/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170530.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 30, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 107 Headlines 314E CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Dipisa" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York AEG MANAGEMENT: Campbell Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ALABAMA: Waits for Ruling in Inmate Mental Health Suit ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over FDCPA Violations ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in E.D. New York AMERICAN HONDA: "Shamah" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey AMERICAN SECURITY: "Hopkins" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA AMERICAS STYRENICS: Faces "Velardez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ARCONIC INC: Shareholders Sue Directors for Duty Breach ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Juliani" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ATTICARE CORP: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Katz" Suit Claims AT HOME: Faces "Sadullaev" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AUROBINDO PHARMA: MSPA Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania BAODING CFC: "Wen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA BKAL INC: "Read" Suit Sues Over Workplace Sexual Harassment BUMBLE BEE: To Pay $25-Mil. Fine in Installments BUTLER, PA: Faces Suit Over Lead in School Drinking Water CARPCO EFFICIENT: "Harmon" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA CHIPOTLE: Faces Class Action Over Potential Data Breach CHOPARD USA: Faces "Portillo" Class Suit in C.D. Cal. CJS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Sanders" Suit Says CLIENT SERVICES: Saroza Sues Over Debt Collection Violation CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Meisels" Suit in E.D. New York CONN'S INC: Investigation on Officers and Directors Initiated COOK COUNTY, IL: Ex-Jail Guard Sues Merit Board Over Firings CRACKER BARREL: "Blackshear" Suit Seeks Compensation Under CEPA CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Thompkins" Suit in E.D. New York CREDIT PROTECTION: Moran Sues Over Debt Collection Violation CUYAHOGA COUNTY: Faces "Anghelache" Suit Over Decreased Pensions DAIMLER: German Prosecutors to Search Offices in Emissions Probe DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Portela" Suit in D. New Jersey DRG BILLING: Faces "Reinbold" Suit Over Wage and Hour Violation EMORY UNIVERSITY: Partial Victory in Bid to Junk Code 403b Fee FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS: Chocolate Packaging Misleading, Suit Says FEDERAL EXPRESS: Cunningham Sues Over Pension & Retirement FEDERATED LAW: Faces "Webb" Suit in District of New Jersey FIAT CHRYSLER: U.S. Gov't Suit Alleges Emissions Test Cheating FIELDTURF USA: Faces Lakeview Day Suit in District of New Jersey FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Potential Suit Over Electricity Charges FBR & CO: "Kim" Sues Over Proposed B. Riley Merger FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: "FWK Holdings" Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. FRITO-LAY NA: Allred Sues Over Misbranded Flavored Potato Chips GC SERVICES: Faces "Dawson" Suit in Eastern District of New York HAT WORLD: "Ward" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to W.D. Washington INSPIRA HEALTH: Faces "Costante" Suit Alleging Sexual Harassment INTERNAL REVENUE: Lois Lerner's Testimony to Remain Confidential JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seek Reversal of $72MM Award in Talc Case JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accuses Talc Case Plaintiffs Attorney of Lying LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: "Desilvio" Sues Over Share Price Drop MACNEIL AUTOMOTIVE: "Kusinski" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA MARTIN GAFFEY: Supreme Court Sends Rental Suit Back to Dist. Court MDL 2724: NECA-IBEW Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. MEI-GSR HOLDINGS: Violates NLRA by Retaliating vs. Former Worker MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Glick" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York MILOS BY COSTAS: Bovino Sues Over Race Discrimination MMODAL SERVICES: Seijas Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Severns" Suit Over Robocalls NEMET MOTORS: "Feliciano-Bauzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages NEUROTROPE INC: July 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set NEW CENTURY: Faces Class Action for Misclassifying Dancers NEW WORLD DRAYAGE: Faces "Cano" Suit in California Superior Court NISSAN NA: Pinto Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court OAKTON COMMUNITY: Judge Allows Age Discrimination Suit to Proceed OASIS APARTMENTS: Slapped with Suit Over Rat-infested Complex OCWEN LOAN: "Aquilar" Suit Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ONG AMNUAY: Faces "Calel" Suit in Southern District of New York PARTY RENTAL: "Castellanos" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA PAYMENT ALLIANCE: Cobra Tactical Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia PERCHERON FIELD: Faces "Loecker" Suit in Pa. Common Pleas Court R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. Greenlights Smokers' Suits RANBAXY INC: Meijer Seeks to Transfer Case to Mass. ROCCO IADEVAIA: "Aquino" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA SANTANNA NATURAL: Johansen Sues Over Telemarketing Practices SHERBROOKE: CAD17-Mil. Out-of-Court Settlement in Gas Cartel Suit SOUTHGATE PROPERTY: Gets Top Court's Favor on Tenant's Lawsuit SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $45 Million SPOKEO INC: 4th Cir. Vacates $11MM FCRA Class Action Judgment ST. STEPHENS CEMETERY: Police Says Charges Coming in Soon SYNAGEVA BIOPHARMA: Faces "Lahiff" Suit in Texas State Court TARGET: Settles 2013 Data Breach with 47 States for $18.5MM TESLA INC: Law Firms Vie for Derivative Case Lead Counsel Post TEXAS: Austin Sues State Over Ban on 'Sanctuary Cities' THREE J'S: Faces "Cavanaugh" Suit in California Superior Court UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 11th Cir. Rejects Bid to Restart Wage Suit UNION BANK: Proposed Suit Should Be Dismissed, Says Magistrate UNITED STATES: Faces Evideo Suit in Federal Claims Court UNITY NATIONAL: Account Holders' Suit v. Kase Lawal Terminated VANTAGE TRAVEL: "Hebert" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts VISA INC: 9th Circ. Clamps Down on Those Who Dodge Jurisdiction VOESTALPINE USA: Faces "Chapman" Suit in S.D. Texas WAL-MART STORES: Settles First LGBT Class Action WALTER INVESTMENT: "Elkin" Securities Suit Sent to E.D. Penn. WILLIAMS & STROHM: "Boyd" Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection YAHOO INC: Ad-free Email Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss * Class Action Risks of Comparative Price Advertising * How 401(k) Advisers Can Bullet-Proof Against Litigation Risk * Lawsuits Aim to Address Big Law Gender Equality Problem * Pharmaceutical Cos. Sued Over Opioid Drug Deceptive Advertising ********* 314E CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees ------------------------------------------------------------- Grant Jones, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. 314E Corporation and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 17cv02203 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation and failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code. 314E Corporation provides healthcare information services that offers application integration, information management, application development, access, and security services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP 2255 Ceille Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com kyle@bamlawca.com aj@bamlawca.com ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Dipisa" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC. The case is captioned as Peter Dipisa, Jr., On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03029 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2017). Advanced Call Center provides contact center and back office support services to companies in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. AEG MANAGEMENT: Campbell Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ CHENILLE CAMPBELL, individually, and on behalf of other me the Plaintiff, v. AEG MANAGEMENT OAKLAND, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; AEG WORLDWIDE, a business entity of unknown form; ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC, a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 Through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG17359830 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 10, 2017), seeks restitution of unpaid wages and prejudgment interest under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and class members all overtime wages, minimum wages, all meal and rest periods, accurate and complete wage statements, and accurate payroll records. AEG is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Anschutz Company.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff Chenille Campbell: Amab Banerjee, Esq. Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067, Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310)943-0396 E-mail: Amab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com Brandon.Brouillette@capstonelawyers.com Ruhandy.Glezakos@capstonelawyers.com AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Sherli Shamoon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Akari Therapeutics PLC, Gurarye Yehuda Roshwalb, and Dov Elefant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03783 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) officers of the Company, including Akari's Chief Executive Officer, were involved in publishing false information about the Company, including false information about the Phase 2 PNH trial of the Company's Coversin product; (ii) the Company lacked adequate checks and protections to prevent such behavior; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Akari's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Akari Therapeutics, Plc is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing inhibitors of acute and chronic inflammation, specifically the complement system, the eicosanoid system, and the bioamine system for the treatment of rare and orphan diseases. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com ALABAMA: Waits for Ruling in Inmate Mental Health Suit ------------------------------------------------------ E News Courier reports that Alabama is waiting for a federal judge's ruling in a class-action lawsuit over inmate mental health care, a decision that could determine if there's a special session on prison issues, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said on May 19. Ivey told reporters that she will not rule out a special session at some point on state prisons, but said she first want to see what U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson orders the state to do. "Calling a special session may very well be an option because we've got to meet the needs of the state and we've got to meet the needs of what the judge outlines," Ivey said. "We'll wait and see what the judge rules." State prisons have come under criticism for crowding, violence and the level of health care provided to inmates. Thompson is expected to rule in a lawsuit filed by inmates claiming that Alabama has failed to identify, protect and treat mentally ill prisoners, leading to suicides and complications from untreated conditions that spiral out of control. The Department of Corrections has disputed the claims. Alabama lawmakers did not approve a prison construction plan in the legislative session that ended on May 19. The proposal would have built four new mega-prisons but was bogged down as lawmakers raised concerns arose about the price tag of construction, who would get the contracts and the loss of jobs when existing prisons close. Ivey said she was disappointed that the bill did not win approval. "I was just optimistic that we could get a prison bill passed to demonstrate to the court that this state is dead serious -- pardon the pun -- but dead serious about making a difference to improve our prison structure," Ivey said. House Speaker Mac McCutcheon said he believed the need for a special session "will be determined on the judge's ruling." "I'm sure there will be a timeline in there for us. It just depends on that," McCutcheon said. [GN] ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over FDCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Amy Bailey, f/k/a Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allied Interstate, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company and LVNV Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01115-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., April 7, 2017) seeks to recover damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendants used a letter to collect debt from the Plaintiff. Defendants' letter, however, failed to state that Allied could not also sue on the debt and that Allied could not also make a credit report about the debt; moreover, by stating that LVNV "will not" sue or credit report, rather than it "cannot" sue or credit report, the letter implied that LVNV still had the option to take those actions, and that it was simply choosing not to do so, notes the Plaintiff. Defendants attempted to provide a disclaimer that the debt was time-barred, that disclaimer was ineffective because: a) they failed to foreclose the possibility that Allied could not sue on the debt; b) they did not foreclose the possibility that Allied could not credit report the Debt and c) they failed to foreclose that LVNV could not legally sue or credit report the debt, not that LVNV has simply chosen not to do so. Moreover, by claiming that the debt was still an "obligation" that needed to be "resolved" via a "settlement", Defendant used unfair or unconscionable means to collect the debt, the complaint asserts. Defendants Allied Interstate and LVNV Funding, LLC is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. Philipps & Philipps, Ltd. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Tel: (708) 974-2900 Fax: (708) 974-2907 Email: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com angiekrobertson@aol.com - and - John T. Steinkamp, Esq. 5214 S. East Street, Suite D1 Indianapolis, IN 46227 Tel: (317) 780-8300 Fax: (317) 217-1320 Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case is captioned as Joel Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial, LP, formerly known as: United Recovery Systems, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03090 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2017). Alltran Financial specializes in revenue cycle, accounts receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare, financial services, higher education, and government industries in the Unites States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. AMERICAN HONDA: "Shamah" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled NICOLE SHAMAH, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION, doing business as HONDA FINANCIAL SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. MON-L1289-17, was removed on May 22, 2017, from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv- 03653-PGS-TJB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Peter G. Sheridan. American Honda Finance Corporation provides various forms of financing to purchasers and lessees, and authorized independent dealers of Honda and Acura products in the United States and Canada. It acquires retail installment contracts from dealers; and closed-end vehicle lease contracts between authorized dealers and their customers, as well as offers wholesale flooring and commercial loans to authorized dealers of Honda and Acura products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com The Defendant is represented by: Gerard Cedrone, Esq. LAVIN, O'NEIL, CEDRONE & DISIPIO 1300 Route 73, Suite 307 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 778 5544 E-mail: gcedrone@lavin-law.com AMERICAN SECURITY: "Hopkins" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- RODERICK HOPKINS, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN SECURITY GROUP A-l, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a A-l LOCK AND KEY, a/k/a A-l LOCK & KEY MGN CONQUEST CORPORATION, a Florida Profit Corporation, MICHAEL G. NETTLES, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 56306628 (Fla. Cir. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs for breach of agreement and unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and for wrongful, retaliatory discharge of an employee in violation of Section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes, and for unlawful, retaliatory discharge pursuant to Florida's private sector Whistleblower's Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed work for Defendants as a non-exempt locksmith working for Defendants' AAA Roadside Assistance franchise(s). The Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff from on June 23, 2016 through February 24, 2017, approximately 36 weeks. The Plaintiff was not paid at the proper overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Additionally, throughout Plaintiffs employment, he worked numerous hours for which he received no compensation whatsoever, in violation of the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. Throughout Plaintiffs employment, Plaintiff worked an average of 72 hours per week. The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an "independent contractor," despite not being able to work for anyone else, or to set his own schedule. Plaintiff drove a company vehicle, a Toyota Prius and did not have independent discretion regarding his job assignments. The Plaintiff was paid "by the job," meaning Defendants would pay Plaintiff either four dollars, six dollars, or twenty dollars, depending on the difficulty of the locksmith assignment and the location of the vehicle to be unlocked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattomeys.com AMERICAS STYRENICS: Faces "Velardez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Velardez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Americas Styrenics, LLC and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC662098 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation at the overtime rate for work in excess of 8 hours a day and 40 hours per week. Americas Styrenics, LLC owns and operates a chemicals company Los Angeles, state of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ebby S. Bakhtiar, Esq. LIVINGSTON BAKHTIAR 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1669 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 632-1550 Facsimile: (213) 632-3100 ARCONIC INC: Shareholders Sue Directors for Duty Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Ehrlich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arconic Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Klaus Kleinfeld, Amy E. Alving, Patricia F. Russo, Arthur D. Collins, Jr., Rajiv L. Gupta, David P. Hess, E. Stanley O'Neal, L. Rafael Reif, Julie G. Richardson and Ratan N. Tata, Defendants, Case No. 170402581, filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Trial Division on April 18, 2017, seeks to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff, shareholder Arthur Ehrlich, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated shareholders, filed the complaint against the Company and certain officers and directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duty related to Arconic's April 12, 2017 filing of a Form 8-K in which the company disclosed that it had given notice of a "potential change in control" under the terms of a rabbi trust agreement. Plaintiffs allege that this statement constitutes an improper attempt to coerce shareholders into voting for incumbent directors. Arconic Inc., formerly Alcoa Inc., is engaged in lightweight metals engineering and manufacturing. Wells Fargo is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, credit card, insurance, and consumer and commercial financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Cohen, Esq. Stephan Zouras LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: 215-873-4836 Fax: 312-233-1560 Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: 415 981-4800 Fax: 415 981-4846 Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com aep@girardgibbs.com - and - Peter Safirstein, Esq. Safirstein Metcalf LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Tel: 212 201-2845 Email: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Juliani" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services Inc. The case is styled as Lindita Juliani and Nino Juliani, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03050 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2017). ARS offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card companies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Igor B Litvak, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (646) 796 4905 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com - and - Daniel C Cohen, Esq. DANIEL COHEN, PLLC 407 Rockaway Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11212 Telephone: (646) 645 8482 Facsimile: (347) 665 1545 E-mail: dancohenlaw@gmail.com ATTICARE CORP: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Katz" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Katz, Ricardo Melandez, and Moshe Fogfx, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated v. Atticare Corp. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. RG17861043 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2017), is brought on behalf of these workers who worked for Atticare in California and were classified as independent contractors, in order to collect the wages due them as employees of Atticare, the cost of the employer's share of payments to the federal and state governments for income taxes, social security taxes, medicare insurance, unemployment insurance and payments for workers' compensation insurance, plus penalties and interest. Atticare Corp. provides services to local Residential and Commercial buildings to identify, clean, and prevent rodent infestations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur W. Lazear, Esq. Morgan M. Mack, Esq. LAZEAR MACK LLP 436-14th Street Suite 1117 OAKLAND, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 735-6316 Facsimile: (510) 545-4226 E-mail: ARTHUR@LAZEARMACK.COM MORGAM@LAZEARMACK.COM AT HOME: Faces "Sadullaev" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Islom Sadullaev, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. At Home Solutions, LLC, Case No. 154673/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide employees the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours" compensation. At Home Solutions, LLC is primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide services at the residences of its clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com llusher@vandallp.com mdostanitch@vandallp.com AUROBINDO PHARMA: MSPA Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity; MAO-MSO RECOVERY, LLC, a Delaware entity; MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity, Plaintiffs, v. AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC.; CITRON PHARMA, LLC; HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MAYNE PHARMA (USA), INC.; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. Case 3:17-cv-00144-VLB (D. Conn., Jan. 31, 2017), seeks reimbursement for the money lost by third-party payers for paying artificially inflated prices for Doxycycline Hyclate Delayed Release ("Doxy DR") and Glyburide drugs. According to the complaint, the claims in this case arise from conspiracies between the Defendant pharmaceutical drug manufacturers to fraudulently inflate prices and reduce competition in the United States for Doxy DR and Glyburide causing third-party payers, like Plaintiff, to pay more money for generic drugs than they otherwise would have paid. The Plaintiff and class members suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' racketeering and anti-competitive conduct. The Plaintiff was assigned the recovery rights from third party payers who purchased or provided reimbursement for the various generic pharmaceutical drugs that are the subject of this lawsuit at supracompetitive prices as a result of Defendants' illegal conduct. The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:17-cv-02159) before the Hon. Cynthia M Rufe. Aurobindo Pharma manufactures generic pharmaceutical drugs. The company was incorporated in 2004 and is based in Dayton, New Jersey. Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Aurobindo Pharma Limited.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, L.L.C. 883 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610 6393 Facsimile: (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq. Courtney L. Stidham, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUD IN & COFFIN, LLP 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 355 0086 E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com cstidham@pbclawfirm.com - and - Michael L. Baum, Esq. R. Brent Wisner, Esq. BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207 3233 Facsimile: (310) 820 7444 BAODING CFC: "Wen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wen Long Liu, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Baoding CFC Inc. d/b/a "Baoding CFC", Bin Chen, "Jane" (First Name Unknown) Chen, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02864-RJD-SMG (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, reimbursement for expenses relating to tools of trade, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wage, overtime pay, spread of hours pay, reimbursement for expenses relating to tools of the trade, and failure to provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring would financially injure Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and violate state and federal laws. From March 8, 2016 to April 22, 2017, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a deliveryman for Defendants' restaurant. Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with the required minimum wage according to state and federal laws. