstanding Wells Fargo's effort to block the class action with an arbitration clause," said Derek Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- a partner with Keller Rohrback, one of the firms that filed a class-action lawsuit against the bank. After paying attorneys' fees, the $110 million will first go to cover any customers' out-of-pocket losses or fees that they may have incurred due to the unauthorized accounts. All remaining money will be split among the all affected customers. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo has seen sharp declines in new account openings and bank traffic, and has been working to restore customers' trust since the practices came to light. The biggest scandal in the bank's history led to the abrupt retirement of its CEO, John Stumpf. In response to the scandal, Wells Fargo has changed its sales practices, ousted other executives and called tens of millions of customers to check on whether they truly opened the accounts in question. "This agreement is another step in our journey to make things right with customers," Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan said in a prepared statement. Mr. Sloan took over as CEO in October. Wells Fargo's board of directors is conducting an investigation into the bank's sales practices, a report that is expected to be out in April ahead of the annual shareholder meeting. The board has already cut bonuses to major executives. ZOCDOC INC: "Geismann" Case Not Moot, 2nd Circ. Says ---------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacates an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York remanding the case captioned Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZocDoc, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee, John Does 1-10, Defendants, Docket No. 14-3708 (2nd Circ.). Judge Louis L. Stanton of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion, agreeing with ZocDoc that the rejected offer, which the court concluded would have afforded Geismann complete relief on its individual claims, rendered the entire action moot, notwithstanding the pending class-certification motion. The Court of Appeals concluded that the action was not moot. The Court cited that, although the Supreme Court has held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment, on its own, will not moot a plaintiff's claims, that rule does not control where, unlike in the case, the Plaintiff negotiated the check proffered by the Defendants. Since the unaccepted offer did not moot Geismann's individual claim, the Court need not address the remaining issues raised on appeal. The Court of Appeals noted that the district court should not have entered judgment on the basis of ZocDoc's offer, nor therefore should it have dismissed Geismann's action. Because a named Plaintiff remains in the action, the dismissal of the class claim was also in error. Although the district court may, in its discretion, permit ZocDoc to deposit with the court any part of the relief sought, Fed. R. Civ. P. 67, the basis for so granting the defendant leave to deposit must not be inconsistent with the opinion. A copy of the Court of Appeal's Decision is available at https://goo.gl/ztGvIi from Leagle.com. GLENN L. HARA -- GHara@andersonwanca.com (David M. Oppenheim, on the brief), Anderson + Wanca, Rolling Meadows, Illinois, for Plaintiff-Appellant. BLAINE C. KIMREY -- bkimrey@vedderprice.com (Charles J. Nerko -- cnerko@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price P.C., New York, New York, Bryan K. Clark, on the brief), Vedder Price P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Defendant-Appellee. * Employers Seek Clarity on Mandatory Arbitration Agreement Issue ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emina Poricanin, writing for Buffalo Journal, reports that on Jan. 13, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in three cases involving employers' use of mandatory arbitration agreements with class-action waivers. The Supreme Court will determine whether such arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act. For employers that rely on mandatory arbitration agreements to mitigate exposure to costly class action litigation, this is an issue of paramount importance. Over the past several years, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions upholding arbitration agreements with class-action waivers under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In so holding, the Supreme Court rejected several challenges to the enforceability of these agreements. In the seminal decision on this issue, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), the court held that state law doctrines that "disfavor arbitration" would be pre-empted by the FAA if "[r]equiring the availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme inconsistent with the FAA." Since Concepcion, the Supreme Court has continued to enforce arbitration agreements with class-action waivers, evidencing a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration." See e.g., American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013); Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463, 466 (2015). Most of the cases the Supreme Court decided have involved mandatory arbitration agreements in the context of consumer contracts. Concepcion, for example, involved a cell phone contract between the Concepcions and their cell phone carrier. The court's decisions, however, prompted employers to use arbitration agreements with class-action waivers with employees as a means of mitigating exposure to costly class action involving claims of systemic violations of employment laws. In executing the arbitration agreements with class-action waivers, employees agree not to pursue claims against their employer on a class or collective basis and, effectively, agree to seek redress through individual, single-plaintiff, arbitration. In the employment context, employers that utilize arbitration agreements with class-action waivers enter into these agreements with their employees at the inception of employment or during the course of employment. The agreements are subject to state contract laws, requiring legal consideration and consent. And to be enforceable, the agreements should not require employees to waive statutory rights (e.g., right to recover attorneys' fees or certain damages). Attempts to curtail employees' rights through the arbitration agreements could subject the agreement to attack on the basis that the agreement is unconscionable. * House Passes Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 -------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Goldrich, Esq. -- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP -- in an article for JD Supra Advisor, wrote that on a February 27, 2017 post, we reported that the House Judiciary Committee approved the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 ("FCALA"), a bill described by its sponsor, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R. Va.), as intended "to protect innocent individuals and small businesses who have become targets of frivolous suits by attorneys who have found loopholes in our civil litigation system." Among other things, the FCALA would (a) prohibit class certification where class members cannot be objectively identified or did not suffer the same type and scope of injury; (b) revise the amount and timing of payments of fees to class counsel; (c) provide for interlocutory appellate review of all class certification decisions; and (d) impose a stay of discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss, transfer, or strike class allegations. On March 9, 2017, the House of Representatives passed FCALA, without amendment, by a vote of 220-201. FCALA now moves on to the Senate where, in 2016, a similar bill sponsored by Rep. Goodlatte failed to make it out of committee for a vote. We will continue to track FCALA and provide updates. [GN] * Law Firms Mull Class Action Over Play-to-Play Audition -------------------------------------------------------- Gary Baum, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that trial lawyers seek to cast actors as plaintiffs while the L.A. City Attorney begins a court battle. As criminal court proceedings continue against dozens of individuals charged with violating California's Krekorian Talent Scam Prevention Act, civil class action filings are being explored to recoup money lost by actors in what many consider a predatory labor practice. Among those weighing such a move is Roman Silberfeld -- RSilberfeld@RobinsKaplan.com -- a veteran partner at the big Century City-based law office Robins Kaplan. The heavy-hitting trial attorney responsible for one of Hollywood's largest jury verdicts -- he won $319 million from Disney in a 2010 case over Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? profits -- says his firm has been looking into the issue for "more than a year." "I've spoken to friends inside studios and network television," Mr. Silberfeld told The Hollywood Reporter via e-mail. "They have encouraged us to proceed with this, too." He added, "Our investigation at studios and networks (usually with officer level individuals) about these workshops reveals that the problem is real, that it is perceived by some studios and network individuals as a scam that preys on vulnerable young people and that putting an end to the practice would benefit all legitimate stakeholders in the entertainment industry." Regarding the status of the case, Mr. Silberfeld continued: "We remain interested in pursuing this case and need a cross section of plaintiffs who have attended different workshops at different times in order to meet the legal tests of standing, typicality and adequacy. Robins Kaplan has a long history of representing only talent in the film, television and music industries. We continue to gather evidence in support of claims for violations of the Krekorian Act that we intend to file." (Mr. Silberfeld noted that anyone interested in sharing their experience should contact his associate, Kevin Meek.) Robins Kaplan isn't the only L.A. legal office to be considering a class-action filing. "We are gathering evidence," says attorney Daniel Srourian, head of an eponymous Westwood-based firm that specializes in litigating unfair competition cases of employment law. "Beyond that, there's nothing I can offer at the moment." The website of Mr. Srourian's firm explains that "individuals who were scammed are entitled to receive back three times the amount they paid to offenders for 'educational' or 'workshop' classes, a guise to cover up the 'pay to play' scheme. Individuals are also entitled to receive their attorney's fees." It goes on to list the five workshop firms identified by Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer in his February indictment -- Actors' Alley, Your Studio Productions, The Actor's Key, The Actors Link (since rebranded Ace Studios) and The Casting Network -- and asks that those who "took a class or workshop within the last year" be in touch. * New Law May Unlock Class Action Litigation in Poland ------------------------------------------------------ Pawel Bukiel, Esq. -- pawel.bukiel@wolftheiss.com -- at Wolft Theiss, in an article for Lexology, wrote that new regulations on class actions are being contemplated by the Polish Parliament. If accepted, they will simplify the procedure and contribute to the growth of class action litigation in Poland. At the beginning of March, the Lower House of Polish Parliament accepted a bill introducing major changes concerning class action litigation in Poland. Despite political differences, the bill was accepted with only a single vote against it. We expect that the new law will come into force in the upcoming months. Why change? Class actions were introduced into Polish law in 2010. Soon it became clear that the set of rules governing this procedure was seriously flawed. The proceedings last too long, are easily obstructed and grossly ineffective. What is more, only a few types of claims are subject to a class action. For these reasons, a representative suit is a rare sight in Polish courts. Risks and opportunities This is supposed to change once the new law comes into force. The proposed regulations are designed to speed up the proceedings and make them less formal and easier to conduct. They also allow for more types of claims to be pursued through a class action, most importantly those stemming from a breach of contract. As a result, we can expect a significant increase in the number of class action cases, including those conducted in a B2B setup. However, simplifying the procedure comes with a price. Perhaps the most contentious part of the new rules concerns weakening the procedural position of a defendant. In order to accelerate the proceedings, it was necessary to limit the defendant's rights to contest court decisions regarding the admissibility of a class action and the composition of a class. It remains to be seen whether these changes will disrupt the equilibrium between the parties. The anticipation We are eagerly anticipating the new