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff overtime compensation according to state and federal laws. The Plaintiff was not compensated for New York State's "spread of hours" premium for shifts that lasted longer than 10 hours, one day each week. Baoding is a Chinese restaurant located at Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: 718 353 8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com BKAL INC: "Read" Suit Sues Over Workplace Sexual Harassment ----------------------------------------------------------- BETTY READ, the Plaintiff, v. BKAL, INC. d/b/a OCEANA'S RESTAURANTS; TOM KALAVROUZIOTIS and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendant, Case No. L-1926-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks judgment against the defendants jointly, severally and in the alternative, together with economic compensatory damages, non- economic compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable back pay, equitable front pay, equitable reinstatement, and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just. The case is brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) alleging sexual harassment in the workplace. This matter also alleges age harassment and age discrimination by way of termination. The Plaintiff alleges that all sexual harassment was continuous, ongoing and part of a pattern and practice such that all sexual harassment is actionable under the continuing violation doctrine. From the time her employment commenced, through the conclusion of her employment, plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment at the hands of both owner Tom Kalavrouziotis and co-workers, including a cook named Leo (last name unknown) The Plaintiff requests that the Court order the defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly situated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727 9700 BUMBLE BEE: To Pay $25-Mil. Fine in Installments ------------------------------------------------ Bianca Bruno writing for Courthouse News reports that an attorney for packaged-seafood giant Bumble Bee told a judge on May 18 there are no plans to sell the company, which was criminally fined $25 million this month for price fixing. Bumble Bee pleaded guilty on May 8 to fixing prices on canned tuna. It agreed to pay $25 million in criminal fines to the federal government, which its attorney Ted Hassi, Esq. -- ehassi@omm.com -- of O'Melveny revealed on May 18 will be paid in installments, as it cannot afford to pay the lump sum. If the company is sold, the buyer will have to pay another $56.5 million, under the terms of the settlement. Hassi said the additional, conditional fine was tacked on because "the Department of Justice wanted a larger fine but Bumble Bee has the inability to pay a larger fine." "The Department of Justice does not want to run a good American company out of business," Hassi told U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino. "There is no sale of Bumble Bee; there is no packing up and leaving the country." The May 18 hearing, however, was on a civil matter: a status hearing on a class action brought by grocers and suppliers in 2015. They claim the tuna price-fixing conspiracy among Bumble Bee, Tri-Union Seafoods aka Chicken of the Sea, Starkist and others goes as far back as 2004. The class action, which has survived a motion to dismiss from the tuna companies, involves dozens of major food supplier and grocer plaintiffs, including Wal-Mart, Publix, Kroger, Albertsons, Winn- Dixie and others. The Department of Justice intervened last year and has filed 750,000 documents -- 2.3 million pages -- related to its parallel criminal investigation this April, attorneys said at the May 18 hearing. At the heart of the case are 14 amended complaints, whose more than 1,000 pages include dozens of antitrust claims against the international seafood companies. While the May 18 hearing was expected to be a run-of-the mill conference to set filing dates and other deadlines, a bit of courtroom drama ensued when Hassi said Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea executives have been contacted by a private investigator trying to gather information on the case. Hassi suggested the private investigator may have been hired by the plaintiffs. "We don't think this kind of thing should be happening," Hassi said, suggesting it would be a breach legal ethics. He handed Sammartino a proposed stipulation he asked the class attorneys to sign, which would preclude them and staffs -- including private investigators -- from contacting current employees, who are represented by counsel. He also asked that plaintiffs' counsel consult with defense attorneys before contacting former employees, though former employees can talk freely. One of the class attorneys, William Blechman of Kenny Nachwalter, called the stipulation "overbroad and not needed." "There's a negative inference from this stipulation that someone has done something wrong," Blechman said. "We don't want to see it happening any more than defense counsel does. . . . It is taking a sledge hammer to solve a problem which requires a scalpel to excise." Multiple attorneys for the plaintiffs denied hiring an investigator. After some back and forth between both sides -- including a suggestion the investigator might have been hired by a news agency -- Sammartino ordered Hassi to depose the investigator to find out who he was working for. The judge also struck down a suggestion from another attorney, that court hearings be closed to the public and media, saying there are other ways to seal classified information. Sammartino pushed back some deadlines, for the attorneys and for her own staff, to ensure they have time to review filings before a motion to dismiss hearing is held this fall. She said she needed at least a month to go through their court briefs. "This is not the equivalent of a case I can work up in a week," the judge said. "Everyone told me, 'Oh, it's not a big deal,' of all the different states and statutes involved in this case. You have to have a little bit of faith, counsel, that I will do what's most reasonable and fair to both sides." Another status hearing is set for July 26. [GN] BUTLER, PA: Faces Suit Over Lead in School Drinking Water --------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that at one time a staple of the manufacturing industry, lead has evolved from a common product found in everything from paint to children's toys, to a known toxin, and the source of lead paint poisoning and other injuries to the nervous system and beyond. Thus, there's little surprise that concerned parents would turn to the courts when lead was found in the drinking water of an elementary school in Pennsylvania, but were not informed for months, or so it is alleged. Defendants in the lead poisoning class action are the Butler Area School District and former superintendent Dale Lumley. The lawsuit was filed in US federal court in early February. According to court documents, plaintiff Jennifer Tait asserts the school district received test results that reflected levels of lead and copper in the water supply of Summit Elementary School located in Butler, Pennsylvania -- about 50 miles north of Pittsburgh. Levels of lead in the school's water supply were alleged to have been 200, to 300 percent higher than allowable limits. Additionally, levels of copper in the drinking water were found to be approaching levels that are also considered hazardous, or so the class action lawsuit claims. The lawsuit notes that elevated levels of copper and lead in drinking water can lead to lasting injuries and damage to the brain and kidneys. Tait asserts in her lead poisoning lawsuit that Lumley and the maintenance director of the school district received the results of water testing at the school, but decided against revealing the results to students or their parents in a timely fashion. The lawsuit, asserting risks to neurologic brain memory and the nervous system, claims the defendants knew the health risks, but withheld the information. Tests were conducted in August of last year and the results were received by the defendants in September. The class action suit asserts that Lumley and his maintenance director -- both of whom have since resigned -- contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) with the test results to review their obligations to students and parents. The PDEP, according to court records, duly informed the school district officials that parents should be advised and the water should not be consumed. However, that communication never took place until months later, in January of this year, or so it is alleged. "Representative plaintiff has been caused extreme mental and emotional anguish and distress, causing severe depression, nightmares, stress, and/or anxiety, some or all of which have or may require psychological treatment," the complaint said. The lead poisoning class action is Tait et al v. Butler Area School District et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00182 in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. [GN] CARPCO EFFICIENT: "Harmon" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM HARMON, the Plaintiff, v. CARPCO EFFICIENT ENERGY CO., LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00429-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., May 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and expenses, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff alleges violations of the FLSA entitlement of the right to receive pay for all time worked for Defendant. The Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated for continuous workday activities which are integral and indispensable to their principal activities. According to the complaint, the Defendant has repeatedly and willfully violated, and continues to willfully violate, Sections 6 and 7 of the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, or former employees, for the hours worked by such employees, by failing to pay Plaintiff for hours in excess of 0 hours per week at a rate not less than one and one- half times the regular hourly rate of pay at which such employees are compensated (overtime). Carpco is in the oil and gas field services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bob Whitehurst, Esq. 5380 Old Bullard Road Suite 600, No. 363 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903)593-5588 CHIPOTLE: Faces Class Action Over Potential Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Blair Miller at The Denver Channel reports that Chipotle faces a class-action lawsuit for the potential data breach the company first reported, alleging the company's willful negligence and "elementary" security measures led to the breach and is now costing banks and customers money. The Denver-based company first reported the possible breach late last month, saying that credit and debit cards used between March 24 and April 18 of this year may have been compromised by "unauthorized activity" on company servers. "Consistent with good practices, consumer should closely monitor their payment card statements. If anyone sees an unauthorized charge, they should immediately notify the bank that issued the card," the company said in its statement. "Payment card network rules generally state that cardholders are not responsible for such charges." And that statement is exactly what the lawsuit filed May 4 in the U.S. District Court of Colorado claims is the basis for the suit. The suit's class has yet to be certified, but it was filed by New Hampshire-based Bellwether Community Credit Union on the behalf of all "credit unions, banks, and other financial institutions" they may have had to reissue customers' cards that were compromised in the breach, close compromised accounts, or remedy any false transactions. The suit claims that there are more than 100 members of the proposed class, and that alleged damages exceed $5 million. Though it's still unclear how many customers may have been affected in the alleged breach, the suit claims that the company knew it was putting itself at risk for further security breaches after a 2004 breach and a handful of recent ones involving other food-service companies. "The deficiencies in Chipotle's security system include a lack of elementary security measures, which even the most inexperienced IT professional could identify as problematic," the suit says. It claims that the company, which had around 2,250 U.S. locations as of March 31, failed to upgrade its security after a breach the company says cost it about $4.3 million between 2004 and 2006. The suit also cites Chipotle's February 2017 annual report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in which the company itself said: "We may in the future become subject to additional claims for purportedly fraudulent transactions arising out of the actual or alleged theft of credit or debit card information, and we may also be subject to lawsuits or other proceedings in the future relating to these types of incidents . . . Consumer perception of our brand could also be negatively affected by these events, which could further adversely affect our results and prospects. "The liabilities resulting from any of the foregoing would likely be far greater than the losses we recorded in connection with the data breach incident in 2004." The suit claims that one of the biggest problems that led to the hacking was Chipotle's failure to adhere to credit card companies' regulations that required companies to start using chip technology by October 2015. The chips mask information contained within transactions about credit card information, unlike the former magnetic strip cards. But the suit claims that Chipotle stated specifically that it would not switch over to the chip-only system because it would "slow down customer lines." By doing so, the company opened itself up to face damages from litigation, as per the regulations set forth by the card companies that said that any business not adhering to the October 2015 deadline would "agree to be liable for damages resulting from any data breaches," according to the lawsuit. The suit says that Chipotle has said that 70 percent of its sales involved a debit or credit card transaction, and estimates that "hundreds of thousands" of Chipotle customers could have had their private credit and debit card numbers, and information relating to them, compromised. Since the burden is on banks to close accounts and reissue new cards, the suit claims that any bank having to do so because of the Chipotle breach is damaged by the breach and subject to compensation. The class, should it be certified, requests damages and injunctive and declaratory relief on the basis that Chipotle was negligent in its failure to upgrade its security systems for transactions and data storage. It asks a judge to issue an injunction forcing Chipotle to adhere to industry-standard encryption methods, switch to chip-card readers, and undergo a large audit and subsequent upgrade of its security systems. A request for comment made to Chipotle had not been returned as of the time of publishing. A scheduling conference for the case has been set for July 18 in Denver. [GN] CHOPARD USA: Faces "Portillo" Class Suit in C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- Mynor F. Portillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chopard USA Ltd., a New York Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-02939 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2017) seeks to recover damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from engaging in its illegal practice of violating the California Penal Code. During a telephone call with Chopard, Plaintiff was not aware that the call was being recorded. Defendant did not, at any point during the telephone conversation with Defendant's customer service representative, advice Plaintiff that the call was being recorded. Plaintiff did not give either express or implied consent to the recording. Plaintiff expected that his telephone call would be private due to Defendant's failure to disclose any recording or monitoring. Chopard is a Swiss luxury company focused on watches, jewelers and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. Pacific Trial Attorneys, APC 4100 Newport Place Dr., Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com CJS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Sanders" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Sanders and Anthony Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The CJS Solutions Group, LLC d/b/a The HCI Group, Case No. 1:17-cv-03809 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The CJS Solutions Group, LLC is a corporation providing information technology educational services for the healthcare industry across the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold Lichten, Esq. Jill Kahn, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com jkahn@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com - and - David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Camille Fundora, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net elechtzin@bm.net cfundora@bm.net CLIENT SERVICES: Saroza Sues Over Debt Collection Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- NESTOR SAROZA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03429-MCA-SCM (D.N.J., May 12, 2017), seeks to recover actual and statutory damages, against Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone or Internet. The Defendant is a "debt collector". Sometime prior to May 12, 2016, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation to Citibank, N.A. for a Sears Charge Plus Account (Citibank). Citibank is a "creditor". Also prior to May 12, 2016, Citibank, either directly or through intermediate transactions, assigned, placed or transferred the Citibank obligation to Defendant for purposes of collection. At the time, the Citibank obligation was assigned, placed, or transferred to Defendant such obligation was in default.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. HERSH LEGAL 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507 6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Meisels" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc. The case is titled as Simon Meisels, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Client Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03091 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2017). Client Services is a full service accounts receivable management firm offering a diverse selection of collection and recovery solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. CONN'S INC: Investigation on Officers and Directors Initiated ------------------------------------------------------------- Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq. - - charles.foti@ksfcounsel.com -- a partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into Conn's, Inc.. Throughout 2012 to 2013, Conn's began implementing a plan to inflate sales by loosening its credit underwriting and lending standards, thus exposing the Company to a considerable amount of high-risk consumer debt despite making contrary statements to investors that it was strengthening its credit and collection practices. The Company gradually revealed throughout the latter part of 2013 to 2014 that earnings were lower than anticipated, while making assurances that the problems were resolved. On December 9, 2014, the truth was revealed as the Company announced significant increases in bad debt and consumer delinquency rates, that it was withdrawing its earnings guidance for 2015 and that it was not providing earnings guidance for 2016 at that time. Thereafter, Conn's and certain of its executives were sued in a securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On May 5, 2016, the Court denied a motion to dismiss the case and it continues to move forward to the present. KSF's investigation is focusing on whether the Company's officers and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to Conn's shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws. If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation, or have been a long-time holder of Conn's shares, and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.[GN] Lewis Kahn Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Tel: 1-877-515-1850 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Ex-Jail Guard Sues Merit Board Over Firings ------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Schmadeke, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a former Cook County Jail guard has filed a lawsuit seeking to claw back his firing and dozens of others by Sheriff Tom Dart's merit board after a higher court ruling cast doubt on nearly four years of the board's disciplinary decisions. An Illinois appellate court panel ruled that Dart and the Cook County Board did not have the power to appoint former merit board member John Rosales to anything less than a six-year term. Rosales was appointed in 2011 to a one-year term and never reappointed, yet remained on the tribunal and joined in its decisions until 2015, according to court records. The higher court's decision came in the case of former deputy Percy Taylor, who sued after the board fired him in 2012. Judge Neil Cohen threw out the board's decision and found that Taylor was owed back pay. An appellate court panel upheld Cohen's reversal and ordered the case be heard again before a "legally constituted" board. Now onetime jail guard Joseph Acevedo has filed a lawsuit asking a judge to reinstate dozens of fired officers and award them back pay because the merit board's firing decisions from June 2011 to April 2015 are allegedly legally void. "The purpose of this lawsuit is to remedy the fact that the sheriff illegally left Rosales on the board," said Acevedo's attorney, Dana Kurtz, Esq. -- dkurtz@kurtzlaw.us -- at Kurtz Law Offices. "He's the chief law enforcement officer in the county of Cook. . . . He's required to abide by the statute but didn't." The lawsuit could involve nearly 100 sheriff's employees and include damages of some $15 million, she said. Acevedo has been unable to find work since he was fired, Kurtz said. Dart's office plans to appeal last week's appellate court ruling, said the sheriff's policy chief, Cara Smith. The case has already been before the Illinois Supreme Court, which declined to hear Dart's earlier appeal but asked the lower court to clarify its decision, resulting in the ruling. Lawsuit against Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, merit board over firing Smith said the merit board's decisions should remain. "The disciplinary process we have in place was sound and we believe the discipline and terminations should stand," she said. According to the lawsuit, which Acevedo's attorneys are asking a judge to certify as a class action, Acevedo had been a correctional officer for nearly 16 years when he was fired in 2015 for allegedly racking up too many unapproved absences between 2012 and 2013. If a judge allows the case to move forward as a class action, all the officers' claims would be consolidated in a single case; if not, each officer must file a separate lawsuit. Dart, the merit board and Cook County government are listed as defendants in the case. [GN] CRACKER BARREL: "Blackshear" Suit Seeks Compensation Under CEPA --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLOTTE BLACKSHEAR, vs. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC.; EDDIE IBARRONDO and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Defendants, Case No. MER-L-884-17(N.J. Super., Mercer County, April 26, 2017), alleges that plaintiff was directly retaliated against as a result of having engaged in protected conduct under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and so the Plaintiff is entitled to claim compensatory, economic and punitive damage under CEPA. Plaintiff requests that the Court order the defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made herein going forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly situated. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. is an American chain of combined restaurant and gift stores with a Southern country theme. Plaintiff is a preparation cook. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: (856) 727-9700 CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Thompkins" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control Services, Inc. The case is entitled as Eulalie Thompkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a Credit Collection Services, as assignee of Credit Collection Services, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03058 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2017). Credit Control provides business process outsourcing solutions for customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. CREDIT PROTECTION: Moran Sues Over Debt Collection Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL MORAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03471 (N.D. Ill., May 9, 2017), seeks statutory damages and actual damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's debt collection letter violates the clear language of the FDCPA by stating contradictory periods within which the consumer may request validation a debt and threatening unintended action during the validation period. The collection letter is false, deceptive, and misleading, threatens action not intended to be taken, and overshadows and is inconsistent with the consumer's dispute. The Defendant is liable for making false, deceptive, and misleading representations regarding alleged debt. The Defendant is also liable for threatening to take action not intended to be taken. The Defendant is further liable for collection activities that overshadow and are inconsistent with the consumer's 30-day validation period. Credit Protection specializes in low-balance, high-volume collections in the able and home video market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Hyslip, Esq. HYSLIP & TAYLOR, LLC, LPA 1100 W. Cermak Rd., Suite B410 Chicago, IL 60608 Telephone: (312) 380 6110 Facsimile: (312) 361 3509 E-mail: jeffrey@lifetimedebtsolutions.com CUYAHOGA COUNTY: Faces "Anghelache" Suit Over Decreased Pensions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Anghelache, Charmaine L. Gageham and Thomas J. Fitzmaurice, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Cuyahoga County and Cuyahoga County Sheriff, Defendants, Case No. CV-17-878840 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, April 13, 2017) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to rectify Plaintiff's failures, as well as monetary relief to recompense employees for any residual or continuing effect on their retirement pensions. Plaintiffs and other class members were injured because of the County's failure to remit contributions which decreased the value of their Ohio Public Employees Retirement System(OPERS) accounts and the amounts of the pensions to which they are entitled. Cuyahoga County is a county located in the U.S. state of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Nilges Draher, LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Tel: 330-470-4428 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Downie, Esq. 46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104 Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Tel: 440-973-9000 Email: tom@chagrinlaw.com DAIMLER: German Prosecutors to Search Offices in Emissions Probe ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that German automaker Daimler AG says prosecutors will search several of its offices in Germany as part of a preliminary investigation into suspected manipulation of diesel emission controls. Daimler said on May 23 it was cooperating with the probe conducted in its home base of Stuttgart. The company had already disclosed the probe in its financial reports. It said the investigation focused on "known and unknown employees" of the company. The company declined further comment. Daimler said in its first-quarter earnings report that authorities in the U.S. and Europe had asked it for information about test results and the control systems used on its Mercedes-Benz cars. It said the U.S. Justice Department had asked the company to conduct an internal investigation. Diesel emissions have come under closer scrutiny after Volkswagen AG admitted in September 2015 that it had equipped cars with software that detected when the vehicles were on test stands and turned up the emissions control, then turned controls off in everyday driving. Volkswagen has agreed to pay more than $16 billion in civil settlements and a $4.3 billion criminal penalty in the United States. Fiat Chrysler has updated emission control software in 2017 models after U.S. environmental authorities said its vehicles emitted more pollution on the road than showed up in emissions tests. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Portela" Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Consultants, Inc. The case is captioned as DIEGO F. PORTELA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03431-JMV-MF (D.N.J., May 12, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez. Diversified Consultants is a business specializing in accounts receivable management functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227 5900 Facsimile: (973) 244 0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com DRG BILLING: Faces "Reinbold" Suit Over Wage and Hour Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- JARED REINBOLD, LAUREN POIRIER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL R. GILLENTINE, and DRG BILLING SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1781CV1446B (Mass. Super. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks relief against the Defendants for violation of state wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff further seeks relief further for the misappropriation of withholding taxes taken from the Plaintiffs pay and not paid over to the United States Treasury or the State Department of Revenue, failure to pay FICA and Medicare taxes on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and failure to pay profit sharing as promised, and intentional misclassification of employee as independent contractors in violation of G.L. c. 149 section 148B, fraud, deceit, and breach of fiduciary duty. According to the complaint, the Defendants provide billing services to home health care companies (HHC's) principally located in the Commonwealth, which companies participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs funded by the State and Federal governments. HHC's provide care to persons who qualify and who require "medically necessary" services in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Commonwealth. DRG charges its clients a percentage of the amounts which its customers bill to the Commonwealth or to the Federal Medicare program. Its task is to oversee that the bills are properly submitted and paid in accordance with written contracts with its customers. In the winter of 2015, Defendant Gillentine was working for a company known as Advanced Billing Technologies, LLC (ABT). He became that company's chief executive officer in November-December of 2015. At that time Gillentine falsely complained to Plaintiffs that he was "not being paid" by ABT. He began to discuss with Plaintiffs the idea of his leaving ABT and forming his own company, after lying to them about his compensation. During the winter and early spring of 2016, Gillentine told Plaintiff that he had been communicating with ABT's customers and that he had lined up enough customers to leave ABT and go with him in his own company, which actions he had concealed from ABT. In the time frame of April-May of 2016, Gillentine informed Plaintiff that he was definitely leaving ABT and he solicited Plaintiff and other employees of ABT to leave ABT and assume the identical jobs at DGR. The Plaintiff had no knowledge of any arrangements that Gillentine had with ABT, except his complaints of not being paid -a claim that Plaintiff has since discovered was untrue. Plaintiff is informed and therefore believes that in fact ABT had given Gillentine a $50,000 bonus, and increased his salary to $100,000 per year at his demand. Gillentine promised Plaintiff that if he left his job at ABT he would receive in addition to his wages, a bonus of 1% of the profits of DRG, which Gillentine claimed would be considerable based upon his experience working for ABT and obtaining knowledge of ABT's customers. Gillentine also told numerous other employees of ABT that if they left ABT and worked for DRG, they would likewise receive a 1% of the profits bonus. This information was concealed from ABT, but used by Gillentine to induce employees who had been trained at ABT to join Gillentine. In June-July of 2016 Gillentine left ABT and opened a business in Waltham, MA in accordance with his plans and his prior solicitation of ABT's customers. Numerous employees of ABT including Plaintiffs and many of its customers left ABT and went to DRG under Gillentine's direction. DRG began "billing" for those Clients and money came to DRG from billings and from investors in DRG which he at first paid his employees. Plaintiffs often worked more than 40 hours per week for DRG, as did many other employees of DRG. No one received any overtime.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Lames Boumil, Esq. 120 Fairmount Street Lowell, MA 01852 Telephone: (978) 458 0507 E-mail: SJBoumil@Boumil-Law.com EMORY UNIVERSITY: Partial Victory in Bid to Junk Code 403b Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy S. Gerrie, Esq., Mary K. Samsa, Esq., Joseph K. Urwitz, Esq., of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, writing for The National Law Review, reports that multiple large, class action lawsuits have been filed against prominent higher education institutions claiming fiduciary breaches under their Code Section 403(b) plans as a result of insufficient oversight of plan investments, which allegedly caused excessive fees to be paid by participants. District courts in Georgia and North Carolina, respectively, ruled on defendants' motions under Henderson v. Emory University and Clark v. Duke University. Although the defendants in these cases had some success in eliminating certain causes of action, other causes of action involving the payment of excessive fees and use of multiple record-keepers will continue through litigation. In Depth More than 10 large, class action lawsuits have been filed against prominent higher education institutions (e.g., John Hopkins, Yale, Cornell, Vanderbilt) claiming fiduciary breaches under their Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 403(b) Tax Sheltered Annuity Plans as a result of insufficient oversight of plan investments, which allegedly caused excessive fees to be paid by participants. District courts in Georgia and North Carolina, respectively, ruled on defendants' motions to dismiss under Henderson v. Emory University, N.D. Ga., No. 1:16-cv-02920-CAP (5/10/17) and Clark v. Duke University, M.D.N.C., No. 1:16-cv-01044 (8/10/16). Each court granted in part and denied in part portions of the respective motions to dismiss. Although the defendants in these cases had some success in eliminating certain causes of action, other causes of action involving the payment of excessive fees and use of multiple record-keepers will continue through litigation. Code Section 403(b) plan sponsors can glean best practices from the arguments in each of these cases as well as the upcoming cases against Columbia University and New York University. Summary of the Allegations The allegations in the original underlying complaints generally fall into eight categories, which plaintiffs argue led to fiduciary breaches: 1. Funds are too expensive. Alternative funds were available at lower cost and with similar risk/return characteristics. 2. Failure to offer lower-cost share class. Fiduciaries failed to investigate the availability of lower-cost share classes of mutual funds (e.g., institutional) and continued to offer higher-cost share classes (e.g., retail). 3. Failure to remove underperforming funds. Fiduciaries failed to adequately monitor investment options and remove those that exhibited poor performance against benchmarks. Further, they argue that the use of investment options that included revenue-sharing arrangements was not appropriate because plan fiduciaries did not compare overall plan fees against a reasonable participant-based recordkeeping fee. 4. Too many fund options are offered. By providing too many investment options, the fiduciaries created duplicative offerings that charged higher fees and confused participants, preventing them from making educated choices. 5. Failure to take advantage of "mega plan" economies of scale or to conduct periodic Requests for Proposals for evaluating service providers. The fiduciaries failed to conduct a Request for Proposal (RFP) to ascertain whether a better and less expensive provider was available. The fiduciaries further failed to capitalize on the size of the Code Section 403(b) plan, by potentially combining plans, to secure the best pricing for administrative and investment services. 6. Too many record-keepers were involved. By utilizing multiple record-keepers, the fiduciaries impeded the plan's ability to consolidate management of plan investments and negatively impacted the plan's ability to secure more favorable fee terms or to streamline administration or reduce costs. 7. Failure to appropriately evaluate revenue sharing funds. Fiduciaries did not compare overall plan fees against a reasonable participant-based recordkeeping fee. Annuity products offered were too expensive and restrictive. Fiduciaries continued to offer annuity products whose fees were excessive and which "locked in" participants. Although the rulings did not necessarily provide significant insight into the court's thinking on each of the above issues, the ultimate decision of each court's ruling on certain of the above issues is set forth below under the respective case name. Henderson v. Emory University In its 26-page decision, the court in the Northern District of Georgia determined the following: -- Dismissal granted with respect to the issue that defendants acted imprudently by offering too many investment options. The court concluded that "[h]aving too many options does not hurt the Plans' participants, but instead provides them opportunities to choose the investments that they prefer." -- Partial dismissal granted with respect to plaintiffs' intent to seek any damages that occurred more than six years prior to the complaint being filed caused by imprudence. The court determined that claims of imprudence further back than six years are time barred but plaintiffs could proceed based on revised claim that there is a continuing duty to monitor and remove imprudent options. -- Partial dismissal granted with respect to any plaintiff allegation that investment in mutual funds offered by a service provider who is a "party-in-interest" is a prohibited transaction. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides an exception from the prohibited transaction rule for mutual funds. All other allegations in the complaint are permitted to proceed. Clark v. Duke University In its five-page decision, the court in the Middle District of North Carolina determined the following: -- Dismissal granted in full with respect to "locked in" allegations pertaining to certain annuity products and their imprudence. Defendants submitted a 2009 Form 5500 as proof that certain investments with a "locked in" feature had been in place for more than six years. The court determined that plaintiffs' claim that "Duke's decision to commit[] the Plan to an imprudent arrangement," to "allow[] the Plan to be locked into an unreasonable arrangement," had to consider when the arrangement was entered into. Since the arrangement was entered into prior to 2010, it was barred by the statute of limitations. -- Partial dismissal granted with respect to any plaintiff allegation that investment in mutual funds offered by a service provider who is a "party-in-interest" is a prohibited transaction. ERISA provides an exception from the prohibited transaction rule for mutual funds. -- Dismissal granted in full with respect to plaintiffs' allegation of breach of duty to monitor. Plaintiffs' complaint was devoid of facts of how the monitoring process was deficient. All other allegations in the complaint are permitted to proceed. [GN] FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS: Chocolate Packaging Misleading, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLARISHA BENSON and LORENZO SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS, an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03519 (N.D. Ill., May 10, 2017), seeks monetary damages as a result Defendant's violation of Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act. The case is a consumer protection action arising out of deceptive and otherwise improper business practices that Defendant engaged in with respect to the packaging of its 7.0 oz. (7 ounces) chocolate and confection products (the Products). The Products are sold in non-transparent boxes and marketed extensively throughout Illinois. They are available at numerous retail and online outlets such as Fannie May retail stores, Walgreens, Jewel and online through Amazon. Defendant manufactures, markets and sells the Products with non- functional slack-fill in violation of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The size of the boxes in comparison to the volume of the Products contained therein makes it appear to Plaintiffs and Class members that they are buying more than what is actually being sold, thus deceiving them into making purchases they would not make at the given prices had they known the truth.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kasif Khowaja, Esq. The Khowaja Law Firm 70 East Lake St., Suite 1220 Chicago IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 356 3200 Facsimile: (312) 386 5600 E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. LLC Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201 0575 Facsimile: (312) 332 0600 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Cunningham Sues Over Pension & Retirement ---------------------------------------------------------- CLIFTON CUNNINGHAM and DON TEED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, d/b/a FEDEX EXPRESS, FEDEX CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN, and FEDEX CORPORATION RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn., May 12, 2017), seeks compensation for the loss of benefits suffered by reason of Defendants' failure to comply with the provisions of Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The case is an action brought pursuant to the USERRA, on behalf of a class of current and former employees of Federal Express Corporation d/b/a/ FedEx Express (FedEx) who did not receive the full pension and retirement contributions mandated by USERRA for the periods in which the FedEx employees took leave from FedEx to honorably serve in the United States Armed Forces. Since at least 2002, FedEx and its retirement plans, which include the FedEx Corporation Employees' Pension Plan and FedEx Corporation Retirement Savings Plan ("Pension Plan Defendants" or "the Plans"), have been required by federal law to make pension contributions to FedEx employees for periods in which they engaged in qualified military service. Because thousands of service members employed by FedEx regularly work hours and receive compensation that are not fixed, their compensation has been "not reasonably certain." As a result, contributions for thousands of FedEx employees' periods of qualified military service must be calculated using a formula that measures each employee's own average rate of compensation during the 12-month period immediately prior to the period of qualified military service. This formula is commonly called a "12-month look-back" rule. Since 2002 FedEx and the Pension Plan Defendants have applied a policy for making pension and retirement contributions for periods of qualified military service that did not comply with USERRA, because they did not apply the 12-month look-back formula that USERRA requires. Contrary to the text of USERRA section 4318, and the Sixth Circuit's interpretation of section 4318, FedEx has applied a formula that is not a true 12-month look-back to determine the pension and retirement contributions and credits of employees whose compensation is not reasonably certain. FedEx's formula multiplies the average rate of pay during the 12-month period before a period of military service by the number of hours the FedEx employee would have worked without taking into account overtime or other factors that would increase the number of hours the FedEx employee works ("FedEx's formula"). For FedEx employees like Plaintiffs Cunningham and Teed whose compensation is not reasonably certain because they often work more than 40 hours in a week and receive overtime compensation, FedEx's compensation formula always -- or nearly always -- causes the employees to receive lower amounts of USERRA pension and retirement contributions and credits than the amounts that are required under USERRA's 12-month look back rule for their periods of qualified military service. FedEx Corporation is an American multinational courier delivery services company headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Napiltonia, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOE NAPILTONIA 219 Third Avenue North Franklin, TN 37064 Telephone: (615) 734 1199 Facsimile: (615) 534 4141 E-mail: joenapiltonia@gmail.com - and - Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW Second Floor West Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 847 4400 Facsimile: (646) 952 9114 E-mail: prf@outtengolden.com FEDERATED LAW: Faces "Webb" Suit in District of New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FEDERATED LAW GROUP, PLLC. The case is titled as ANDREA WEBB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FEDERATED LAW GROUP, PLLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03603-KM-JBC (D.N.J., May 19, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty. Federated Law is a law firm that pursues delinquent debt accounts owned by companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507 6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com FIAT CHRYSLER: U.S. Gov't Suit Alleges Emissions Test Cheating -------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the U.S. government is suing Fiat Chrysler, alleging that some of its diesel pickup trucks and Jeep SUVs cheat on emissions tests. The lawsuit filed on May 23 by the Justice Department marks the second time the government has gone after an automaker alleging use of software on diesel engines that allows them to emit more pollution on the road than during Environmental Protection Agency lab testing. Last year, the government accused Volkswagen of cheating on tests, and the company ended up pleading guilty to criminal charges in a scandal that cost VW more than $20 billion in the U.S. alone. In the latest case, the government alleges that Fiat Chrysler, or FCA, put eight "software-based features" on diesel engines in nearly 104,000 Ram pickups and Jeep Grand Cherokees from the 2014 to 2016 model years. The software allowed the vehicles to emit fewer pollutants during lab tests by Environmental Protection Agency than during normal driving conditions. The 3-liter FCA diesels emit nitrogen oxide at a much higher rate than allowed under federal laws when on the road, the EPA said in a statement. The company failed to disclose the software during the process to become certified so the vehicles can be sold, according to the EPA. The agency called the software a "defeat device" that changes the way the vehicles perform on treadmill tests in a laboratory. "Each of these vehicles differs materially from the specifications provided to EPA in the certification applications," the statement said. "Thus the cars are uncertified, in violation of the Clean Air Act." The Italian-American automaker said in a statement on May 23 that it is disappointed that the lawsuit was filed because it has been working with the EPA for months to clarify pollution control issues. FCA has contended that unlike VW, it did not install the software with intent to cheat on tests. "The company intends to defend itself vigorously, particularly against any claims that the company engaged in any deliberate scheme to install defeat devices to cheat U.S. emissions tests." In the lawsuit filed in Detroit federal court, the government seeks civil fines that could total over $4 billion, as well as court orders stopping the company from making or selling vehicles with undisclosed software. The EPA issued a "notice of violation" against FCA, exposing the software in January in the waning days of the Obama administration. FCA had planned to appeal to the administration of President Donald Trump for help after Trump promised fewer government regulations. At the time, FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne denied any wrongdoing and said the agency was blowing the issue out of proportion. The EPA and the California Air Resources Board still are discussing with FCA ways to make the vehicles comply with federal and California pollution laws. FCA says it still hopes to resolve the matter in negotiations. "The nature and timing of any resolution of this issue are uncertain," the EPA statement said. The lawsuit is another example of stepped up enforcement of diesel emissions cases worldwide after the VW scandal. Earlier on May 23 German automaker Daimler AG said that prosecutors will search several of its offices in Germany as part of a preliminary investigation into suspected manipulation of diesel emission controls. FIELDTURF USA: Faces Lakeview Day Suit in District of New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fieldturf USA, Inc. The case is captioned as LAKEVIEW DAY CAMP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIELDTURF USA, INC., a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv- 03301-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., May 10, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Peter G. Sheridan. Fieldturf engages in manufacturing and installation of infield artificial turf systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Keith King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474 9111 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Potential Suit Over Electricity Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Shingler, writing for Crains Cleaveland Business, reports that just what Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. needed as it was arguing before state legislators to save its nuclear plants, largely for their benefit to the state's economy: a new, potential class- action lawsuit led by an Ohio business claiming the power company ripped them off during the polar vortex of 2014. That's what it got, in the form of a May 8 lawsuit -- which plaintiffs have asked to be classified as a class-action suit -- led by the Youngstown-based Schwebel Baking Co. against FirstEnergy's unregulated power subsidiary, FirstEnergy Solutions. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, in Youngstown. And while Schwebel's name is on the suit, the complaint purports to cover an untold -- and still undetermined -- number of other businesses and puts the potential cost of the suit into the millions. According to the complaint, the suit's class "includes hundreds to thousands of businesses" and "the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000." The plaintiff's attorneys either declined to comment publicly on the story or did not respond to requests for comment, but it's typical for class-action lawsuits to entail damages far beyond the amount stated in an initial complaint. At issue is whether FirstEnergy was contractually permitted to pass on the increased cost of electricity during the historic cold weather during the winter of 2014,when the polar vortex, extremely cold air usually penned in by the jet stream near the North Pole, shifted south. The vortex caused temperatures to drop in early January of that season, across the middle and eastern portions of the northern U.S. -- including Cleveland, where thermometers hit minus 11 degrees. That caused increased demand for electricity and prompted PJM, the regional transmission organization (RTO) that serves the region, to increase what it charged companies such as FirstEnergy for the power it distributed. The suit's complaint does not dispute that fact, but it claims that FirstEnergy had no right to pass on its additional electricity charges to customers who had negotiated fixed-rate prices for their power. Much of the case seems to center on a particular paragraph of FirstEnergy's agreement with the big commercial customers who negotiate and use such contracts. But the interpretation of that paragraph is key, and already FirstEnergy and the customers in the suit disagree strongly over what it means. It says, in part, that FirstEnergy can pass on additional costs "if any regional transmission organization (RTO) or similar entity . . . requires a change to the terms of the Agreement, or imposes upon (FirstEnergy) new or additional charges or requirements . . ." But does that include increased costs for power during an extreme weather event? Is an increase in costs a "new or additional" charge? Plaintiffs don't think so. "Nothing in the Fixed-Rate Agreement permits FES to pass through an increase in electrical charges to its customers because of an unusually cold winter. In fact, the only weather-related provision that FES included in its Agreement was its 'force majeure' clause . . . . which excuses a party's non-performance due to 'flood, earthquake, storm, fire, lightning,' " the complaint states. FirstEnergy, on the other hand, thinks the paragraph says the opposite -- that it specifically can pass along such additional charges from PJM, which it did. "Our contracts allowed us to pass through those charges to customers," said FirstEnergy spokeswoman Diane Francis. "It was probably one of the coldest Januaries that we've had on record, and what happened during that time was . . . the demand went very high trying to keep up with the very cold temperatures. PJM basically had to remove all of their price caps, in order to serve the load," she said of the situation then. Francis declined to estimate how much was at stake in terms of charges related to the polar vortex that are contested by FirstEnergy customers. This is not the first time customers have complained. In 2014, a group of companies that included Cleveland's Lincoln Electric Co., Marathon Petroleum Co. in Canton and the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority sued FirstEnergy Solutions for passing along polar vortex-related charges. That court case is still pending, Francis said. Francis said it was too soon for FirstEnergy to comment on the potential outcome of the suit -- to which it has yet to even file an answer in court. But the stakes are fairly high already and could go higher. Plaintiff's attorneys are not only asking that the suit be classified as a class action, but their complaint invites more affected companies from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland and New Jersey to join it. [GN] FBR & CO: "Kim" Sues Over Proposed B. Riley Merger -------------------------------------------------- Woo J. Kim, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FBR & Co., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00444-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va., April 12, 2017) is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, Defendants filed or caused to be filed a Registration Statement with the SEC in connection with a proposed transaction that provides for the combination of B. Riley Financial, Inc. and FBR. However, the Registration Statement omits material information that must be disclosed to the FBR's stockholders to enable them to render an informed decision with respect to the Proposed Transaction. Defendant FBR is a full-service investment banking and institutional brokerage firm with a deep expertise and focus on the equity capital markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 337-1567 Email: etripodi@zlk.com FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: "FWK Holdings" Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned FWK Holdings, L.L.C., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09898- WHP, filed on December 23, 2016, was removed from the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 12, 2017, and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01663-CMR. Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells specialty pharmaceuticals for the treatment of skin diseases to dermatologists in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Nalve, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP One Main Street 4th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Tel: (617) 482-3700 Fax: (617) 482-3003 Email: davidn@hbsslaw.com - and - Hae Sung Nam, Esq. Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. Joshua H, Saltzman, Esq. Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq. Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 Email: jsaltzman@kaplanfox.com rkaplan@kaplanfox.com rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com jacampisi@kaplanfox.com hnam@kaplanfox.com davidn@kaplanfox.com - and - David P. Germaine, Esq. Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Vanek, Vickers & Massini, P.C. 55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500, Suite 4050 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 224-1500 Fax: (312) 224-1510 Email: jvanek@vaneklaw.com dgermaine@vaneklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Laura S Shores, Esq. Margaret Anne Rogers, Esq. Saul P Morgenstern, Esq. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 600 Massachusetts Ave, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-942-5000 Fax: 202-492-5999 Email: laura.shore@apks.com margaret.rogers@apks.com saul.morgenstern@apks.com FRITO-LAY NA: Allred Sues Over Misbranded Flavored Potato Chips --------------------------------------------------------------- BARRY ALLRED and MANDY C. ALLRED, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and FRITO-LAY, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2017-00017305-CU-BC-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks an order compelling Defendants to, inter alia: cease packaging, distributing, advertising and selling the Product in violation of U.S. FDA regulations and California consumer protection law; re- label or recall all existing deceptively packaged Product; conduct a corrective advertising campaign to inform California consumers about the deceptive advertising; award Plaintiffs and other Class Members restitution, actual damages, and punitive damages; and pay all costs of suit, expenses, interest, and attorneys' fees, for violations of California consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants label and advertise a snack product as "Salt and Vinegar Flavored Potato Chips". The Product's packaging, labeling, and advertising is false and misleading, and the Product itself is misbranded under California law. It is illegal to sell misbranded products in California. The Product is labeled as if it is flavored only with natural ingredients, when in fact it contains undisclosed artificial flavors in violation of state and federal law. The Defendants did not simply fail to disclose the artificial flavor; the Product's label proclaims that it contains, "No Artificial Flavors". This is simply false. The Defendants' packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to, and does, give reasonable consumers the impression they are buying a premium, "all natural product with natural flavoring ingredients, instead of an artificially flavored product". The Plaintiffs, who were deceived by Defendants' unlawful conduct and purchased the Product in California, brings this action on behalf of themselves and a California Class of consumers to remedy Defendants' unlawful and unfair acts. The Defendants manufacture, distribute, advertise, market, and sell a variety of flavored and unflavored snack products, including potato chips.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Elliot, Esq. THE ELLIOT LAW FIRM 3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 468 4865 E-mail: davidelliot@elliotlawfirm.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. William B. Richards, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696 9006 Facsimile: (619) 564 6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com bill@consumersadvocates.com GC SERVICES: Faces "Dawson" Suit in Eastern District of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited Partnership. The case is captioned as Kadeidra Dawson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03094 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2017). GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of call center management and collection agency services in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com HAT WORLD: "Ward" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Matthew Ward, on behalf of himself individually and in the alternative for claims under the FLSA, on behalf of other similarly situated current or former employees, the Plaintiff, v. Hat World, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 17-00002-10535-0, was removed on May 19, 2017, from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00781 to the proceeding. Hat World is an American retailer specializing in athletic headwear. It primarily operates under the LIDS and Hat World brands with stores in the U.S., Puerto Rico and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. McKay, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT MCKAY 6523 CALIFORNIA AVE SW SEATTLE, WA 98136 Telephone: (206) 992 5466 E-mail: scottjmckay@hotmail.com The Defendant is represented by: James Raymond Morrison, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (WA) 999 3rd Ave., Ste 3600 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 332 1380 E-mail: jmorrison@bakerlaw.com - and - Curt Roy Hineline, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (WA) 999 3rd Ave., Ste 3600 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 332 1380 Facsimile: (206) 624 7317 E-mail: chineline@bakerlaw.com INSPIRA HEALTH: Faces "Costante" Suit Alleging Sexual Harassment ---------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA COSTANTE, Plaintiff, vs. INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK MEDICAL GROUP, P.C and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Defendants, Case No. L-1799-17 (N.J. Super., Camden County, May 3, 2017), was filed pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination's prohibition concerning sexual harassment in the workplace and constructive discharge. Plaintiff asks the Court to order the defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made herein going forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly situated. Inspira Health Network is a charitable nonprofit health care organization. Plaintiff was employed as a medical assistant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: (856) 727-9700 INTERNAL REVENUE: Lois Lerner's Testimony to Remain Confidential ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Moran writing for PJ Media reports that Lois Lerner, the former IRS manager who was at the center of the targeting scandal, will have her testimony in a class action lawsuit brought by conservative groups against the IRS remain secret. Lerner and another IRS employee, Holly Paz, want their testimony to remain secret because they fear death threats if it becomes public. Washington Times: U.S. District Judge Michael R. Barrett had originally ordered their depositions be sealed, but on May 18 he removed that prohibition and instead said the testimony should be deemed "confidential," keeping it secret until he can see what the women had to say and what effect releasing it to the public would have. He said the parties in the case can eventually ask to make the information public, and at that point the burden will be on Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz to explain why it should be kept secret. "Good cause exists to maintain the confidentiality of the depositions during the discovery phase," Judge Barrett ruled. For now, only the lengthy list of lawyers involved in the case will be allowed to see the deposition testimony. In a case already fraught with tension, the women's request for secrecy added a new dimension. "I'm outraged," said Mark Meckler, president of Citizens for Self- Governance and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots. Mr. Meckler's group is funding a class action lawsuit against the IRS for its targeting, and hundreds of organizations snared in the targeting are part of the case. They want to talk to Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz as part of their effort to get to the bottom of what went on. "What she's claiming is the public should have no right to know, if they're made at a public official, what that official says under oath," Mr. Meckler said. He also said Judge Barrett got May 18's ruling wrong. He said the judge should have said his plan is for transparency, leaving open the chance for limited parts to be kept secret if need be. "I think he got it backwards," Mr. Meckler said. More than 400 groups were on the list of nonprofit organizations the IRS said it subjected to intrusive scrutiny up through 2013. It singled groups out because of worries about perceived political activities. The public has no right to know the activities of a person while she was in government? Lois Lerner is already hated. It's hard to see how the level of anger against her can get any worse. The Obama Justice Department cleared her and Ms. Paz of criminal wrongdoing in the targeting scandal so the release of her deposition carries no legal consequences with it -- as far as we know. So why the secrecy? Lerner doesn't want to live with the social consequences of her actions while she was an important manager at the IRS. It was her policies that interfered with the right of Tea Party groups to exercise their constitutional rights of free speech and free association. Most of her targets were ordinary Americans who had never become politically involved in their lives. They didn't have the money to fight the IRS. Lerner and the rest of IRS management knew this full well which is why they went after them so viciously. I can't believe she will be in additional danger if her deposition is made public. I think the judge will agree. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seek Reversal of $72MM Award in Talc Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that in the past year, consumer giant Johnson & Johnson has been hit with four jury verdicts totaling about $300 million in cases linking its popular baby powder to ovarian cancer. With each defeat, its lawyers have pledged the fight is not over. On May 10, Johnson & Johnson got its first crack at dismantling one of the verdicts in which Missouri juries have found that its baby powder caused a woman to get ovarian cancer. And a lot rides on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, a closely watched case that could clarify the rules of jurisdiction for mass torts claims. In oral arguments, broadcast live by Courtroom View Network, Johnson & Johnson attorney Thomas Weaver, Esq. -- tweaver@armstrongteasdale.com -- asked the Missouri Court of Appeals to reverse a $72 million award to the family of an Alabama woman who died from ovarian cancer. The panel's decision is likely to impact the three other verdicts in Missouri that went against Johnson & Johnson, including a $110 million verdict this month. (The company so far has prevailed in one trial.) In its appeal, Johnson & Johnson raises the jurisdictional issue that's now before the U.S. Supreme Court in Bristol-Myers: Whether a plaintiff from one state can sue in a different state where a defendant or her injuries have no connection. At the end of the hearing, Judge Angela Quigless told lawyers that the panel would postpone its decision until after the high court rules. "Both parties agree there is a good chance that Bristol-Meyers will address and resolve these issues," said Mr. Weaver, a partner at Armstrong Teasdale in St. Louis. The case, brought in Missouri's 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis, involved 65 plaintiffs, 63 of whom weren't from Missouri. It's one of nearly two dozen cases in Missouri state court, where more than 1,000 talc claims are pending against Johnson & Johnson. The trial centered on Jacqueline Fox, who died in 2015 at age 62 after using Johnson & Johnson's talc products for more than 35 years. The jury found against Johnson & Johnson on claims of failure to warn, negligence and conspiracy. Mr. Weaver argued that Missouri state court has no personal jurisdiction over New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson as to the claims of the non-Missouri residents, including Fox, who didn't purchase the products or get injured in Missouri. "We acknowledge the Missouri court has jurisdiction over the defendant with regard to Missouri resident claims," Mr. Weaver said. "But that does not create jurisdiction over the defendant with regard to the non-resident claims, which do not arise out of or relate to the activities of the defendants in Missouri." He's got some added ammunition: A Feb. 28 ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court in State ex rel. Norfolk Southern Railway v. Dolan found Missouri had no jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Under that ruling, Mr. Weaver said, "it's clear that Ms. Fox could not have brought her claim here." Judge Kurt Odenwald appeared receptive to Johnson & Johnson's argument, questioning why Missouri's courts should be backlogged so that out-of-state plaintiffs can sue there. But he also wasn't sure that the practice was prohibited under Missouri's joinder rule. "I don't like that policy, but I don't know that our joinder rule precludes that," he said. In a more welcome signal for J&J's appellate team, Judge Odenwald also repeatedly referenced the "strong language" in Norfolk. "That isn't just guidance to use, it's instructions to us. We have to follow," he told plaintiffs attorney Edward "Chip" Robertson, a partner at Leawood, Kansas-based Bartimus Frickleton Robertson. "Tell me why Norfolk Southern gives you a pass." Mr. Robertson said Norfolk involved parties who were all out of state. Ms. Fox's case had two Missouri plaintiffs, and Johnson & Johnson sold talc products in Missouri. "J&J put this out there for the world," he said. "It can't, in fairness, not expect to be here." Putting aside the jurisdictional issue, Johnson & Johnson continued its attack on plaintiffs experts who link talcum powder to cancer for promoting what its lawyers have labeled "bad science." Mr. Weaver said the plaintiffs experts didn't provide sufficient evidence that talc caused Ms. Fox's cancer. The argument has gained traction in New Jersey where a judge last year threw out the first two bellwether trials from among more than 200 coordinated talc cases after finding that the experts had employed "made-for-litigation" scientific methods. Johnson & Johnson's arguments have mirrored those of tort reform groups, which have pushed for reforms in Missouri. The panel acknowledged the legislative overhauls in Missouri designed to address the state's rules, both on experts and jurisdiction. "Believe me we all know about that," Judge Odenwald said. "That's not our duty. Argument is to follow the law, as it is now." JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accuses Talc Case Plaintiffs Attorney of Lying ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that Johnson & Johnson, hoping to reverse a $502 million verdict, is accusing plaintiffs attorney W. Mark Lanier of lying to a federal judge and jury about payments he made to two expert witnesses in a pivotal hip implant trial last year in Dallas. The allegations against the Houston lawyer surfaced in documents unsealed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is hearing Johnson & Johnson subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics Inc.'s appeal of the verdict. In an April 18 appeal brief, Johnson & Johnson lawyers Paul Clement and John Beisner said a "strange thing happened" when they started deposing the experts for a subsequent trial: The plaintiffs turned over checks written out to the experts, both of whom Lanier had insisted were not compensated for their testimony. "Plaintiffs' concealment of the fact that two critical expert witnesses had been paid or expected to be paid -- at the same time their volunteer status was trumpeted to the jury and used to evade the expert-report requirement -- deprived defendants of their ability to fully and fairly defend themselves," they wrote. The revelations, the lawyers argue, warrant a new trial and could undermine "the reliability of the entire bellwether process." Mr. Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, is a highly regarded appellate lawyer and partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C.; Mr. Beisner, who heads the mass torts, insurance and consumer litigation group at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York, is national litigation counsel to Johnson & Johnson. They claim Mr. Lanier donated $10,000 to one expert's grade school, followed by a $35,000 check for his services. A second expert, they wrote, allegedly admitted that he had expected to be paid from the start; once the trial ended, Mr. Lanier cut him a check for $30,000. In an email, Mr. Lanier called the allegations "laughable if it weren't so sad." "Everything I SAID WAS 100% ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL," he wrote. "J&J paints a one-sided version, fails to tell the whole story, and leaves a false impression." Mr. Lanier added: "This brief is what the underlying case was full of: J&J intimidating and disparaging anyone who dares to stands in their way and seek to hold them accountable." Mr. Lanier's response in the Fifth Circuit is due May 17. 'There Was No Agreement' On Dec. 9, a district judge in Dallas rejected Johnson & Johnson's motion for a new trial based on the same allegations. In that order, which also was unsealed, U.S. District Judge Edward Kinkeade of the Northern District of Texas found no evidence of fraud. "The evidence before the court tends to show that at the time of trial there was no agreement for compensation between plaintiffs' counsel and the [experts]," the judge wrote. The defendants also ignored the fact that their own experts received "far larger payments" for their testimonies, Judge Kinkeade said. "Defendants have not shown how evidence of plaintiffs' experts receiving a fraction of the compensation of defendants' experts would have produced a different result at trial," he said. The $502 million verdict in March 2016 was followed by a $1.04 billion verdict on Dec. 1, 2016, in the second and third bellwether trials in multidistrict litigation over DePuy's Pinnacle hip implants. (The $1 billion verdict was later cut to $540 million.) More than 9,000 lawsuits have been filed alleging the devices caused pain and subsequent removal surgeries. DePuy won the first verdict in 2014. The Pinnacle case is one of several mass torts that resulted in substantial verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in 2016. The verdict challenged by Messrs. Clement and Beisner awarded five plaintiffs and three of their spouses. The jury found DePuy had failed to warn that its hip implant was defectively designed and that Johnson & Johnson aided and abetted DePuy's actions. DePuy has filed two appeals of the judgment. One, backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in an amicus brief, challenges the "inflammatory rhetoric" at trial and a host of other "legal flaws." The other involves the expert payments. In that appeal, Johnson & Johnson's lawyers wrote that Lanier's misrepresentations about both experts, Drs. Bernard Morrey and Matthew Morrey, put him at an unfair advantage at trial. The unpaid status of his experts, who are father and son, was a central theme at trial, and often contrasted with the "bought testimony" of the defense witnesses, they wrote. By insisting they were unpaid, Mr. Lanier ensured that DePuy would not have an opportunity to review expert reports before trial, they wrote. They also cite Mr. Lanier's letters to both experts a month after trial in which he noted that their testimonies "made a real difference to the jury" and felt it was unfair that they hadn't gotten paid. The letters accompanied the two checks. Both witnesses ended up being designated as paid experts in the third bellwether trial. But Mr. Lanier wrote there was never any financial arrangement with the experts during the trial, and neither expected to get paid by plaintiffs' attorneys, according to his response to DePuy's original motion. Once the second trial ended, both got checks after Lanier had a "change of heart." "Only by creative interpretation, omission, and outright misrepresentation are defendants able to suggest an improper arrangement that never existed," he wrote. LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: "Desilvio" Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- Leonard Desilvio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., Manish Singh, Michael Handelman and Elma Hawkins, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02086 (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2017) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws. The federal securities class action is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Lion between November 14, 2013 and April 10, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint says Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. On this news, shares of Lion fell $1.23 per share or over 13.9% over two trading days to close at $7.95 per share on May 15, 2014, damaging investors. Defendant Lion is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that focuses on developing and commercializing cancer immunotherapy products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, Ca 90071 Tel: (213) 785-2610 Fax: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com MACNEIL AUTOMOTIVE: "Kusinski" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN KUSINSKI, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MACNEIL AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS LIMITED, d/b/a WEATHERTECH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03618 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a warehouse worker for WeatherTech. Defendant did not pay Martin, and similarly situated employees, proper overtime wages of one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for all hours worked above forty hours in a work week. WeatherTech provides complete automotive interior carpet protection from mud, dirt, and snow.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunzev THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C. 200 E 5th Ave Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355 7590 Facsimile: (630) 778 0400 MARTIN GAFFEY: Supreme Court Sends Rental Suit Back to Dist. Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dar Danielson writing for Radio Iowa reports that the Iowa Supreme Court issued a ruling in two lawsuits against an Iowa City landlords. Tenant Joan Walton sued landlord Martin Gaffey in 2014 saying some of the fees and charged in the lease -- including carpet cleaning -- were not legal. Walton also sought to have the lawsuit made a class action to include other tenants. Gaffey contended the contested provisions are not prohibited under Iowa Code, and Walton has no claim because the provisions were never enforced against her. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled the carpet-cleaning provision is unenforceable, but left open the possibility that other fees and damages are recoverable by Gaffey and sent the case goes back to the district court for review. The Supreme Court also reversed the class action ruling in favor of Walton, but says that does not rule out that Walton can establish the grounds for class action certification when the district court reviews the case. The Supreme Court issued a similar ruling in a case involving tenants of Southgate Property Management. It also sent that case back to the district court for review. [GN] MDL 2724: NECA-IBEW Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------ The antitrust class action titled NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v. Mylan, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Sandoz, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01128 (D.P.R., January 27, 2017), was transferred on April 26, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01912. The case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 18, 2017. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. par. 1407 to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the reasons stated in the order of August 5, 2016, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed 7 days from the entry. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. The lead case is 1:16-mc-07000-WHP. Mylan Inc., Sandoz Inc. and Taro Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. were alleged of controlling virtually the entire U.S. market for clomipramine which suggests a concerted price-rigging effort. The drug is used for obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, major depressive disorder and chronic pain.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andres W. Lopez, Esq. The Law Offices of Andres W. Lopez, P.S.C. PO Box 13909 San Juan, PR 00908 Tel: (787) 294-9508, 787-406-9075 Fax: (787) 294-9519 Email: andres@awllaw.com MEI-GSR HOLDINGS: Violates NLRA by Retaliating vs. Former Worker ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Pryzbylski, Esq., at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an article for Lexology, reported from scrutiny of class action waivers to invalidating non-union employer handbooks, we've seen the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) over the past eight years incrementally expand and encroach into areas companies never expected. This means companies have had to deal in totally different ways with the agency traditionally known for governing management-union relations. On May 16, the NLRB broke new ground yet again in its decision in MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC, 365 NLRB No. 76 (2017), where it held a casino violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by denying access to its property to a former employee who had filed a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) -- a law the NLRB has no jurisdiction to enforce. The NLRB held that the former employee's filing of the FLSA class action was protected activity under the NLRA because it was "concerted" in nature and dealt with "matters concerning the workplace." Based on its protected activity finding, the NLRB went on to hold that the company violated the NLRA when it informed the former employee that she was barred from entering company property while the FLSA litigation was pending. The NLRB majority reasoned that the company's motivation to ban the former employee from the property was directly tied to her protected activity (i.e., was "retaliatory"), and that such retaliation would "chill" other employees from engaging in protected conduct. NLRB Chairman Philip Miscimarra issued a dissenting opinion in the case, noting the majority's decision appeared to be an overreach in light of the fact that potential remedies may be available to the former employee under the FLSA -- the federal statute at issue in the case. Miscimarra specifically noted: "I do not believe that Congress, when enacting the NLRA, intended to guarantee that every former employee would have a right of access to the private property of his or her former employer whenever he or she joined other employees in a non-NLRA lawsuit against that former employer . . . [T]he FLSA has its own anti-retaliation provision, and we are not permitted to 'tak[e] it upon ourselves to assist in the enforcement of other statutes. The Board was not intended to be a forum in which to rectify all the injustices of the workplace.'" Miscimarra's dissent may be a signal that the NLRB will revert to its more traditional, narrow view of governing management-union relations if/when Republicans gain a majority on the NLRB. (We previously reported that President Trump likely is to make NLRB appointments soon that will give Republicans a majority.) Until the composition of the NLRB changes, however, it appears the NLRB will continue to attempt to expand its reach into various types of workplace disputes it never previously touched. [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Glick" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Shmuel Glick, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03092 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2017). MCM helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MILOS BY COSTAS: Bovino Sues Over Race Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------- FABRIZIO BOVINO, ANTONIO LUIGI MOCCIA, AND DOMENICO DI MARTINO, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated class members, the Plaintiffs, v. MILOS BY COSTAS SPILIADIS, A FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION, the Defendant, the Defendant, Case No. 56212147 (Fla. Cir. Ct., May 9, 2017), seeks damages including back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and his attorneys' fees and costs under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). The Plaintiffs bring these claims for race/national origin discrimination against Defendant for subjecting them to discrimination, and ultimately termination in violation of the FCRA. The Plaintiffs worked in Miami-Dade County, Florida. They are males of Italian descent who suffered discrimination because of their race/national origin by Defendant; and they suffered adverse employment action and were subjected to a discriminatory environment based on their status as a males of Italian descent, including being terminated for same. On December 22, 2015, Defendant terminated the employment of Mr. Moccia, Mr. Sciancalepore, and Mr. Di Martino, alleging vaguely that these gentlemen were somehow "not up to Milos standards." The Defendant is a seafood Restaurant in Miami Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (866) 344 9243 Facsimile: (954) 337 2771 E-mail: richard@florifaovertimelawyer.com MMODAL SERVICES: Seijas Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE SEIJAS f/k/a MICHELLE CRAM, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MMODAL SERVICES, LTD., INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00218-PGB-PRL (M.D. Fla., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and declaratory relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated spend days sitting in front of the computer while not getting paid while they log in and out looking for jobs, particularly after Defendant began outsourcing most of their jobs to India. Many times Plaintiff and those similarly situated are forced to work on weekends and wait for work, unpaid, until a job or two comes through. Moreover, the hours worked in front of their computers was not included in determining overtime compensation. MModal Services provides narrative medical text to electronic transformation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, No. 400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 822 1111 Facsimile: (727) 898 2001 E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com kmoran@theFLlawfirm.com NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Severns" Suit Over Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------ CLINTON SEVERNS, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03590 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2017), seeks injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unauthorized text messages and telephone calls featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice and an award of actual and statutory damages to the class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). According to the complaint, in an effort to collect outstanding debts from consumers, Navient, a nationwide servicer of student loans, violated federal law by making unauthorized automated text message calls and automated telephone calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice (robocalls) to the cellular telephones of individuals throughout the nation. By effectuating these unauthorized robocalls, Defendant has violated the called parties' statutory rights and has caused the call recipients actual harm, not only because the called parties were subjected to the aggravation and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies unauthorized automated calls -- particularly calls using a prerecorded or non-human artificial voice -- but also because the called parties, like Plaintiff, must frequently pay for the calls they receive or incur a usage allocation deduction from their calling plans, notwithstanding that the calls were made in violation of specific legislation on the subject. Navient Solutions provides loan management, servicing, and asset recovery solutions to clients in higher education and business clients, as well as federal, state, and local governments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 Facsimile: (312) 275 7895 E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com eturin@mcgpc.com NEMET MOTORS: "Feliciano-Bauzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Guillermo Feliciano-Bauzo, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nemet Motors, LLC, Case No. 706919/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act. Located in Queens County, New York at 153 12 Hillside Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11432, Nemet Motors, LLC is engaged in the auto dealership business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com NEUROTROPE INC: July 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Neurotrope, Inc., and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Neurotrope securities between January 7, 2016, and April 28, 2017, both dates inclusive. Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/ntrp. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding the efficacy of its lead product candidate, Bryostatin-1. On May 1, 2017, Neurotrope announced "positive top-line results" of the focal Phase 2b trials of Bryostatin-1, mentioning "improvement in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease," Conversely, the trial data allegedly negates these statements, as the top-line data relating to the 20 microgram dose of Bryostatin-1 did not produce statistically significant results. Neurotrope also allegedly failed to disclose statements about the efficacy of the 40 microgram dose in connection with its primary and secondary endpoints. Following this news, Neurotrope stock dropped from a close of $18.81 per share on April 28, 2017, to a close at $6.97 per share on May 1, 2017. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/ntrpor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Neurotrope you have until July 17, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. NEW CENTURY: Faces Class Action for Misclassifying Dancers ---------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado writing for Northern California Record, reports that a class action has been filed against the New Century Theater on behalf of current and former exotic dancers over allegations of unfair business practices. Olivia Doe filed a complaint on behalf of all those similarly situated on April 12 in the San Francisco County Superior Court against Bijou - Century LLC and Joseph Carouba and Does 1-100 alleging conversion, fraud and other counts. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was misclassified as an independent contractor. The plaintiff holds Bijou - Century LLC, Carouba and Does 1-100 responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to provide accurate wage statements, unlawfully required the class to "tip out" the district manager, and failed to compensation them for all hours worked. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory damages, restitution of all monies due, interest, all legal fees, punitive and exemplary damages and any other relief as the court deems just. She is represented by James A. Quadra, Rebecca M. Coll and Niall Vignoles of Quadra & Coll LLP in San Francisco. San Francisco County Superior Court Case number CGC17558142 [GN] NEW WORLD DRAYAGE: Faces "Cano" Suit in California Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New World Drayage, Inc. The case is captioned as Henry Cano, On Behalf of Himself, Similarly Situated Employees, Current and Former Aggrieved Employees, and The General Public, the Plaintiff, v. New World Drayage, Inc., A California Corporation; Sergio Miranda; Gilma Diaz; and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC662043 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2017). New World Drayage is bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Downey, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Glick, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 387 3400 Facsimile: (213) 387 7872 NISSAN NA: Pinto Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled PINTO OF MONTVILLE, INC., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., NISSAN WORLD, L.L.C. doing business as: NISSAN WORLD OF DENVILLE, JOHN DOES 1-10 (names being fictitious and unknown), and ABC CORPS. 1-10 (names being fictitious and unknown), Case No. MRS-L-00753-17, was removed on May 11, 2017 from the New Jersey Superior Court Law Division: Morris County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03353-SDW-LDW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton. Nissan North America designs, develops, manufactures, and markets Nissan and Infiniti vehicles in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Alexander Vytell, Esq. CARROLL MCNULTY & KULL LLC 120 Mountain View Boulevard P.O. Box 650 Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Telephone: (908) 848 6300 E-mail: nvytell@cmk.com Attorney for Nissan North America, Inc.: Andrew B. Joseph, Esq. DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047 Telephone: (973) 360 1100 E-mail: andrew.joseph@dbr.com OAKTON COMMUNITY: Judge Allows Age Discrimination Suit to Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that an age discrimination class action against Oakton Community College after the college decided to no longer hire those collecting pensions through the State Universities Retirement System will be allowed to proceed, after a federal judge weighed in on the matter. In an opinion issued May 17, District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted certification for the class claims of Barry H. Dayton, who sued the college, select administrators and its board of trustees over a November 2014 decision to no longer employ annuitants of SURS. Dayton had been a part-time faculty member at the school until the policy change went into effect July 1, 2015. He said implementing the policy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and also violated his rights under the Illinois Constitution's pension clause. In addition to the college, named defendants included Margaret Lee, college president in 2014; and members of the president's advisory council at the time, including current Oakton President Joianne Smith and Michael Anthony, Karl Brooks, Maya Evans, Tom Hamel, Collette Hand, Bonnie Lucas and Mum Martens. Two other employees who filed complaints regarding the policy had their cases consolidated with Dayton's. Oakton classifies faculty members as full time, part time and adjunct. Those who teach 27 or fewer lecture hour equivalents are adjuncts, covered by the college's collective bargaining agreement with the Oakton Community College Adjunct Faculty Association. A part-time faculty member is one who does not have full-time work but is not qualified to join the adjunct union. Only full-time faculty are eligible for tenure. The college offers course assignments on a term-by-term basis. In 2012, Illinois amended its Return To Work law to strengthen earnings limitations on people receiving SURS retirement benefits who continue to work for participating colleges and universities. Under the amendment, employers must determine which employees qualify based on a formula involving their current compensation and annuity payments compared to their highest annual pre- retirement earnings, then pay a financial penalty to SURS for each affected employee. Oakton paid a $75,000 penalty after employing Dayton and the others. Lee and the advisory council determined it would be best for the college, rather than tracking which employees might incur the penalty, to not employ anyone collecting SURS payments. That decision affected 79 faculty and staff members. Dayton argued the college knew many of those people could not generate the penalty based on caps on adjunct compensation and available course loads, and said the decision to bar them all constituted age discrimination. The college argued individualized assessment was appropriate given unique claims based on personal work history, and the fact it assigned classes each term based on need and availability. Kennelly sided with Dayton. "Though their likelihood of being assigned courses, and the number of courses they might be assigned, might differ, it is undisputed that Oakton's decision not to employ SURS annuitants was made on a college-wide basis and was not based on any particular annuitant's individual circumstances such as his or her job performance, class schedule or availability to teach classes," he wrote, noting the questions Dayton raised -- whether the Oakton policy had a disparate affect on older teachers and whether it violated federal age discrimination law -- are common to every putative class member. Different class members could be entitled to different amounts of damages, he added, but the complaint targets the school's policy itself as discriminatory. In addition to certifying the class, Kennelly appointed attorneys Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq., Sara J. Gene, Esq. and Erin F. Medeiros, Esq., of the Prevent Law Firm, of Milwaukee, and Stephen Yokkaichi, Esq. -- contact@LaborAdvocates.com -- of the firm of Dowd, Bloch, Bennett, Corvine, Auer Bach & Yokkaichi, of Chicago, to represent Dayton and the class. Oakton Community College is represented in the action by attorneys with the firm of Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor Ltd., of Chicago. A status hearing is set for May 22. [GN] OASIS APARTMENTS: Slapped with Suit Over Rat-infested Complex ------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Daysog, writing for Hawaii News Now, reports that a new lawsuit claims dozens of people have been tricked into renting filthy apartments at an Oahu complex infested with rats. Hawaii News Now's first reports on the rat infestation at the Oasis Apartments in Waipahu were made last year. A class-action lawsuit filed on May 17 says the owners have known about the problem for years -- but have done little to fix it. "They're tricking people into thinking that they're going to be renting a beautiful, sanitary, clean apartment, and then they're getting a slum," said attorney Bridget Morgan, who filed the suit. Former residents says dozens of rats live in crawl spaces, chew up holes in the walls and cabinets, and leave their dropping everywhere. "You could hear the squealing. You could hear the clawing of the rats on the traps," said former resident Jennifer Cannon, who now lives in Houston. Cannon said the rat problem forced her to move out. "So basically, we got sick, whether it was from the dander or the rat feces," she said. Latee Fretwell, another former tenant, said one rat got stuck in her shower drain for several days. "It was just scratching. I think it was trying to come up. (The exterminator) looked at it and said 'that's a rat,'" she said. Morgan says that under Hawaii law, the owner's responsibilities are clear. "Upon notice that their housing units have rats, they have to clean it up. It's that simple," Morgan said. We reached out to the company, but got no response. When we last covered the infestation, it issued this statement: "We take every issue raised by our residents extremely seriously. We will look into this and any future issues diligently," said Michael Stamper of Apartment Management Consultants, which manages the property. Besides health risks associated with rat infestations, the suit also alleges that the owners misled potential tenants about the conditions of the apartments. Morgan said many residents were stuck in their unsanitary apartments because their lease included a $3,800 early termination fee, which many couldn't pay. [GN] OCWEN LOAN: "Aquilar" Suit Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Israel Aquilar, the Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC AND OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 0:17- cv-01530-WMW-TNL (D. Minn., May 9, 2017), seeks to recover statutory damages, actual damages, and award of punitive damages in response to Defendants' violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). From April 13, 2012, through December 15, 2015, Defendants called Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 9572 via an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS). This ATDS has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator. When Plaintiff would answer the calls from Defendants, there would often be a silence, sometimes with a click or beep-tone, before an Ocwen Representative would pick up and start speaking. Sometimes, Plaintiff would receive calls from Defendants in which the caller was a recorded voice or message, rather than a live representative. In total, Plaintiff has received at least 1,017 calls from Defendants on Plaintiff's cellular telephone. Ocwen Loan offers and services residential mortgage loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony P. Chester, Esq. Robert L. Hyde, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 120 S. 6th St., Suite 2050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (952) 225 5333 Facsimile: (800) 635 6425 E-mail: tony@westcoastlitigation.com ONG AMNUAY: Faces "Calel" Suit in Southern District of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ong Amnuay Inc. The case is styled as Candelaria Ordonez Calel and Carlos Manuel Ticum Yacon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Ong Amnuay Inc., doing business as Chaamlex, Narong Piemtongkam, and Thanya Ong, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-03817 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2017). Ong Amnuay is in the oncologist business.[BN] The Plaintiffs appeal pro se. PARTY RENTAL: "Castellanos" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CASTELLANOS, the Plaintiff, v. PARTY RENTAL LTD., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03251-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., May 9, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay for each and every overtime hour they worked and were not properly paid under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendant as a collective action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated -- non-exempt service sales representatives who suffered damages for damages as a result of Defendant's violations of the FLSA pursuant to the collective action provisions. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant full time as a non-exempt laborer, from in or about 2005, through in or about July 2016. The Defendant owns and/or maintains a party rental business that provides services and products throughout the State of New Jersey as well as neighboring states. The claims of the Named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the putative class. The Named Plaintiff and the putative class members were all subject to Defendant's policies and willful practices of failing to pay employees all earned overtime wages. The Named Plaintiff and the putative class members thus have sustained similar injuries as a result of Defendant's actions. Party Rental is a full-service party rental company, renting special event items and equipment along the East Coast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687 9977 Facsimile: (201) 595 0308 E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com PAYMENT ALLIANCE: Cobra Tactical Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Cobra Tactical, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Payment Alliance International Inc., and Global Payments Direct, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2017cv288951, was removed on May 19, 2017, from the Fulton County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01827-MHC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark H. Cohen. Payment Alliance provides payment solutions across ATM machines, credit cards, and check services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Adam Webb, Esq. Matthew C. Klase, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444 0773 E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com mattklase@bellsouth.net PERCHERON FIELD: Faces "Loecker" Suit in Pa. Common Pleas Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Percheron Field Services. The case is titled as LOECKER, MARIA, the Plaintiff, v. PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. CI-17-04877 (Penn. Ct. of Common Pleas, May 19, 2017). Percheron offers specialized expertise in land, right of way, surveying and environmental services.[BN] R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. Greenlights Smokers' Suits --------------------------------------------------- Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a 284-page en banc opinion on May 18 saying that smokers who won a class action against tobacco companies can also file individual lawsuits. The court ruled 7-3 in favor of the smokers. There were some fireworks between the judges. Three wrote dissents. One called the process a "chaotic poker game" and said judges should "stick to our day jobs" instead of advocating for plaintiffs. In the end, the judges upheld the lower court decision in favor of Theresa Graham against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and its affiliates. Judge William Pryor wrote the majority opinion. "This appeal presents the questions whether due process forbids giving a Jury's findings of negligence and strict liability in a class action against cigarette manufacturers preclusive effect in a later individual suit by a class member and, if not, whether federal law preempts the jury's findings," Pryor began. "Florida smokers and their survivors filed a class action against several tobacco companies, and after a yearlong trial designed to answer common questions concerning the companies' tortious conduct against all members of the class, a jury found that each company had breached its duty of care and sold defective cigarettes." Pryor was referring to the jury's decision in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). He noted the Florida Supreme Court upheld the jury verdicts of negligence and strict liability and decertified the class to allow individual actions about the remaining issues of specific causation, damages and comparative fault. He rejected the tobacco company's argument that the decision violates the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution. He also turned down R.J. Reynolds' request to "overrule our decision to the contrary in Walker v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 734 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2013)." And he shut down the tobacco maker's attempt to seek protection under federal law. "Because we reaffirm our holding in Walker and conclude that federal law does not preempt the Engle jury findings, we affirm the judgments against R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris," Pryor wrote. "It's a significant decision on the legal fronts that it covers," said Samuel Issacharoff, the New York University law professor who spoke for the plaintiffs at oral arguments in June of last year. He added, "It took a while to produce 280 pages of opinions." Especially for Judge Gerald Tjoflat. His dissent took up 238 of those pages. He accused the majority of creating a "false narrative" and being partial to the smokers. "If one lesson can be learned from this chaotic poker game it is that we should stick to our day jobs," Tjoflat wrote. "Rather than act as advocates for the plaintiff, we should saddle him with the burden the law tasks him with carrying, and assess, impartially, whether the plaintiffs have established the elements of proving preclusion in the manner the law demands. On the record before us now, the plaintiff clearly has not, and the District Court's judgment should be reversed." Judges Julie Carnes and Charles Wilson agreed partially with Tjoflat but managed to hold their dissents to one page each. The docket lists 22 attorneys for the plaintiffs side and 70 on the tobacco company side -- 32 for R.J Reynolds and 38 for Philip Morris, although some are duplicates. Topping the lists are: Elizabeth Joan Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco for the plaintiffs and Stephanie Ethel Parker of Jones Day in Atlanta for R.J. Reynolds. They could not be reached. The record also includes 17 amicus filings. [GN] RANBAXY INC: Meijer Seeks to Transfer Case to Mass. --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ranbaxy, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd., Ranbaxy U.S.A., Inc. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Defendants, Case 2:17-mc-00091-WB, (E.D. Penn., May 5, 2017), the Plaintiff filed a motion for an order transferring the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or in the alternative, compelling third-party Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Endo Health Solutions, Inc. ("Endo") to produce documents and information responsive to the October 25, 2016 Endo Subpoena served by Plaintiffs. Meijer seeks redress for alleged anticompetitive and racketeering behavior prior to the market entry of generic Valcyte and Diovan. Plaintiff asks the Court to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Should this motion be denied, Plaintiff request the court to compel Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Endo Health Solutions, Inc. to produce the documents and information responsive to the October 25, 2016 Endo Subpoena served by Meijer regarding the monthly unit sales, average net selling prices and a customer list for Endo's generic Valcyte and Diovan, manufacturing records and regulatory correspondence on a generic version of Diovan and Endo's asserted bases for non-infringement or invalidity of the brand patents. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Terence S. Ziegler, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 Email: tziegler@ktmc.com ROCCO IADEVAIA: "Aquino" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORIO AQUINO on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROCCO IADEVAIA LANDSCAPE CONTRACTING CORP., d/b/a JOSEPH IADEVAIA LANDSCAPE CONTRACTING, and ROCCO F. IADEVAIA, as an individual, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02886 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a manual laborer for Defendants from October 2011 until December 20, 2016. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in most workweeks in which he was employed by the Defendants but was paid overtime compensation for the hours he worked after 40 hours per week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 103 Cooper Street Babylon, NY 11702 Telephone: (631) 257 5588 E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com SANTANNA NATURAL: Johansen Sues Over Telemarketing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ KEN JOHANSEN on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANTANNA NATURAL GAS CORPORATION, dba SANTANNA ENERGY SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03604 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2017), seeks to injunctive relief, treble damages, and statutory damages under Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the TCPA in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. In violation of the TCPA, the Defendant placed telemarketing calls to a telephone number Mr. Johansen had registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for the purposes of advertising their goods and services. According to the complaint, Mr. Johansen never consented to receive these calls, and they were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, Mr. Johansen brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendant. Santanna Natural Gas, doing business as Santanna Energy Services, supplies natural gas and electricity to commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential customers in Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. The company was founded in 1988 and is based in Bolingbrook, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL & BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488 0400 Facsimile: (614) 488 0401 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com - and - Lauren E. Snyder, Esq. 1350 N. Wells Street, Apt. A214 Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (419) 344 1146 E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.snyder@gmail.