law to be adopted and enter into force. It may bring new exciting opportunities for lawyers specializing in the field of dispute resolution. And who knows, maybe the next Erin Brockovich movie will be made in Poland. [GN] * Robinson+Cole Attorney Shares Thoughts on H.R. 985 Bill --------------------------------------------------------- Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that a fair amount of attention has been given in the legal media to the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017, H.R. 985, which has passed the House of Representatives and is currently under consideration by the Senate. Corporate groups and the defense bar have sung its praises, and the plaintiffs' bar has railed against it. Less attention has been given to areas where, if this bill becomes law, courts will need to decide what it means. Here are a few thoughts on that: 1. Type and Scope of Injury Requirement: The bill provides that a class action for monetary relief may not be certified unless the plaintiff "affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed class member suffered the same type and scope of injury as the named class representative or representatives." A court is required to conduct a "rigorous analysis" of this question. Expect extensive disputes over what constitutes the "same type and scope of injury." This does not appear to mean that every class member has the same amount of damages. What constitutes "type" and "scope" would be left to the courts to figure out. 2. Class Representative Conflicts of Interest: The bill requires disclosure in a class action complaint regarding whether any named plaintiff is a relative or present or former employee of class counsel, or present or former client of class counsel with respect to a different matter, or has any other contractual relationship with class counsel. It further requires that "the complaint shall describe the circumstances under which each class representative or named plaintiff agreed to be included in the complaint . . . ." Courts would have to determine what level of detail is required here, and the extent to which, if any, the attorney-client privilege applies. Courts would also need to determine what type of motion could be used to attack a complaint that the defendant claims insufficiently complies with these requirements, perhaps a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. 3. Ascertainability: The bill further provides that a class cannot be certified unless the class is "defined with reference to objective criteria and the party seeking to maintain such a class action affirmatively demonstrates that there is a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism (a) for the court to determine whether putative class members fall within the class definition and (b) for distributing directly to a substantial majority of class members any monetary relief secured for the class." I expect courts would continue to debate, as many of them currently are, what constitutes a "reliable and administratively feasible mechanism." Could this include self-identification by affidavit, or not? Would compliance with this requirement depend on how many people come forward? 4. Attorneys' Fees: The bill would require that attorneys' fees in cases involving monetary awards be limited to a "reasonable percentage" of funds actually received by class members, and that attorneys' fees could not exceed the amounts actually received by class members. In cases involving equitable relief, attorneys' fees would be limited to a "reasonable percentage of the value of the equitable relief, including any injunctive relief." The litigation here seems likely to focus on what constitutes a "reasonable percentage," and how you value the equitable relief. There is some existing precedent on these issues, and the extent to which Congress intends to either adopt or modify that precedent could be an issue. 5. Issues Classes: The bill provides that a court may not certify an issues class under Rule 23(c)(4) unless the court determines, after a "rigorous analysis," that "the entirety of the cause of action from which the particular issues arise satisfies all the class certification prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(1), Rule 23(b)(2), or Rule 23(b)(3)." I don't see a lot of room for debate here, although the application of the other requirements of Rule 23, of course, remain hotly debated by the courts. 6. Stays of Discovery: The bill mandates a stay of discovery pending a motion to dismiss, motion to transfer, motion to strike the class allegations or other motion to dispose of the class allegations, unless particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or prevent undue prejudice. Would this mean that a defendant would be entitled to multiple stays of discovery if it files, seriatim, a motion to dismiss and then, if that is denied, a motion to strike the class allegations or to deny certification? 7. Appeals: The bill makes appeals of class certification orders mandatory, providing that "[a] court of appeals shall permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Would this mean that a court of appeals is required to hear multiple interlocutory appeals in a case that involves more than one certification order, or a partial decertification of the class? Would an order granting or denying a motion to strike class allegations be appealable? 8. Rulemaking Authority Provision: The bill provides that "Nothing in this title shall restrict in any way the authority of the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court to propose and prescribe general rules of practice and procedure under chapter 131 of title 28, United States Code." Would this mean that the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court, by virtue of their rulemaking power, could directly override any part of this bill (if enacted), at any time? 9. Retroactivity: The bill provides that "[t]he amendments made by the title shall apply to any civil action pending on the date of enactment of this title or commenced thereafter." Would this mean that, if a case is pending where the court has certified a class already, it must revisit certification following the enactment of this law? Would a court have to reevaluate a class settlement or attorneys' fees that had been approved? Would a court of appeals have to accept an appeal it had previously rejected under Rule 23(f)? There seem to be lots of questions here that courts would need to decide. ********* 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 * * *