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com ted@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net SHERBROOKE: CAD17-Mil. Out-of-Court Settlement in Gas Cartel Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a 10-year legal battle has resulted in a CAD17-million out-of-court settlement between a group of Eastern Township motorists and a number of gas retailers in the area. The class-action lawsuit involving residents of Sherbrooke, Magog, Victoriaville and Thetford Mines sought damages from a so-called cartel charged with criminal price fixing by the Competition Bureau. In 2008 and 2010, the bureau charged 39 individuals and 15 gas retailers with fixing the price of gas in those four cities and towns after a three-year investigation involving wiretaps and searches. The bureau said the gas retailers -- individual operators who ran their stations under the banners of Shell, Esso, Petro-Canada and Irving Oil -- called each other to agree on prices. Around CAD40 in free gas The CAD17-million settlement, which two-thirds of the companies and retailers named in the class-action lawsuit have agreed to, could translate into a reimbursement of about CAD40 each for 200,000 residents after legal fees and other deductions. "By the standards of a class action, that's actually relatively significant on an individual level," said George Iny, executive director of the Automobile Protection Association, the group spearheading the lawsuit. "The settlement on May 19 is a very big step forward in the action. It's a very tough battle." The money may be paid in gas cards, direct mailers, or money off at the pump, Iny said. Companies must reimburse at least 90 per cent of the affected consumers within about two years, or else the balance of the settlement will be paid out to the APA. Since not all parties have agreed to the settlement, legal proceedings will continue. [GN] SOUTHGATE PROPERTY: Gets Top Court's Favor on Tenant's Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Madison Arnold, writing for The Gazette, reports that another tenant versus Iowa City landlord lawsuit has been decided, this time seemingly in the landlord's favor. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled on May 19 that SouthGate Property Management's lease terms -- which include carpet cleaning, a move- in checklist and other fees and charges -- are not prohibited practices, thereby reversing an earlier district court ruling supporting the tenants' claims. Three previous tenants had sued SouthGate, but the court held "none of the rental agreement provisions challenged by the tenants in this case are prohibited" under Iowa's Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. The tenants -- Daniel Kline, Frank Sories and Amaris McCann -- did, however, win their argument about a lease provision about being unable to take possession of an apartment on the lease's promised start date. The court found that provision could allow SouthGate to turn over an apartment late with prorated rent. The provision "clearly purports to attempt to limit SouthGate's liability and the tenants' remedy for damages sustained as a consequence of the delay." Christopher Warnock, Esq. of Iowa Tenants Project and the tenants' attorney, said in an email statement that "while we didn't win on the legality of a number of specific provisions, I was very happy that the Supreme Court found that tenants have a right to a legal lease, a lease free from illegal provisions," The ruling sent back to a lower court the issue of whether the three tenants could be considered a "class" in the lawsuit and file a class-action lawsuit. In 2015, Warnock came out the winner in tenant lawsuits against Apartments Downtown, Iowa City's largest landlord company. The class-action lawsuit ended with the company reimbursing previous tenants $65 per year of residency for a mandatory carpet- cleaning charge included in the lease. The courts ruled the company had illegally charged tenants for maintenance and repair and collected illegal penalties and fines.[GN] SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $45 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ Emily Walkenhorst writing for Arkansas Online reports that attorneys for thousands of Fayetteville Shale property owners and Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries have reached a settlement in a seven-year lawsuit that accused the companies of improperly skimming payments to property owners for drilling wells on their land. Conway County Circuit Judge Terry Sullivan gave preliminary approval on May 18 to the settlement, which states the company will pay as much as $45 million. Sullivan will hold a final fairness and approval hearing June 28. The settlement class represents about 13,000 people who were owed royalties from Jan. 1, 2006, through Sept. 30, 2016, although they may opt out, according to court records. The settlement comes nearly a year and a half after Southwestern Energy, the last major driller in the shale, withdrew its last drilling rigs from the area. Wells have continued to run in the shale with diminished production and value. In the settlement, Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries SEECO (Southwestern Energy Exploration Co.), SWN Production, DeSoto Gathering Co. and Southwestern Energy Services deny the claims of Eldridge Snow, an 88-year-old Center Ridge man who sued them in 2010. The settlement states the company and its subsidiaries will pay $30 million, lower deductions from future royalty payments at an estimated value of $15 million to property owners and pay up to $150,000 for a settlement administrator. Attorneys for Snow intend to seek up to 45 percent of the $30 million -- $13.5 million -- in attorneys' fees. They also plan to seek a fee for Snow and up to $750,000 for various litigation costs. Court records had not previously included plaintiffs' estimates for how much they allege Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries improperly deducted from royalty payments. Dan Smolen, Esq. -- danielsmolen@ssrok.com -- an attorney for Snow from Smolen Smolen and Roytman in Tulsa, said he could not divulge how the settlement amounts were reached because of a protective order. But he said attorneys had estimated between $0.05 and $0.19 per thousand cubic feet of gas had been improperly deducted. In a news release from his attorneys, Snow said, "this is a great settlement, especially considering the prolonged period of extremely low natural gas prices." In his order tentatively approving the settlement, Sullivan wrote that the settlement was fair and had been entered into "in good faith." In their joint motion for approval of their proposed settlement, attorneys for Snow and Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries argued that their settlement was "fairly and honestly negotiated, at arm's length, and without collusion." "In reaching this proposed compromise, the parties have considered the time, effort, and costs involved in protracted class action litigation, particularly in light of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases and the overall complexity of this case, and believe the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the possibility of any future recovery, promotes judicial economy, and serves the interest of justice," the filing reads. Attorneys for the company and its subsidiaries were unavailable or declined comment to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 19. "We believe this to be a fair and reasonable settlement and a true win for the royalty owners," Smolen said in the news release. "The settlement, if approved by the Court, provides the benefit of a substantial recovery for the class while avoiding the costs and risks inherent in adversarial litigation." The case was one of three certified class-action lawsuits against Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries that claimed the company cheated property owners out of promised royalty payments by deducting fees for doing business among the Southwestern subsidiaries, and other complaints. The Snow case alleged that SEECO used internal accounting practices to determine deductions that exceeded reasonable amounts, deducted costs that weren't allowed, and reported false and misleading amounts to property owners on their check stubs, among other complaints. It was certified for class action in October 2014 and affirmed for class action by the Arkansas Supreme Court in December. The three class-action lawsuits are among numerous lawsuits that have been filed in recent years in Arkansas over whether people who leased mineral rights to natural-gas companies were adequately compensated according to their contracts. Such lawsuits have become common nationwide, including in Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio and Louisiana. Some cases have been settled in Arkansas and other states. Many of the lawsuits contend that natural-gas companies -- including the shale's biggest companies, Southwestern Energy Co., XTO Energy and BHP Billiton, which purchased Chesapeake Energy's assets in the shale -- have withheld payments improperly in a variety of ways from people who signed leases. Those ways, according to the suits, include charging too many fees, such as for services through subsidiary companies. Experts have said the three Southwestern cases all being certified at the same time created a "race to judgment." In a race to judgment, the case that is resolved first can limit who can be a member of a class in other cases. Typically, class-action lawsuits over similar issues representing similar populations are combined into one case, experts said, but that didn't happen with Eldridge Snow v. SEECO, Sara Stewmon v. SEECO or Connie Jean Smith v. SEECO. Attorneys for Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries filed a notice of the Snow settlement on May 18 in federal court, which is hearing Connie Jean Smith's lawsuit against the companies. "The settlement, if finally approved, would fully resolve the claims of all members of the class in the case pending before the Court, as well as the claims of other SEECO cost-bearing royalty owners who are not members of the class in this case, but are members of the classes in Snow and Stewmon," attorneys wrote. That case is set for trial June 5. The companies have requested a continuance of that trial and a stay in the case in light of the Snow settlement. Stewmon v. SEECO has had little action since having its class- certification upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court in December. The claims made by two class members, who had become the class representatives, were dismissed in March, but the class-action remained, according to a state court records search. [GN] SPOKEO INC: 4th Cir. Vacates $11MM FCRA Class Action Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Jonker of Maurice Wutscher LLP, writing for Lexology, wrote that relying on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently vacated and remanded for dismissal a trial court's summary judgment ruling in favor of the plaintiff in an $11 million, 69,000 member class action under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Sec 1681 et seq., where the defendant credit reporting agency listed the name of a defunct credit card issuer instead of the name of the servicer as the source of information on the plaintiff's credit report. In so ruling, the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff had not suffered an injury-in-fact arising from alleged incomplete or incorrect credit report information, and thus had not satisfied the constitutional standing requirements to pursue a claim. During a background check for security clearance the plaintiff claimed that he first discovered that his cousin had opened a credit card in his name and had run up a substantial balance. The plaintiff requested credit reports from three credit reporting agencies to clear up the problem. One of those reports listed the tradeline under the name of the original creditor with a P.O. Box address. Plaintiff sent letters to the original creditor requesting verification of the debt and received a response on the creditor's letterhead along with a statement showing the outstanding balance and a copy of the online credit card application with his name and social security number. The plaintiff then wrote to the creditor requesting that it stop reporting the account as inaccurate but did not receive a response. He then contacted the credit reporting agency directly to make the same request but without result. The plaintiff alleged that caused him stress and wasted his time, but the credit reporting error did not affect his security clearance, which was approved. Later, the account was deleted from his credit file. The original creditor had gone out of business during the 2008 financial crisis and the FDIC had become the receiver and appointed a servicing company to collect the outstanding balances on the portfolio of accounts. The servicer conducted its work using the original creditor's name, phone number, and website and furnished account information to credit reporting agencies under the original creditor's name so as not to be confusing to account holders who might not recognize the name of the servicer but would know the name of the creditor with whom they had opened their accounts. The plaintiff sued the servicer and the credit reporting agency asserting class claims and individual claims alleging that they violated the FCRA by failing to include the servicer's name in the tradelines as the source of the information. The trial court certified the class, and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment explaining that it was objectively unreasonable to exclude the servicer's name from the tradeline. The trial court denied the credit reporting agency's motion for summary judgment reasoning that the FCRA created "a statutory right to receive the sources of information for one's credit report" so that if a source is not disclosed, the violated right creates "a sufficient injury-in-fact for constitutional standing." The parties stipulated to damages of $11.7 million for the class and the credit reporting agency appealed. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit pointed out that the trial court failed to analyze whether the injury was specific and concrete, as Spokeo requires, but merely concluded that any violation of the statute was sufficient to create an injury-in-fact. The Appellate Court analyzed the holding in Spokeo explaining that the injury-in-fact requirement is not automatically satisfied where a statute grants a right and authorizes a person to "vindicate that right" but the person does not have any concrete harm. Put another way, a plaintiff cannot allege a "bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm" and still gain standing. The Appellate Court concluded, based on Spokeo, that "a technical violation of the FCRA may not rise to the level of an injury in fact for constitutional purposes." The Fourth Circuit pointed out that this conclusion was in agreement with the D.C. Circuit's conclusion that "a plaintiff suffers a concrete informational injury where he is denied access to information required to be disclosed by statute, and he suffers, by being denied access to that information, the type of harm Congress sought to prevent by requiring disclosure." Applying the reasoning in Spokeo, the Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiff had not suffered a cognizable and specific injury, even an intangible "informational injury," where the credit reporting agency did not report the name of the servicer for the tradeline in addition to the creditor. The Appellate Court also pointed out that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate how the exclusion of the servicer's name would have made any difference in the fairness or accuracy of his credit report or the efficiency of resolving his credit dispute, and rejected the plaintiff's argument that there was value in "knowing who it is you're dealing with" or that the servicer was hiding who it really was. Instead, the Fourth Circuit found that the servicer name missing from the credit report did not have any practical effect on the plaintiff. Thus, the Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiff had merely alleged a statutory violation without concrete harm. The Fourth Circuit held, contrary to the trial court's holding, that "a statutory violation alone does not create a concrete informational injury sufficient to support standing," rather, it must create a "real harm with an adverse effect." Therefore, the Appellate Court held that the plaintiff failed to assert Article III standing, and the trial court's holding in favor of the plaintiff was vacated and the case was remanded to the trial court for dismissal. [GN] The case is Dreher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al, No. 3:2011cv00624 (E.D. Va. 2013). ST. STEPHENS CEMETERY: Police Says Charges Coming in Soon --------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dolan, writing for WLKY, reports that desecrated graves, double burials and missing headstones are just some of claims against St. Stephens Cemetery, in Louisville. Now, months after dozens of police reports were filed, Louisville Metro Police Department Detective Nathan Blanford says charges will be filed soon against the former caretaker. "We have reports of headstones being moved, bodies being moved, headstones that were paid for and supposedly ordered and never arrived, vaults being ordered that never arrived. We also have reports that when there was a burial, the family would come for the funeral and she [former caretaker] would say, 'It's not ready. You need to leave,' and when they would leave, there's no telling what happened after that," Blanford says. The first report was made last year when an excavation turned up an empty plot. In March, a desecration of graves was discovered, prompting more than 50 additional families to file police reports. Blanford understands they want answers but says, "What all these victims have to understand is that we can't work on this and solve it in a week. This is going to be months, and honestly, probably years. Not everyone even knows about this." Blanford says LMPD is currently investigating the former caretaker who's accused of mismanaging the grounds and finances. Blanford says the estimated damage is in the tens of thousands of dollars. He says it's a tough case due to the number of reports and emotions involved. "My mother is passed away, and if my mother was here, I'd be mad. I was mad when I got it. It's not right," he said. Blanford and his partner are working exclusively on this case, and he wants victims to know they plan to move forward with charges soon. Even then, he admits, it's hard to find justice and right this wrong. "I don't think you can right it. All you can do is help these families have closure. Ultimately that'll be up to the grand jury. For all the victims that are thinking nothing is happening, it is happening. Just be patient. we're working on it constantly," said Blandford. A class-action lawsuit has been filed against the board of St. Stephens Cemetery. Blanford says the Attorney General's Office is handling the civil investigation. WLKY reached out to the former caretaker's attorney, Scott C. Cox, but was told he's not ready to comment on the case. If you are a victim and have not filed a police report, you can contact the department by called 502-574-LMPD. [GN] SYNAGEVA BIOPHARMA: Faces "Lahiff" Suit in Texas State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synageva Biopharma Corp. The case is captioned as Carol Lahiff, John Markow, and Paul Nee, the Plaintiffs, v. Synageva Biopharma Corp., Case No. 429- 02180-2017 (Tex. Dist. Ct., 429th District, Collin County, May 9, 2017). Synageva BioPharma is a publicly listed biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Lexington, Massachusetts dedicated to discovering, developing and delivering medicines for patients with rare diseases and high unmet medical needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie J McKey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP McKinney, Ste 700, Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744 3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com TARGET: Settles 2013 Data Breach with 47 States for $18.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that retail giant Target has agreed to pay a total of $18.5 million in a settlement with 47 states over a 2013 consumer data breach that resulted in over 100 million pieces of credit card or personal information being stolen by hackers. California will receive more than $1.4 million from the settlement, the largest share of any state. The May 23 settlement came after a multi-state investigation led by the Connecticut and Illinois Attorneys General Offices. That investigation found that hackers accessed Target's gateway server using credentials stolen from a third-party vendor, according to statements from the participating states. The hackers used those credentials to break into Target's system, allowing them access to a customer service database, into which they installed malware to capture data, including consumers' personal and credit card data, as well as encrypted debit PINs. The attackers made off with more than 41 million customer card accounts nationwide and contact information for more than 60 million customers. Jon Lambiras -- jlambiras@bm.net -- a securities and consumer protection lawyer at Berger & Montague in Philadelphia who was not involved in the Target litigation, said settlements of this nature have historically been rare, but that could change now. "It very well may foreshadow what could happen in the future, especially since the settlement goes to the attorney generals' budget to fund enforcement actions. It provides an incentive for the AGs to get involved," Mr. Lambiras said. Deterrence was a major theme brought up by many of the attorneys general who released statements about the agreement. The $18.5 million settlement with the states, coupled with the approved $10 million consumer class action settlement, may seem like a drop in the bucket for a retail juggernaut like Target, but according to Mr. Lambiras, the deterrent effect lies in the residual legal and public relations costs companies incur following a data breach. In a statement on May 23, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said the settlement should serve as a wake-up call to companies to tighten their data security. He also gave kudos to Target for working with authorities after the breach. "Target deserves credit for its actions in response to this breach, including its cooperation with our investigation and negotiations that led to this settlement," Mr. Jepsen said. "I'm also hopeful that this settlement will serve to inform other companies as to what is expected of them in terms of the security of their consumers' information." California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that the settlement "should send a strong message to other companies: you are responsible for protecting your customers' personal information. Not just sometimes -- always." The only states not participating in the settlement are Alabama, Wisconsin and Wyoming. According to the statement, the agreement also requires Target to develop and maintain a comprehensive information security program and employ an executive or officer responsible for overseeing it. Target is required to hire an independent third-party to conduct a security assessment of its system. TESLA INC: Law Firms Vie for Derivative Case Lead Counsel Post -------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reports that plaintiffs' attorneys are setting up for a battle in Delaware federal court over lead counsel status in derivative litigation challenging Tesla Inc.'s $2.6 billion bid to acquire an allegedly failing solar energy system installer SolarCity Corp. On May 4, attorneys from Grant & Eisenhofer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd moved to consolidate and appoint co-lead counsel in two cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, each accusing Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Tesla's officers of overpaying for the firm in a conflicted deal that would allegedly benefit Musk and his family members. The budding leadership fight mirrors a similar dispute that played out late last year in the Delaware Court of Chancery, where the firms beat out San Diego-based Bottini & Bottini in September to be named co-lead counsel in consolidated litigation over the same transaction. Bottini & Bottini is currently representing two Tesla shareholders who sued in March on behalf of the company in Delaware federal court. The three rival firms followed with a separate derivative suit on April 21, representing a slew of pension funds and other "institutional plaintiffs" that had invested in Tesla. Two weeks later, Robbins Geller and its allies moved for consolidation and lead counsel status. Though the firms' brief was filed under seal, Robbins Geller attorney Randall J. Baron said on May 8 that the firms wanted to ensure coordinated efforts at both the state and federal level. "Our fundamental point is to make sure that it is coordinated and duplication of effort doesn't occur," Baron said. Bottini & Bottini has not yet responded to the motion, but Baron said he expected to see a filing in the coming weeks. An attorney from Bottini & Bottini did not respond on May 8 to a call seeking comment on the cases. Like the Chancery Court case, both suits claim that Musk -- a 22.1 percent owner of Tesla stock who also owned a 21.9 percent stake in SolarCity -- pushed for the merger, despite the fact that SolarCity had accumulated more than $3 billion in debt. The acquisition, they said in court filings, amounted to a bailout for SolarCity and Musk's cousins, who founded the company in 2006. According to court documents, Musk tried to hide the state of SolarCity's finances from stockholders, who voted to approve the merger in November. Meanwhile, Tesla's board never formed a special committee of independent directors to evaluate the deal, plaintiffs said. "The acquisition benefitted Elon Musk, his brother, his cousins and other Tesla insiders at the expense of Tesla and its minority stockholders," the institutional plaintiffs said in their April 21 complaint. "Thus, the Tesla board's approval of the acquisition constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets, unjustly enriched Elon Musk and the other Tesla board members who are SolarCity stockholders." An attorney for the director defendants was not immediately available to comment, and Tesla's press office did not respond on May 8 to an email seeking comment for this story. Mr. Musk, who has served as Tesla's CEO since 2008, is also the company's largest shareholder. In addition to Tesla and SolarCity, he has also founded space-exploration company SpaceX. Grant & Eisenhofer, Kessler Topaz and Robbins Geller all represent plaintiffs in the case captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Musk. Bottini & Bottini, along with the Wilmington- based firm Cooch and Taylor, represent plaintiffs in the case Freeman v. Musk. The cases have not yet been assigned to a judge, though both have been referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of the District of Delaware. Garrett B. Moritz -- gmoritz@ramllp.com -- a partner with Ross Aronstam & Moritz, is listed as defending Musk and the other director defendants in the Freeman case. He did not respond on May 8 to a request for comment. Meanwhile, the Chancery Court case, captioned In re: Tesla Motors Stockholder Litigation, is assigned to Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III. TEXAS: Austin Sues State Over Ban on 'Sanctuary Cities' ------------------------------------------------------- Philip Jankowski, writing for My Statesman, reports that in what several experts characterized as a move to take the reins of legal challenges against the "sanctuary cities" ban under Senate Bill 4, the Austin City Council voted late May 18 to sue the state of Texas. Austin now joins the city and county of El Paso as Texas urban areas set to sue the state over the controversial immigration law. The small border city of El Cenizo and Maverick County have already sued the state. Dallas and San Antonio could authorize legal action against the state. Austin was already headed to court over the law after state Attorney General Ken Paxton -- info@KenPaxton.com -- of Office of the Attorney General, sued the city and each individual council member in a lawsuit asking for a judge to declare the law constitutional. Austin and Travis County have been targeted by state lawmakers since Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez put in place a policy declining to honor many jail detention requests from federal immigration authorities. But immigration law experts said a suit from Austin would allow the city to better highlight issues that the city's legal team might see as having the highest potential to overturn part or all of the law. It also allows the city to tailor a suit to parts of the law that apply most directly to Austin. "It would allow them to have some ability to frame the legal issue in a way that is clearer in terms of the reasons why the city of Austin would be harmed by implementation of SB 4," said Denise Gilman, a law professor and the director the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas. UT professor and attorney Jim Harrington, founder of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said preparing a suit would allow Austin to have a head start in case Paxton's lawsuit is dismissed. Faye M. Kolly, Esq. -- Faye@dmcausa.com -- of De Mott, McChesney, Curtright and Armendariz, LLP, a local immigration attorney, said it appears as though Austin is preparing to partner with other cities in the legal fight. During May 18's meeting, Council Member Greg Casar called Austin a part of a "broad coalition" challenging SB 4. That would increase the pool of resources and allow for a greater range of courts to be used for filings. Challenges over the law's constitutionality could take many forms. Some might challenge the provision requiring cities to enforce warrantless federal detention requests placed on people suspected of illegal immigration. Others could challenge the vagueness of what the law states are sanctuary policies. SB 4 could also be seen as discriminatory because it might lead to racial profiling of Hispanics. "It also sounds like they are looking for some class action or joint action," Kolly said. "They believe they have a better shot if they want to join a wider class. They could cast a wider net, as far as for discovery." The vote came after an emotional plea from Council Member Sabino "Pio" Renteria, who said that he has seen growing fear among the immigrants in his district, which is made up of parts of East, Southeast and South Austin. "It's a sad time here in the state," Renteria said. "I'm very disappointed because of all of this hard work I have done in my life to fight for equality just seems like it is slowly disappearing and the hate's coming back." The resolution passed 10-1 with the council's lone conservative, Ellen Troxclair, voting against. "I have a specific responsibility to speak up on behalf of the people that hold a different and equally important view of the city of Austin being both welcoming and lawful," Troxclair said. "In the midst of our affordability crisis, this is going to cost the city an unspecified amount of money to do something that I've had federal immigration officials tell me is making our city less safe." [GN] THREE J'S: Faces "Cavanaugh" Suit in California Superior Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Three J's Distributing Inc. The case is captioned as Arthur Cavanaugh, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and Three J's Distributing Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00212201-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento County, May 9, 2017). Three J's is a food and beverages company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade St. San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 E-mail: info@turleylawfirm.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 11th Cir. Rejects Bid to Restart Wage Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals court on May 18 rejected a challenge to a Florida federal judge's order that sent a proposed class action claiming Uber Technologies Inc. misclassified drivers as independent contractors to individual arbitration. In a two-page per curiam ruling, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to consider the drivers' arguments because they had not previously raised them at the district court level.[GN] UNION BANK: Proposed Suit Should Be Dismissed, Says Magistrate -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a proposed class action challenging the Principal Stable Value Fund's fees and performance should be dismissed because the lead plaintiff stands to gain no money from a legal victory, a magistrate judge recommended (Austin v. Union Bank & Trust Co., D. Or., No. 3:14- cv-00706-YY, report and recommendation issued 5/17/17). An earlier ruling had allowed portions of the case to move forward, but a magistrate judge recommended May 17 that the lawsuit be dismissed because the named plaintiff, Kerry D. Austin, never had standing to bring his claims. Austin sold his investment in the Principal Stable Value Fund shortly before filing the lawsuit, and he had less than $1 invested in this fund during the proposed class period, the judge said. Because Austin's potential recovery in this case was less than 1 cent, the magistrate said the case should be dismissed for lack of standing. The lawsuit argues that the stable value fund drained workers' retirement savings by charging excessive fees and using an unduly conservative investment strategy that failed to keep pace with inflation. A similar lawsuit targeting CVS Health's stable value fund was dismissed last month. In March, a federal judge certified a class action accusing JPMorgan of the inverse problem -- adopting an overly risky investment strategy for its fund. Stable value funds -- which are meant to be conservative, low-risk options that protect against interest rate volatility -- have become a flash point in litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Retirement plan sponsors including Anthem Inc., Chevron Corp. and Insperity Inc. have been sued for failing to include stable value funds in their investment lineups. None of those claims succeeded. Other lawsuits have targeted the companies that offer and manage stable value funds, with cases pending against Fidelity Management Trust Co., Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. and Prudential Retirement Insurance & Annuity Co. In determining that Austin lacked standing, the magistrate judge said the "miniscule amount Austin has at stake in this litigation" is "problematic." Because he stood to recover less than 1 cent, Austin failed to show that his alleged injury could be redressed by a favorable decision, the magistrate judge said. "In this court's view, whatever it means to have a palpable economic injury, it means something more than a loss that rounds to $0.00," the magistrate judge said. This lack of standing wasn't remedied by a potential new plaintiff who alleged damages of more than $700, the magistrate judge said. That's because the "critical moment for examining standing" is when a case is filed, the magistrate judge said. Given this, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon recommended that the case be dismissed. This recommendation can be accepted, rejected or modified by the district judge hearing the case. Austin is represented by Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC, Keller Rohrback LLP, Schneider Wallace Cottrell & Konecky LLP, Edgar Law Firm LLC and Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP. The Principal defendants -- Union Bank & Trust Co. and Morley Capital Management -- were represented by Sidley Austin LLP and Kilmer Voorhees & Laurick PC. [GN] UNITED STATES: Faces Evideo Suit in Federal Claims Court -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. government. The case is captioned as EVIDEO INCORPORATED, MAURO DIDOMENCIO, CRAIG L. LINDEN, AND REALVIRT LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION individually and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. USA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00663-LKG (Fed. Cl., May 22, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby. The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick R. Delaney, Esq. DITTHAVONG & STEINER, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 519 9951 Facsimile: (703) 519 9958 E-mail: pdelaney@dcpatent.com UNITY NATIONAL: Account Holders' Suit v. Kase Lawal Terminated -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Dr. Julius J. Larry III, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated account-holders, depositors and shareholders of Unity National Bank of Houston, Plaintiffs, v. Kase Lawal, Dr. Lee P. Brown, Mustata Tameez, Carol Alvarado, Kamora Lawal, Sharon Murphy, and Richard Leader, Board of Directors, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01251 (S.D. Tex., April 21, 2017), was terminated on May 11, 2017, according to the case docket. Plaintiff had argued that Defendant Kase Lawal, allegedly the majority shareholder at Unity Bank, seized power from the Board of Directors and installed himself as chairman. This Nigerian defendant then "hired" a new unqualified white president for the Black bank without a search or interviews. Plaintiffs were mortally afraid that defendant will squander the millions of dollars of assets of Unity National Bank and transfer them to Nigeria or his other business interests, to the detriment of all of the account-holders, depositors and shareholders of Unity Bank. Plaintiff sought to enjoin the Defendant and all those acting in concert with him, from transferring any of the assets of Unity National Bank, engaging in any conduct detrimental to Unity National Bank, engaging in conduct that substantially interferes with the proper administration of the day-to-day business of Unity National Bank, and conducting board meetings regarding Unity National Bank. Kase Lawal is a Nigerian who owns CAMAC ENERGY and is reportedly the majority shareholder at Unity Bank. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julius J. Larry III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HERSCHEL P. CASHIN 3730 Kirby Drive - Suite 1050 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: 832 384 6908 Fax: 713 522 4746 E-mail: dr.juliusjlarry@yahoo.com VANTAGE TRAVEL: "Hebert" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ronald Hebert and Aime Denault, On Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vantage Travel Service, Inc., d/b/a Vantage Deluxe World Travel and Vantage Adventures, the Defendant, Case No. SUCV2017-0757-BLS2, was removed on May 19, 2017, from the Suffolk Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-10922-DJC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper. Vantage Travel, doing business as Vantage Deluxe World Travel, operates as a travel company. The company provides escorted journeys, including river cruises, small ship cruises, land tours, and ocean cruises to destinations worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. O'Connor, Jr., Esq. NICKLESS & PHILLIPS PC 625 Main Street Fitchburg, MA 01420 Telephone: (978) 342 4590 Facsimile: (978) 343 6383 E-mail: joconnor@npolegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Rodney E. Gould, Esq. Robert C. Mueller, Esq. SMITH DUGGAN BUELL & RUFO LLP 55 Old Bedford Road, Suite 300 Lincoln, MA 01773-1125 Telephone: (617) 228 4400 Facsimile: (781) 259 1112 E-mail: rgould@smithduggan.com Rob.Mueller@SmithDuggan.com VISA INC: 9th Circ. Clamps Down on Those Who Dodge Jurisdiction --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that class action lawyers, take note: "Resident" is not the same thing as "citizen." And trying to use the words interchangeably to avoid federal jurisdiction won't get by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ruling 2-1 on May 18, the panel found that amending a complaint in an antitrust class action against Visa Inc. to replace "resident" with "citizen" after the case was removed to federal court was not enough to avoid federal jurisdiction under an exception of the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act. In so holding, the panel reversed a lower court's remand order while attempting to clarify the scope of its own 2015 decision, Benko v. Quality Loan Service Corp., which permits plaintiffs to amend their complaint in order to clarify jurisdiction but had created uncertainty in the lower courts. "In this case plaintiffs have attempted to do what CAFA was intended to prevent: an amendment changing the nature of the class to divest the federal court of jurisdiction," wrote Judge Mary Schroeder for the majority in Broadway Grill v. Visa. Benko allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint to "provide some amplification, for federal jurisdictional purposes," Schroeder wrote, but did not "permit plaintiffs to amend their class definition, add or remove defendant, or add or remove claims in such a way that would alter the essential jurisdictional analysis." The appeal revolves around CAFA's "local controversy" exception, which applies when two-thirds of the class members and a "significant" defendant are citizens of the state where the case was filed. The exception allows plaintiffs to keep class actions in state courts, which they consider to be more favorable to them than federal courts. The CAFA exception has plagued several class actions filed over the Flint, Michigan water crisis. In the Ninth Circuit case, the majority turned to recent decisions by the Seventh, Second, Fifth, Eighth and Tenth circuits in holding that remand orders must be based on the pleadings at the time the case is removed and not after it's been amended once removed. In a dissent, Judge Johnnie Rawlinson said the majority "essentially engaged in a stealth reversal of Benko." "The description of the class was defined more precisely without in any way expanding or modifying the allegations underlying the asserted cause of action," she wrote. "Our analysis in Benko approves of just such an amendment." Plaintiff's attorney Nancy Fineman, a principal at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame, California, said the case always intended to represent just California citizens and attributed the original complaint's language to "an inadvertent mistake." "But when we drafted the complaint, we weren't as precise as we now will be in the future if this decision stands," she said. She was not sure whether her client, the owner of a Burlingame restaurant, would petition for a full panel to rehear the case. But she acknowledged that courts could use some guidance in attempting to follow Benko. "This is a huge case with big implications, not just for us," Fineman said. "There's been at least, since Benko was decided, 10 or so cases that dealt with this issue." A spokeswoman for Visa, declined to comment. The company is represented in the appeal by Sharon Mayo, senior counsel in the San Francisco office of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. Broadway Grill Inc. filed its case on July 12, 2016, in San Mateo Superior Court in California, asserting that Visa conspired with banks that issued its cards to fix the rates charged to merchants. The original complaint was brought on behalf of "all California individuals, businesses and other entities" that used Visa cards since 2004. Visa, which is based in Foster City, California, removed the case to federal court, where Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District of California on Aug. 29 refused to grant a remand motion since many of the class members might not be California citizens. But Hamilton allowed the plaintiff to amend its complaint, citing the Benko decision, and on Sept. 27 granted remand of the case. On appeal of that remand order, the majority agreed that the plaintiff had gone too far in its reliance on Benko. "The amendment in this case," Schroeder wrote, "did not provide an explanation of the allegations, but changed the definition of the class itself."[GN] VOESTALPINE USA: Faces "Chapman" Suit in S.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Voestalpine USA Corp. The case is titled as Blake Chapman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Voestalpine USA Corp., Voestalpine Texas Holding, LLC, and Voestalpine Texas, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00174 (S.D. Tex., May 22, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos. Voestalpine USA is a metals service center located in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Clifton Alexander, Esq. Alan Cliffton Gordon, Esq. Austin W Anderson, Esq. Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452 1279 Facsimile: (361) 452 1284 E-mail: Clif@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com - and - Kevin Warren Liles, Esq. Stuart Ryan White, Esq. Todd Ames Hunter, Jr., Esq. LILES HARRIS PLLC 500 N. Water Street, Suite 800 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 826 0100 Facsimile: (361) 826 0101 E-mail: efiling@lileswhite.com swhite@lilesharris.com todd@lileswhite.com WAL-MART STORES: Settles First LGBT Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Erin Mulvaney, writing for The National Law Journal reports that Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s multimillion-dollar agreement to compensate employees who were refused benefits for same-sex partners marks one of the first class action settlements brought on behalf of LGBT workers, and it comes at a time when the legal and corporate landscapes are moving toward embracing equal protections. A Boston federal judge approved the settlement on May 16 to end a lawsuit that accused the retail giant of discriminating against gay and lesbian employees in denying health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses. Under the deal, Wal-Mart will set aside $7.5 million to compensate employees affected by the denial three years before it changed its policy. It also covers legal fees and expenses. This decision could represent the latest in a rapid shift toward LGBT protections in the workplace, a move spurred not only by the interest of companies that feel social pressure but also by the courts, where a company's failure to offer equal protections could become a liability. "This class action settlement breaks new ground," the attorneys for the plaintiffs said in court documents. "This is the first class action brought on behalf of LGBTQ workers to be certified and settled, and hopefully the settlement of this action will inspire other LGBTQ workers to employ the class action device to secure equal rights in the future." Suzanne Goldberg, a Columbia Law School professor who leads the school's Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, agreed that this was the first such case and said as corporate norms are changing, the courts are moving side by side to say sexual orientation discrimination cannot be permitted. "The decision to settle reflects a recognition that it is no longer acceptable for major employers to discriminate against their lesbian and gay employees," Goldberg said. "It recognizes that discrimination is bad for business in many respects. It hurts recruitment and retention and can hurt company in its sales and marketing efforts." The case -- Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores -- was filed before Wal-Mart voluntarily made health insurance benefits available to same-sex spouses in 2014. As part of the settlement, Wal-Mart committed to continuing to do so in the future. The settlement will affect several thousand current and former associates who did not receive benefits between 2011 and 2013. Attorneys for the chain did not respond to request for comment about broader implications of the settlement. Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq. -- prf@outtengolden.com -- an Outten & Golden attorney in Washington who represented Cote, declined to comment on the settlement. When asked broadly about the issues the lawsuit raised, he said that most large companies are now giving equal health and pension benefits to employees who have same-sex spouses. "There certainly are companies out there that discriminate against same-sex couples in the provision of benefits, but most employers have taken the step of ensuring that they have equal benefits," Romer-Friedman said. He noted guidance from the U.S. Labor Department in 2013 that required Employee Retirement Income Security Act plans to extend benefits to same-sex couples. "As a result, most big companies that have sophisticated counsel are following that guidance," Romer-Friedman added. He also noted federal courts are increasingly recognizing that LGBT workers are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex. A recent federal appeals court ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation violates the Civil Rights Act. It was hailed a landmark decision by gay rights advocates. Other federal appeals courts, including the Eleventh District, have ruled that the Civil Rights Act does not include protections for gay or bisexual employees. Yet, some observers say that public pressure has already pushed many major companies toward equality for gay and lesbian workers. The Human Rights Campaign, which provides an equality index to examine whether employers protect LGBT workers, shows in its annual reports that most Fortune 100 companies adopted policies to provide equal protections for gay and lesbian workers. [GN] WALTER INVESTMENT: "Elkin" Securities Suit Sent to E.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The securities class action captioned Courtney Elkin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walter Investment Management, Corp., Denmar J. Dixon, George M. Awad, Anthony N. Renzi, Gary L. Tillett, Case No. 1:17-cv-20997-UU, (S.D. Fla., March 16, 2017) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02025-AB, according to a case docket dated May 3, 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM 275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-686-1060 Fax: 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Edward Soto, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-577-3177 Fax: 374-7159 Email: edward.soto@weil.com WILLIAMS & STROHM: "Boyd" Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Boyd and Terry Bacus, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Robin Strohm and Williams & Strohm, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00320 (S.D. Ohio, April 14, 2017) seeks redress for the unlawful, predatory consumer debt collection practices of the Defendants in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The complaint says the Defendants sent to each Plaintiff a collection letter in an attempt to collect past due association fees. However, the letter fails to identify the sender as a "debt collector", a phrase which consumers recognize and associate with consumer protection statutes such as the FDCPA. The omission of such phrasing causes the consumer to question whether such rights are available, says the complaint. Defendant Williams & Strohm is a "debt collector".[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew A. Schwartz, Esq. The Law Office of Matthew A. Schwartz 230 Durand St. Pickerington, OH 43147 Tel: (614) 949-9749 Email: MSchwartzLaw@Gmail.com - and - Herbert Nelson Strayer, Jr., Esq. Strayer Legal 7240 Muirfield Dr., Ste. 120 Dublin, OH 43017 Tel: 614-378-2262 Fax: 614-372-8775 Email: hstrayer@strayerlegal.com YAHOO INC: Ad-free Email Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Thomas Curtis subscribed to Yahoo's ad-free email service. Though Yahoo promised ad-free email, it failed to deliver. From September 2015 until July 2016, Curtis saw ads in the right-hand panel of his account. The problem came to a head in July 2016, when his inbox was also flooded with ads. Believing that other subscribers had similar experiences, Curtis filed a class action in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, on behalf of all users of Yahoo's ad-free email service. He asserted causes of action under California's Unfair Competition and False Advertising Laws. He also brought a claim for breach of contract based on Yahoo's Terms of Service. On May 18, 2017, in a well-reasoned decision, Judge Brian Walsh held that those claims survived Yahoo's motion to dismiss. Curtis will now move full speed ahead into discovery, continuing to press his claims on behalf of the putative class. Curtis is represented by Paul B. Maslo, Esq. and Andrew J. Dressel, Esq. at Napoli Shkolnik PLLC. Yahoo is represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. If you subscribe to Yahoo's ad-free email service and have experienced a similar problem, we encourage you to call us at (212) 397-1000. About the firm Napoli Shkolnik PLLC is a national litigation firm providing representation to plaintiffs in class actions and complex commercial litigation, as well as victims of environmental contamination disasters, aviation accidents, defective prescription drugs and medical devices, asbestos-related illnesses, and other serious personal injury matters. The firm has offices in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. [GN] * Class Action Risks of Comparative Price Advertising ----------------------------------------------------- C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq., at Farella Braun + Martel LLP, in an article for JD Supra, asked "Was that retail 'bargain' you received really a bargain?" That is the question being asked by a recent spate of lawsuits filed against prominent retailers. Most of these actions have been brought as private party class actions, but price discount claims have also attracted renewed regulatory attention in recent years. The facts and circumstances of these cases have varied. Some actions have challenged as false a retailer's assertion that a product is "on sale" or has been "discounted" from the retailer's former or regular price. Others have challenged a retailer's supposedly favorable price comparisons to prices of a competitor's same products or to prices of other "similar" products that are not actually of like grade and quality. Still others have challenged a retailer's supposed "discount" from a list price or MSRP at which the product has never sold. Despite these differences, the gravamen of the claim in each instance is typically the same: the retailer is allegedly misleading consumers into believing they are receiving a bargain when they are in fact paying the price at which the product normally sells. While the majority of these cases have been brought in California (with the benefit of California's liberal consumer protection laws), cases are appearing nationwide and the publicity surrounding them suggests their numbers will only grow. That is especially true given the proliferation of internet price searching tools and the resulting pressure that retailers feel to compete on price and to respond to "bargains" being offered by their competitors. The risk to retailer clients is substantial: some of these claims have resulted in multimillion dollar settlements and/or regulatory fines. Even where cases are terminated early, defense costs can be significant. In this article, I first summarize the historical background and legal bases of these "false discounting" claims. I review how the FTC, which had developed deceptive pricing guides and then vigorously pursued such claims in the 1960's, had -- most likely for policy reasons -- all but abandoned enforcement actions related to pricing by the 1980's. I also mention generally various state law deceptive pricing provisions, most of which derive from the FTC model. I next discuss the recent resurgence of these claims over the last few years, primarily via private class actions, but also by regulatory (primarily state regulatory) enforcement actions. After summarizing some of the cases and their outcomes, I conclude by suggesting a few measures that retailers can take to mitigate the risks.[GN] * How 401(k) Advisers Can Bullet-Proof Against Litigation Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Iacurci writing for Investment News reports tons of 401(k) advisers will be prone to litigation come June, and advisers need to know where the pitfalls lie and how best to protect themselves. Many advisers who service 401(k) plans will, for the first time, be considered fiduciaries with respect to their investment advice when the Labor Department's conflict-of-interest rule comes into force next month. Along with that heightened standard comes litigation risk for retirement plan advisers, as well as those advising 401(k) participants on rollovers to individual retirement accounts. "Under the rule, it's pretty hard not to be a fiduciary," said Brian Graff, executive director of the National Association of Plan Advisors. "Relative to today, after June 9 there's definitely more litigation risk. For 401(k) plans it's not academic anymore. It's very real." To a certain degree, it's impossible for advisers to completely bulletproof themselves against litigation. But knowing how to mitigate risks, keeping stringent documentation and being aware of major problem areas are keys to prevention. WAVE OF FIDUCIARIES Advisers may be wondering how exactly they'll be exposed to litigation risk come June. After all, many provisions of the fiduciary rule, which raises investment-advice standards in retirement accounts, aren't scheduled to kick in until the beginning of next year. One of those provisions includes execution of a best-interest contract that would allow retail investors to bring class-action lawsuits if they feel they've been wronged. Participants in 401(k) plans, though, have a 40-plus-year-old mechanism available to them under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which allows them to sue for fiduciary breach. While this is by no means a new legal standard, the number of advisers that will be exposed to it, beginning next month, will climb exponentially. "If today there are X number of fiduciaries across the land, on June 9 there will probably be 10X," said Skip Schweiss, managing director of adviser advocacy and industry affairs at TD Ameritrade Institutional. The 401(k) market has been fertile ground over the past decade for class-action lawsuits brought by plan participants against employers and some service providers, such as record keepers, for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. Such lawsuits have yielded some large monetary settlements, typically from big corporations with massive retirement plans. For example, Lockheed Martin paid a record $62 million in 2015; that same year the Boeing Co. paid $57 million in a separate settlement. Plan advisers and advisory firms have largely been kept out of the suits. Proving an adviser is a fiduciary under the current framework is difficult, according to observers. Going forward, advisers and their firms could find themselves co- defendants alongside plan sponsors facing allegations of fiduciary breach. To a lesser degree, there's also risk of the Labor Department conducting an investigation into a fiduciary adviser's practices. Depending on the outcome of such an audit, advisers may be subject to excise taxes and restoration of any "ill-gotten gains" to retirement plans, said Charles Humphrey, principal at an eponymous law firm and a former DOL attorney. However, the DOL tends to focus its energy on plan issues rather than issues with specific advisers, said Mr. Humphrey, who doesn't expect "really much [DOL] enforcement in this area" in the next year. So how can advisers protect themselves? While there's not much advisers can do to prevent being named in a lawsuit, they should, as a practical matter, conduct a cost- benefit analysis on fiduciary liability insurance ahead of June, said Marcia Wagner, principal at The Wagner Law Group. Depending on the policy, the insurance could cover legal fees and damages, she said. "[Brokers] get errors and omissions insurance, but that's not covering ERISA fiduciary liability issues. In fact, most E&O carves that stuff out. So these guys could be naked to a certain degree," Ms. Wagner said. Recommendation Fee Principally, advisers can get in trouble for recommending investments as well as other fiduciary services, such as other fiduciary advisers, for some sort of fee. Brokers and advisers receiving a fee for their investment recommendations to 401(k) plans come June must adhere to the impartial conduct standards to avoid running afoul of the fiduciary rule and, therefore, ERISA. Three factors are involved in the impartial conduct standards: acting in a client's best interest, receiving reasonable compensation for a recommendation and making no materially misleading statements to clients. Most broker-dealers, for example, have handled this in part by moving to a level-compensation arrangement, whereby advisers receive a flat fee, expressed as a dollar amount or a percentage of plan assets, for investment advice on the fund menu, said Fred Reish, partner at law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath. This eliminates any variability in adviser compensation paid via investments, and any consequential influence such variability would have on fund selection. And, for those advisers who aren't specialized in retirement-plan business, some broker-dealers are mandating those non-specialists can't provide the advice -- rather, they must use an outsourced "platform adviser" such as Mesirow Financial to provide the recommendations. Interestingly, firms exercising more control, by allowing for less individual decision-making on the part of plan advisers, open themselves up to class-action litigation because there's more uniformity of action, and therefore greater likelihood to certify an affected class of participants, said Lawrence Cagney, partner at Debevoise & Plimpton. On the flip side, with more adviser control comes greater likelihood for improper documentation or consideration of relevant detail, he said. "It's a very interesting conundrum, and I'm not sure there's a great way to insulate oneself from liability other than creating a record as best you can," Mr. Cagney said. "In the ERISA arena, if you can't prove why you did something, it will be very hard to prevail on that litigation." Cost, Not Performance But there are some subtle nuances advisers should heed when advising clients. Whereas advisers and plan sponsors focus most of their energy on the quality of the investment management (e.g., fund performance), that's not where the greatest litigation risk lies, Mr. Reish said. Instead, advisers should be focusing on fund costs and share class. A mutual fund expense ratio is a quantitative, rather than qualitative, issue and is therefore easier to attack in a lawsuit, he said. In fact, excessive investment fees are where a large portion of the lawsuits to date have centered. And, perhaps counterintuitively, advisers should incorporate record-keeper benchmarking into their service offerings as a way to determine if fund fees are reasonable, especially if a plan pays for record-keeping services through revenue-sharing fees like 12b-1 or sub-transfer-agency fees, he said. If participants are paying too much money via revenue sharing to a record keeper, it means the participants are paying too much for investment management, Mr. Reish said. And to know if a record keeper is receiving excessive compensation for its service, an adviser needs to know how to evaluate record keepers. "It's OK to pay revenue sharing to the record keeper. It's just paying too much that's the problem," Mr. Reish said. Further, even the recommendation of a record keeper could get advisers in trouble, according to legal experts. Appreciate The Nuance "There are a lot of plan advisers that aren't appreciating the nuance around the record-keeper recommendation," Mr. Graff said. "It's not a previous mistake, but under the new rule the recommendation of a record keeper will be considered, in most cases, a fiduciary act." While the recommendation of a non-fiduciary service provider such as a record keeper, especially one whose platform is open- architecture and offers hundreds or thousands of investment choices, is not a fiduciary act, recommending a more limited platform -- perhaps one with 20-30 investments -- could be considered a fiduciary recommendation, Mr. Reish said. As mentioned previously, another potential area for trip-ups is adviser referrals. While some less-experienced plan advisers may refer current or potential clients to more experienced advisers in order to avoid fiduciary liability, the referral itself could be a fiduciary act, whether the fee is explicit, such as a finder's fee, or implicit. Rollovers represent perhaps the most significant problem area, experts said. While advice to IRA clients isn't subject to any meaningful enforcement until the full scope of the rule comes into force next year, advice on rollovers from a 401(k) plan to an IRA are subject to litigation risk beginning in June. That's because the recommendation is affecting money held in an ERISA plan. "I would caution any adviser to create the record that the best- interest contract would have wanted them to create if it was fully applicable," Mr. Cagney said. That includes comparing a participant's 401(k) plan with an individual retirement account (including investment options and cost structure), weighing the benefits of both vehicles, and documenting the process to prove a selection is ultimately in a client's best interest, he explained. Separate from the economics of the recommendation, a client's specific desires may influence the decision -- in which case, advisers may wish to have clients sign a document outlining those motivations. Rollover recommendations, unlike those of 401(k) plan investments, seem less prone to class-action litigation, observers said. The same suite of 401(k) investments is available to participants, so participants are more likely able to represent a class of similarly situated individuals. But IRA recommendations are often more individualized.[GN] * Lawsuits Aim to Address Big Law Gender Equality Problem --------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that Big Law has a major gender equality problem, according to David Sanford, the chairman of Sanford Heisler Sharp. Mr. Sanford is in a position to know. His firm is taking action to address the disparities he sees -- it currently represents about a dozen woman partners, and it is pursuing bias claims against at least five firms in cases that are not yet public. He's also handled many cases that ended in confidential settlements -- deals that when added together, he says, enabled female partners to recover tens of millions of dollars. "Certainly some firms are worse than others," Mr. Sanford said. "But I think it's also fair to say that the legal industry has a problem as an industry. The numbers aren't good across the country in Big Law." As ALM publications have reported, Mr. Sanford is the lead attorney in a trio of gender discrimination cases brought by current and former female partners against Sedgwick, Chadbourne & Parke and Proskauer Rose. Those suits all seek millions of dollars in damages, and generally allege that the firms gave female partners short shrift on leadership opportunities and compensation. The most recent suit, which Mr. Sanford filed May 12 against Proskauer on behalf of an unnamed partner in the firm's Washington, D.C., office, seeks at least $50 million. In addition to pay equity issues raised in the other suits, the Proskauer partner alleges she's been subjected to inappropriate comments from male colleagues. Mr. Sanford's efforts to correct bias in the legal industry don't stop with those three suits, however. The Washington, D.C.-based lawyer is representing roughly a dozen woman partners from "Big Law" firms in connection with allegations of gender bias, and his firm is actively pursuing bias claims for eight or nine partners -- all involving different law firms. That group includes the three suits already in court and others in pre- lawsuit negotiations, he said. While three recent suits have become public -- and Sanford expects others may emerge in the coming months -- he said that "more often than not" his clients have resolved disputes with their firms outside of court. "When that happens you never find out about it," he said. "We're obliged to keep those details confidential and even the fact of that happening confidential." Although mum on specifics regarding past confidential settlements, Mr. Sanford did say that he has represented both individuals and groups of partners in those mediations. And taking all of those confidential deals in total, the recoveries for female partners are in the range of "tens of millions of dollars," he said. While the legal sector has serious gender discrimination issues, Sanford said that Big Law's problems are emblematic of those in "virtually every other industry" his firm has examined. In many sectors, he said, women are more likely to be passed over for promotions or receive lower pay than their male counterparts. "So I don't think that the legal industry has a special problem," said Mr. Sanford. "But I do think it has a representative problem." When it comes to large law firms, he added, gender disparities tend to heighten as lawyers move up the ranks. Although he's seen instances of woman associates receiving lower bonuses than men, the lockstep approach that most firms use to set the base salaries for associates can put a check on differences in pay at that level, Mr. Sanford explained. But higher up the chain, employment conditions for lawyers often depend heavily on decisions made at the top of the firm, Sanford said. Firm leaders, for instance, decide whether to make a particular lawyer a partner. And they have control over compensation, deciding how bonuses are administered or which partners receive credit for originating a matter. "We see the differences arise at those key moments of discretionary authority," Mr. Sanford said. "And that discretion is typically administered by males." * Pharmaceutical Cos. Sued Over Opioid Drug Deceptive Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Rasmussen, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that by the end of the year, Paul Hanly Jr. -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- predicts he will have sued pharmaceutical companies in more than half of New York's 62 counties, alleging the drug manufacturers deceptively marketed opioid painkillers such as OxyContin and Percocet. Mr. Hanly, a shareholder in the New York office of national firm Simmons Hanly Conroy, is part of a growing wave of plaintiffs lawyers who are bringing cases against major pharmaceutical companies at a time when the country is grappling with what many health officials call a crisis of addiction to prescription painkillers and heroin, which has been linked to opioid abuse by the federal government. While these lawsuits have been around for a while -- Kentucky filed one back in 2007 that settled for $24 million in 2015 -- there has been a significant uptick in filings in the past several months. Plaintiffs lawyers in these recent cases across the United States are teaming with state and local governments, suing Big Pharma through contingency-fee agreements. Mr. Hanly already has filed four cases in New York state courts in Buffalo, Binghamton, Central Islip and Goshen on behalf of Erie, Broome, Suffolk and Orange counties, respectively, and he said he plans to bring suits for several more municipalities in New York in the upcoming days. The most recent suit against the pharmaceutical companies was filed by Mr. Hanly on May 11 in Orange County. The opioid cases mark the latest front against the pharmaceutical industry for its alleged role in the prescription opioid and heroin addiction epidemic gripping the nation. The lawsuits in federal, state and county courts -- including New York, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Chicago and two California counties -- are alleging that several pharmaceutical companies inundated the country with painkillers by deceiving doctors and the public about their safety. Many of the complaints filed in the contingency-fee cases share similarly worded language. The suits generally contend prescription opioid drugmakers intentionally engaged in a targeted marketing campaign claiming that their painkillers could be prescribed nonaddictively. Instead, according to the suits, the marketing techniques led to patients becoming addicted to the prescription opioid painkillers. They allege the painkiller addictions also led to patients becoming addicted to heroin, which some addicts turn to as a substitute when the prescription meds are not available, with the public health and law enforcement costs passed on to taxpayers. The complaints against the companies generally do not specify how much the plaintiff believes their allegedly deceptive practices have cost taxpayers. According to a September 2016 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the total economic burden of prescription opioid and heroin abuse in the United States is an estimated $78.5 billion annually, nearly 25 percent of which is shouldered by public sources. A Page From the Big Tobacco $248 Billion Playbook The plaintiffs firms are taking a page from the Big Tobacco litigation playbook, when many state attorneys general offices allied with private firms to challenge the adverse health effects of smoking, as well as the tobacco companies' claim that cigarettes were not addictive. Lawsuits by states seeking reimbursement for public health costs caused by smoking were largely settled in a $248 billion master settlement in 1998, in which the states and the federal government received compensation for taxpayers' tobacco-related costs. "It's the responsibility of the municipality, if they can, to pursue the wrongdoing that's resulted in this epidemic, but as a practical matter, there's no county in the country that could possibly afford this kind of litigation," Mr. Hanly says. "There will be no such litigation if the counties are prohibited from hiring contingency-fee lawyers." "The case where a law enforcement agency looks for assistance from outside counsel is one where the purpose of the case has really important policy implications for the state, but, for whatever reason, there are not enough resources in-house to execute the goals of the agency," said Betsy Miller -- bmiller@cohenmilstein.com -- co-head of the public client practice at prominent plaintiffs firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. Cohen Milstein caps its recovery amount in contingency-fee cases to 15 to 20 percent-lower than in the private sector, Ms. Miller added. These civil actions also have kicked up a significant amount of defense work for Big Law firms: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius represents Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., maker of Actiq and Fentora, and Cephalon Inc., now a unit of Teva based in Frazer, Pennsylvania; O'Melveny & Myers and Sidley Austin represent Johnson & Johnson's Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., which makes Duragesic and Nucynta, in New Brunswick, New Jersey; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Wiggin and Dana represent OxyContin and Dilaudid maker Purdue Pharma Inc. with corporate headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut; Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer represent Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., maker of Opana and Percocet, of Newark, New Jersey; and Foley & Lardner represents Kadian manufacturer Allergan. Lawyers for the pharmaceutical companies have challenged the contingency-fee agreements with little success. Mr. Hanly says no court in New York has found this sort of arrangement improper. "We share public officials' concerns about the opioid crisis and we are committed to working collaboratively to find solutions," Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, said in a May 11 email message to Corporate Counsel. "The delegation of law enforcement authority to a private law firm with a financial interest in the outcome of a case creates serious public policy concerns and presents a clear conflict of interest." More Plaintiffs Firms Seeking Out Contingency Work Mr. Hanly is not the only player working on behalf of states and municipalities against pharmaceutical companies. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll is one of several firms representing the city of Chicago and California's Santa Clara County -- which filed a joint action with Orange County -- and was hired by New Hampshire Attorney General Joseph Foster in the respective jurisdictions' separate litigation over how several pharmaceutical companies marketed their prescription opioids. The New Hampshire case is pending in the state Supreme Court, and the Chicago one is in discovery in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The California claims were stayed by a state court judge, who determined in 2015 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had primary jurisdiction over the labeling and use of pharmaceutical drugs. But a joint document filed in the case last month says "the parties are still involved in settlement discussions" and that the plaintiffs will file a fourth amended complaint, presumably if no settlement is reached, by early June. Big plaintiffs firms are not alone in getting the work. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood hired John Davidson of the two-lawyer firm Davidson Bowie in Flowood, Mississippi, to file his December 2015 suit over the marketing of opioids. "I have eight lawyers in my civil litigation division and zero money to cover the cost of this litigation," Mr. Hood said in a phone interview. "If the other side saw my budget, they'd drag it out. . . . Tell me another way to do this, how to recoup money that is due to the state." According to a December 2015 report by the Mississippi State Department of Health, opioid-related hospitalizations in the state were associated with an inpatient cost of about $200 million for 2010 and 2011. Hood says his office maintains a list of outside lawyers who request to file a case on the state's behalf. "If you're the first to present us with your idea, which is [your] intellectual property, it's your case after we've scrubbed it and decided it's a good case," he said. But if the outside counsel doesn't have "the horsepower and the financial ability, we'll tell them to go associate some other lawyers." In fact, Mr. Hood added, many of the state's larger contingency- fee cases have been brought to him by solo practitioners, who then have been required to associate with additional counsel who has the resources to handle the litigation. Mr. Hood said the amount an outside attorney can recover in a contingency-fee case filed on behalf of Mississippi is capped by state law at 25 percent. In the pending opioid suit, Davidson and his firm are entitled to the maximum 25 percent of any recovery of up to $10 million, according to a retention agreement between Messrs. Davidson and Hood. If the state recovers more than $25 million, outside counsel will receive 5 percent of that amount, under the agreement. Victoria Nugent -- vnugent@cohenmilstein.com -- the other co-head of Cohen Milstein's public client practice, says its fees often are likewise graduated according to the size of the recovery such that often, these are "not windfall cases in reality." Pitching the government as Mr. Hood's outside lawyers do is not an uncommon way to get the contingency-fee work. A few months after Linda Singer, then-partner and lead attorney in the Cohen Milstein suits, filed the first two cases in 2014, Ms. Singer, who spent a year as Washington, D.C.'s attorney general in 2007, was a main focus of a New York Times report on private firms that coax state attorneys general into action, often through their former state AGs-turned-plaintiffs-lawyers who use their political contacts to drum up contingency cases. In February, Ms. Singer departed Cohen Milstein for rival plaintiffs firm Motley Rice in an effort to bolster its public client practice, which Ms. Singer headed at Cohen Milstein and now leads at her new firm. Motley Rice's group, like that of Cohen Milstein's, focuses in part on partnering with state AGs and local governments to pursue complex investigations and litigation. Motley Rice's robust public client practice is expected to grow under Ms. Singer's leadership and perhaps expand into the opioid- litigation area. In fact, according to recent filings in the California and Chicago cases, Ms. Singer continues to work on these cases at Motley Rice. (Whether she also still works on the New Hampshire case could not immediately be learned.) "The support, resources and experience at Motley Rice can be used to enable government enforcers to level the playing field and take on large-scale, complex investigations and litigation that they wouldn't otherwise be able to, protecting the best interests of their constituents," Ms. Singer said earlier this year in a statement. She declined to comment for this article, citing pending litigation. New York lawyer Hanly's been at this a while. Beginning about 14 years ago, he represented 5,000 individuals in a class-action lawsuit against Purdue Pharma over the marketing of opioids. A few years ago, he says he was contacted by Singer in anticipation of her groundbreaking suit against Chicago. A couple years ago, Suffolk County officials got wind of the contingency-fee opioid litigation occurring in other parts of the country and reached out to r. Hanly because of his prior success. Mr. Hanly said he has been contacted by numerous counties outside New York. His recovery amount in these contingency-fee cases ranges from 10 to 40 percent, with the latter figure applying in cases that go to a jury verdict or otherwise get resolved late in the litigation, he added. The vast majority of these cases follow the typical contingency- fee agreement: The private firm fronts most of the costs of the investigation and prosecution of the lawsuit and gets 10 to 40 percent -- usually depending on when the case is concluded and for what amount -- of any recovery if the enforcement is successful. The rest of the money goes to the state or local municipality. It's too early to tell whether these contingency-fee bets will pay off for the plaintiffs lawyers, but they may be encouraged by the state of Kentucky's December 2015 settlement with Purdue Pharma after nearly a decade of litigation over the company's marketing claims about OxyContin. The Kentucky AG's Office recently confirmed this also was a contingency-fee agreement between the parties. Former Attorney General Greg Stumbo, who filed the suit, said the lawsuit could have been worth up to $1 billion if it went to trial. Plaintiffs recovered nearly $450,000 in costs, according to an AG's Office spokesperson, who did not provide details about the contingency-fee agreement or the amount recovered by plaintiffs lawyers. ********* 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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *