text: /raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150217.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 34 HeadlinesACCRETIVE HEALTH: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Violation of FDCPAAMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal PoliciesANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Lime-A-Rita Deceptive Labeling Class ActionANTHEM INC: Faces "Garson" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data BreachANTHEM INC: Faces "Juliano" Suit Over Alleged Data BreachANTHEM INC: Faces "Kirby" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data BreachANTHEM INC: Faces "Morris" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data BreachB&D PIZZERIA: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay OvertimeBANK LEUMI: Shareholders Mull Class Action Over Tax Evasion ProbeBANK OF AMERICA: Supreme Court Reviews LIBOR Antitrust AppealBEER STORE: Finance Minister Balks at Not-for-Profit ArgumentBLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Automatic Renewal PoliciesBURGER KING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Roman" Suit SaysCAJMANT LLC: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WagesCHANNELADVISOR CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class ActionCHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls Dodge Ram Trucks Over Steering SystemCONSOLIDATED WORLD: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit SaysFACEBOOK INC: European Privacy Class Suit Hearing Set for April 9FERGUSON CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit ClaimsFORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective TransmissionsGENERAL NUTRITION: Sued in Ark. Over Herbal Products MisbrandingGOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over ReCAPTCHA ProgramGUAM: Ancestral Landowners Meet to Discuss Class ActionILLINOIS: May Face Class Suit Over Sex Offender Housing ShortageINDUSTRIAL BAKERY: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OTJENNINGS CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit ClaimsKAISER FOUNDATION: Judge Must Face Home Care Nurses' Wage SuitLOVE HONEY: Falsely Marketed Pleasure Gel Products, Action SaysMEDBOX INC: Founder Comments on Shareholder Class ActionMETROPOLITAN JANITORIAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit SaysMORGAN STANLEY: Faces Class Action Over 2004-07 High Risk LoansMORGAN STANLEY: Judge Set to Rule on Mortgage Loan Class ActionNASDAQ OMX: Sued in Pa. Over Illegal Manipulation of DividendsNATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Class Action Refund Deadline PassesNATURE MADE: Falsely Marketed Ginkgo Biloba Products, Suit ClaimsNEFF & SON: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WagesNESTLE PURINA: Sued Over Dog Deaths Caused by Toxins in Pet FoodNEW DOMINION: High Court to Hear Prague Earthquake SuitNEW JERSEY: Child Welfare System Shows Progress, Judge SaysNEW ORLEANS, LA: Settles Landfill Class Action for $8 MillionNEW YORK: Denies Class Member's Rights to Vote, Action ClaimsON TIME COURIER: Faces "Bucio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OvertimePALMS GENTLEMENS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OTPATINELLA'S CHICKEN: "Craig" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid TipsPATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime WagesPEACE FOOD: "Santiago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid WagesPINNACLE RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action ClaimsREGENCY ENERGY: Accuses of Wrongful Conduct Over Company SaleREGIONS FINANCIAL: Settles Suit Over Morgan Keegan Funds' CollapseSAKUMA BROTHERS: Class Action May Affect Mid-Columbia FarmersSAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit ClaimsSIRIUS XM: Courtroom Setbacks Spur Copyright LawsuitsSOUTH PALAFOX: 300+ People Join Class Action Over Landfill OdorSOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued in N.D. Texas Over Rapid Reward ProgramSTANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Inflated Ratings Suits for $1.38BBSTAPLES INC: Faces "McCutcheon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OvertimeSTRATASYS LTD: Sued in D. Minn. Over Misleading Financial ReportsTAAG INDUSTRIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action ClaimsTACONAZO INC: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay OvertimeTAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "McFarland" Suit Over Defective AirbagsTARGET CORP: Judge Allows Data Breach Class Action to ProceedTARGET CORP: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product MisbrandingTIME WARNER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer ReportsTURNBERRY ON THE GREEN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OvertimeUTZ QUALITY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Product LabelWAL-MART STORES: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product MisbrandingWALGREEN CO: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product MisbrandingWALGREEN CO: Faces "Hale" Suit in Ill. Over Product MisbrandingWEGMANS FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Fresh Bread AdvertisingYELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit SaysZERO OTTO: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages* Foreign Teachers File Class Action v. Recruitment Firm *********ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Violation of FDCPA------------------------------------------------------------Michele Marie Cassale, on behalf of herself and others similarlysituated v. Accretive Health, Inc. d/b/a Medical FinancialSolutions, Case No. 2:15-cv-10496 (E.D. Mich., February 6, 2015),is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair DebtCollection Practices Act.Accretive Health, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is engagedin debt collection on behalf of third party health care providers.The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle E. Vocht, Esq. ROY, SHECTER & VOCHT, P.C. 707 S. Eton St. Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (248) 540-7660 Facsimile: (248) 540-0321 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com AUTOMOBILE: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Policies-----------------------------------------------------------------Anthony Gee and Joseph Anthony Montegna Sr., individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated v. American AutomobileAssociation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00246 (S.D. Cal., February 6, 2015),seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making automatic renewaloffers and continuous service offers, without first obtaining theconsumer's affirmative consent to the agreement containing theautomatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms.American Automobile Association is a federation of motor clubsthroughout North America.The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Sara Khosroabadi, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com: Faces Lime-A-Rita Deceptive Labeling Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------------Reg Wydeven, writing for PostCrescent.com, reports that Anheuser-Busch finds itself in court over its beer-margarita hybrid.Sheila Cruz filed a class action lawsuit against the beer makeralleging it was deceptive in labeling its products. According toher suit, Anheuser-Busch claims Bud Light Lime-A-Rita is low incalories, but actually has more calories than any of its otherproducts.Ms. Cruz's court papers show that an eight-ounce can of Lime-A-Rita has about 220 calories and 21.9 grams of carbohydrates. A12-ounce can of Budweiser, though, has about 145 calories and 10.6grams of carbohydrates. A can of Bud Light has about 110 caloriesand 6.6 grams of carbohydrates, while a can of Bud Light Lime hasabout 116 calories and 8 grams of carbohydrates.According to the suit, Anheuser-Busch deceptively concealed,omitted and misrepresented the calories in the products.Ms. Cruz's suit is seeking class action status for any consumerwho purchased any flavor of Bud Light Lime-A-Rita since it wasfirst introduced in 2008. Ms. Cruz originally filed in statecourt in Los Angeles, but as expected, Anheuser-Busch successfullyrequested to have the case removed to the U.S. District Court forthe Central District of California under the Class Action FairnessAct.Just based on the fact that a smaller can of Bud Light Lime-A-Ritacontains about 50 percent more calories than a regular can ofBudweiser and twice as many calories as a can of Bud Light,Ms. Cruz's chances seem promising. But compared to a typicalmargarita that has about 450 calories, a Bud Light Lime-A-Ritacertainly seems "light."ANTHEM INC: Faces "Garson" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach----------------------------------------------------------------David Garson, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Anthem, Inc. and Blue Cross of California, Case No.1:15-cv-00180 (S.D. Ind., February 6, 2015), is brought againstthe Defendant for failure to provide adequate security andprotection for its computer systems containing patient'spersonally identifiable information and personal healthinformation.Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates amanaged health care company.Blue Cross of California is a California corporation that offersfamily Health insurance.The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Duff, Esq. INDIANA CONSUMER LAW GROUP THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. DUFF P.O. Box 7251 Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (800) 817-0461 Facsimile: (800) 817-0461 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Ari J. Scharg, Esq. Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com INC: Faces "Juliano" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach---------------------------------------------------------Danny Juliano, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Anthem Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00219 (N.D. Ala.,February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure toprovide adequate security and protection for its computer systemscontaining patient's personally identifiable information andpersonal health information.Anthem Inc. owns and operates a managed health care company thatroutinely conducts business in Alabama.The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald W. Stewart, Esq. STEWART & STEWART PC 1000 Quintard Avenue, Suite 500, PO Box 2274 Anniston, AL 36202 Telephone: (256) 237-9311 Facsimile: (256) 237-0713 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Greg William Foster, Esq. T. Dylan Reeves, Esq. STEWART AND STEWART PC The Realty Building Suite 300 1826 3rd Avenue North, PO Box 721 (35021) Bessemer, AL 35020 Telephone: (205) 425-1166 Facsimile: (205) 425-5959 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com INC: Faces "Kirby" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach---------------------------------------------------------------Samantha Kirby, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00820 (C.D.Cal., February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant forfailure to provide adequate security and protection for itscomputer systems containing patient's personally identifiableinformation and personal health information.Anthem Inc. owns and operates a managed health care company thatroutinely conducts business in Alabama.The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, SBN 172098 Tina Wolfson, SBN 174806 Theodore W. Maya, SBN 223242 Bradley K. King, SBN 274399 AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com email@example.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: email@example.com INC: Faces "Morris" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach----------------------------------------------------------------Susan Morris, on behalf of herself and all others similarlysituated, and on behalf of the general public v. Anthem Inc., etal., Case No. 8:15-cv-00196 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), isbrought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequatesecurity and protection for its computer systems containingpatient's personally identifiable information and personal healthinformation.Anthem Inc. owns and operates a managed health care company thatroutinely conducts business in Alabama.The Plaintiff is represented by: Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. Adrianne De Castro, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C. 3200 Bristol St., Ste. 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: email@example.com email@example.com&D PIZZERIA: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime-------------------------------------------------------------Constantino Serrano Ojeda, Leonardo Cano, Vinicio Silva, VictorLima Elizalde, and Fernando Arellanes-Jimenez, on behalf ofthemselves, and other similarly situated employees v. B&D Pizzeria& Restaurant Corp., d/b/a Luigi's Pizzeria & Restaurant, SalvadorRomano, Louis Romano, and Rosa Brusca, Case No. 1:15-cv-00861(S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), seeks to recover minimum wages,unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment andpost-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to theFair Labor Standard Act.The Defendants own and operate multiple pizza restaurants in NewYork City.The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com LEUMI: Shareholders Mull Class Action Over Tax Evasion Probe-----------------------------------------------------------------Ari Rabinovitch, writing for Reuters, reports that shareholders inIsrael's Bank Leumi are seeking to file a class action lawsuitworth about 475 million shekels ($119 million) against the bankover its handling of a U.S. probe into alleged tax evasion, BankLeumi said on Jan. 25.Leumi, Israel's second largest lender, said the lawsuit arguesthat the bank hurt its stock price when it announced in March 2012that it was setting aside money for a possible settlement with theU.S. authorities over tax evasion.Leumi shares lost about 29 percent in the five months followingthe announcement, hitting a low of 8.44 shekels in August 2012,although they have since rebounded. The stock was down 1.3percent in midday trade in Tel Aviv at 13.13 shekels.In a statement to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, Leumi said the suitalleges that "the conduct of the bank and the directors on mattersregarding the investigation of U.S. authorities caused damage tothe bank's shareholders."The petitioner estimates the class action to be worth about 475million shekels, Leumi said.A Tel Aviv district court must approve whether it will allow theclass action suit to proceed.A Leumi spokesman said the bank was obligated to issue thestatement under the rules of the bourse and declined to make anyfurther comment.Leumi in December agreed to pay $400 million to the U.S.Department of Justice and New York state to settle two separateinvestigations into whether the bank helped its U.S. clients evadetaxes through its Swiss offices.BANK OF AMERICA: Supreme Court Reviews LIBOR Antitrust Appeal-------------------------------------------------------------Jennifer A. Dixon, Esq. -- email@example.com -- Deirdre A. Mcevoy,Esq., and Harry Sandick, Esq. -- email@example.com -- of PattersonBelknap Webb & Tyler LLP, report that on January 21, 2015, theSupreme Court of the United States issued a highly anticipateddecision in a LIBOR-based antitrust class action suit allowing aplaintiff to immediately take a direct appeal from an orderdismissing that plaintiff's complaint in its entirety even whenthat case has been consolidated by the Judicial Panel onMultidistrict Litigation and other cases remain pending in theconsolidated action.The decision in Gelboim et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al.arises out of a multidistrict litigation that consolidates allcases involving allegations that defendant banks understated theirborrowing costs and suppressed LIBOR, thereby allowing the banksto pay lower interest rates on financial instruments sold toinvestors. One complaint in the consolidated litigation -- theGelboim-Zacher complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of bondswith LIBOR-linked interest rates -- alleged but a single federalantitrust claim under Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act. Specifically,the putative class action complaint alleged that the defendantbanks colluded to suppress LIBOR for two reasons: (1) tounderstate their borrowing costs and portray themselves aseconomically healthier than they actually were and (2) to paylower interest rates on LIBOR-based financial instruments sold toinvestors.According to the complaint, defendants engaged in highly anomalousbehavior by consistently submitting uniformly low LIBOR rates,which, plaintiffs claimed, would be unusual absent collusive andillegal communications. Plaintiff investors claimed thatdefendants' conduct impacted interstate commerce within the UnitedStates by reducing the amount of interest paid on debt securitiesand other obligations, and that plaintiffs suffered injury becauseabsent defendants' collusion, plaintiffs and class members wouldhave earned more interest. This Sherman Act claim was dismissedby the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,which concluded that no plaintiff could assert a cognizableantitrust injury. The district court emphasized that the "processof setting LIBOR was never intended to be competitive," and thateven if defendants conspired to submit artificial estimates asalleged by plaintiffs, plaintiffs' injuries "would have resultedfrom defendants' misrepresentation, not from harm to competition."Their only claim having been dismissed, the plaintiffs filed anotice of appeal, and the district court also granted partialfinal judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), thereby permitting otherplaintiffs to appeal the dismissal of antitrust claims while theirother claims remained pending in the district court. The SecondCircuit, however, dismissed the Gelboim-Zacher appeal on thegrounds that the "orde[r] appealed from did not dispose of allclaims in the consolidated action."Before the Supreme Court, the bank defendants argued that theconsolidated cases should be treated as a single unit: until allclaims brought by all plaintiffs are dismissed, there is no rightto appeal. The plaintiffs contended that once their case wasdismissed in its entirety, they had a right to file a directappeal under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291, whichpermits an immediate appeal from a final decision of a districtcourt. This question had divided the Courts of Appeals prior tothe ruling.The Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiffs. Justice Ginsburg wrotethat Section 1407, which permits the consolidation of cases in amultidistrict litigation, does not create a monolithicmultidistrict action. Each case retains its own identity and isnot "meld[ed] . . . into a single unit." The decision here endedentirely the plaintiffs' case and therefore "had the hallmarks ofa final decision" by "terminat[ing] their action." A contraryrule, the Court explained, would leave plaintiffs "in a quandaryabout the proper timing of their appeals." Should an appeal befiled immediately upon the order dismissing their action, or mustit await the conclusion of consolidated pretrial proceedings? TheCourt's rule provides certainty to plaintiffs about the timing oftheir appeal and does not require them to wait until someuncertain point, far into the future.The Second Circuit will now address the merits of the plaintiffs'investors antitrust claim that the defendant banks' purportedartificial suppression of LIBOR to pay lower interest rates onLIBOR-based financial instruments sold to investors during theclass period constituted a per se violation of Section 1 of theSherman Act. Issues on appeal will concern whether or notplaintiffs can demonstrate injury stemming from an"anticompetitive" aspect of defendants' conduct with respect toLIBOR rates.BEER STORE: Finance Minister Balks at Not-for-Profit Argument-------------------------------------------------------------Richard J. Brennan, writing for Toronto Star, reports that FinanceMinister Charles Sousa says he's not buying the foreign-owned BeerStore's argument that it's a not-for-profit operation."They will argue that they are a not-for-profit organization andwe argue that there is some profit in there so we want to makesure that's distributed accordingly," he told reporters on Jan. 23in Toronto where he launched his pre-budget consultations onJan. 23.Beer Store spokesperson Jeff Newton insists it operates on abreak-even basis and that the premier's special council ongovernment assets has confirmed this."The government continues to recognize that the Beer Store is ahighly efficient system that has benefits for consumers. And thepremier's council on government assets has confirmed the BeerStore operates on a 'break-even basis.' We look forward to morediscussions that will help retain those elements of the currentsystem," Mr. Newton said in an email statement.Premier Kathleen Wynne has said Ontario consumers should expect arethink of the government's relationship with the 448-outlet BeerStore owned by the foreign parent companies of Labatt, Molson andSleeman.Former TD Bank chair Ed Clark, who was at Queen's Park on Jan. 23,is leading Wynne's advisory council on government assets. He hasrecommended the province charge the Beer Store a "franchise fee,"a cost the companies would not be allowed to pass on to consumersin the form of higher prices.Should these giant brewers refuse, Mr. Clark says the provincecould strip them of their monopoly. As well, he says thegovernment-owned LCBO should be allowed to sell 12-packsUnder the terms of a secret 2000 deal between the LCBO and theBeer Store, which was revealed by the Star in December, the morelucrative 12-packs and 24-packs cannot be sold at liquor stores.That accord, which is subject of a complaint to the federalCompetition Bureau by Restaurants Canada, also dictates that barsand restaurants must buy directly from the brewers at higherprices than ordinary consumers pay.Besides that, the private monopoly is facing two court challenges.The Beer Store issued a press release on Jan. 23 arguing that someof the efficiencies realized from its 448 outlets Beer Store areoffset by taxes and lower prices to consumers.It noted that in 2013 Ontario had a $3.58 higher tax per case,plus a 65 cent lower average retail price per case than Quebec."That means that on average brewers collected $4.23 less per caseon beer sold through the Beer Store than through Quebec corner andgrocery stores, an amount that is greater than the Beer Store'slower costs," the release stated."These data illustrate that the Beer Store's efficiencies are notflowing to brewers as higher profits -- they are flowing togovernment as high taxes and consumers as lower prices."In December, amidst Ms. Wynne's threats to dismantle the beermonopoly unless more money pours into the treasury and smallbrewers are given greater access, the Beer Store opened up itsownership to Ontario craft brewers.The major breweries will still control the company's board ofdirectors with Molson and Labatt, which each own 46 per cent,having five seats apiece, Sleeman, an 8 per cent owner, with twoseats, the larger craft brewers getting two seats, and the smallbrewers one.BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Automatic Renewal Policies------------------------------------------------------------Abel Abrego, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00230(S.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant'spractice of making automatic renewal offers and continuous serviceoffers without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consentto the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms orcontinuous service offer terms.Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation thatdevelops and publishes video games.The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Sara Khosroabadi, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com KING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Roman" Suit Says---------------------------------------------------------------Ronald Joseph Torres Roman, individually and on behalf of allothers similarly situated v. Burger King Corporation, Case No.1:15-cv-20455 (S.D. Fla., February 5, 2015), is brought againstthe Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation ofthe Fair Labor Standard Act.Burger King Corporation is a Florida For Profit Corporation thatowns and operates all Burger King Restaurants in the UnitedStates.The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Lloyd Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A. 501 North Reo Street Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com LLC: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages----------------------------------------------------------------Eduardo Maldonado Lopez, on behalf of himself and all otherssimilarly situated v. Cajmant LLC, John Schmidt, Rose Schmidt,Wheatfield Distributors LLC, and Marcelo Cajamarca, Case No. 1:15-cv-00593 (E.D.N.Y., February 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaidovertime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor StandardAct.The Defendants own and operate a delivery business that contractswith bakeries in and around New York.The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1020 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 267-2101 Facsimile: (212) 267-8115 E-mail: email@example.com CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action------------------------------------------------------------The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, on Jan. 24disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf ofpurchasers of ChannelAdvisor Corporation securities betweenNovember 6, 2014 and January 12, 2015. The lawsuit seeks torecover damages for ChannelAdvisor investors under the federalsecurities laws.To join the ChannelAdvisor class action, go to the website athttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-475.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.com for information on theclass action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York.NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASSIS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAINONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING ATTHIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.According to the lawsuit, ChannelAdvisor and certain of itsofficers and directors issued materially false and misleadingstatements about the Company's true financial condition andprospects. On January 12, 2015, the Company lowered its fourthquarter 2014 revenue guidance to $23.7 million from its priorrevenue guidance of $25.6 to $26.1 million. The Companyattributed the revision to lower variable subscription revenue dueto a shift to larger customers. On this news, shares ofChannelAdvisor fell $11.32 per share or over 53% from its previousclosing price to close at $9.83 per share on January 13, 2015,damaging investors.A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish toserve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later thanMarch 24, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation gohttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-475.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact,Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm tollfree at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,concentrating its practice in securities class actions andshareholder derivative litigation.Laurence Rosen, Esq.Phillip Kim, Esq.Kevin Chan, Esq.The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.275 Madison Avenue, 34th FloorNew York, NY 10016Tel: (212) 686-1060Toll Free: (866) 767-3653Fax: (212) 202-3827CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls Dodge Ram Trucks Over Steering System-------------------------------------------------------------Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports thatit's one thing to implement a recall when a product is found to bedefective. It's quite another when the recall so ordered isalleged to be more problem than it's worth. Such are theallegations over the Chrysler Dodge Ram Recalls after owners ofthe venerable trucks characterize the recall effort as "bungled."The Dodge Ram is a hallmark of the Dodge brand -- a tough truckwith a persona of strength and ruggedness. And yet a plethora ofowners have complained they lose steering control simply drivingdown the highway.The problem is alleged to be defective tie rods and tie rod studsthat are too weak to withstand everyday driving conditions -- thebasis for the defective steering system tie rods recall. AffectedDodge Ram owners, however, note that not only has it beendifficult to schedule an appointment to have their trucksrepaired, replacement parts were hard to come by and plaintiffsallege replacement parts are no better than the allegedlydefective parts.A defective products class-action lawsuit based out of Californiastands by allegations that not only are the affected parts - andtherefore the affected trucks -- defective, but that the defectiveautomotive recall was riddled with deficiencies.The class action was responding to Chrysler's attempt, in Novemberof last year, to have the lawsuit dismissed. A month later, inthe waning days of 2014, plaintiffs shot back."Chrysler's purported recall process has done more harm than good-- effectively lulling consumers into a false sense of safety andleaving them without a proper remedy," the plaintiffs said intheir filing. "The recalls have been grossly inadequate becausethey failed to properly address all impacted vehicles, and thereplacement parts from Chrysler were themselves defective,presenting identical failures."Well over 1,000 complaints were filed since the start of 2014,related to the unavailability of parts intended to fulfill themandate of the defective automotive recall. Last October theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened aninvestigation into allegations over lack of parts.The plaintiffs also had a response to Chrysler's claim that anypromises of vehicle safety in promotion and advertising are merelyan implied warranty or, put another way, "corporate puffery."Thus, according to the defendants, any claim to a breach ofimplied warranty remains barred by its express warranty.The plaintiffs are having none of it, pointing to variousstatements the company has made in its marketing about the safetyof its vehicles as well as the fact that Chrysler's motto is"Safety first. Safety always."Well, maybe not -- as ongoing problems with the Chrysler Dodge RamRecalls appear to show.The case is Shaun Sater et al. v. Chrysler Group LLC, case number5:14-cv-00700, in the US District Court for the Central Districtof California.CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says-----------------------------------------------------------------Scott Wiederhold, individually and on behalf of all othersSimilarly situated v. Consolidated World Travel Inc. d/b/a HolidayCruise Line, Case No. 2:15-cv-00828 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2015),seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending text message tothe person's cellular telephone through the use of any automatictelephone dialing system or with an artificial or prerecordedmessage.Consolidated World Travel Inc. is a national cruise sales companydoing business in the State of California.The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: email@example.com INC: European Privacy Class Suit Hearing Set for April 9-----------------------------------------------------------------TechCrunch.com reports that Europe vs. Facebook, the group leadingthe suit now with 25,000 claimants in tow, has had its firsthearing set for April 9, in a court in Vienna, marking the firsttime Facebook will appear in court over the case.The class action covers a number of areas ranging from data usepolicy under EU law to PRISM surveillance support and the unlawfulintroduction of "Graph Search."According to Europe vs. Facebook, the social network refutes theclaims, arguing that the lawsuit is inadmissible because it cannotbe sued by its users.The purpose of the April 9 hearing is for the court to decidewhether Facebook has valid objections about the admissibility ofthe lawsuit.Contacted for a response, Facebook says it has nothing more to addright now.So far, the class action has been limited to 25,000 who can claimup to EUR500 each in damages, resulting in a case that could costFacebook $14 million. The claimants are also demanding a"suspension of data usage" by the social network. Perhaps mostimportantly, if won -- or even if simply prolonged in the publicarena -- the case could do a lot in PR damage. And if Facebookactually loses the case, it could result in orders for Facebook tochange its practices in the region.While Facebook will likely continue to try to get the class actionsuit thrown out of court, the group is still pressing on. "We havereviewed all objections from Facebook in great detail and came tothe conclusion that they lack any substance. It seems that theytry to delay the procedure with partly really bizarre arguments,"Dr. Proksch, the lawyer representing the users, said in astatement.This class action suit was first filed last year, and was quicklyoversubscribed with people applying to join it, getting over60,000 users to sign up in the first month, partly by making iteasy to do so through different channels like mobile. The groupsaid on Jan. 26 that in addition to the 25,000 named as claimants,there are now 50,000 signed up waiting to see if the suit expandsto cover more people. It claims to be the largest-ever classaction filed in Europe.The conflict that led to the suit in the first place stretchesback much longer than last summer.Europe vs. Facebook, the Austria-based group headed up by lawstudent Max Schrems, has been filing privacy complaints againstthe social network for years, taking his case to Dublin, Ireland-- where Facebook's international HQ is based, giving thecomplaints potentially wide-reaching ramifications.But those complaints have had mixed success, which is why thisclass action is significant: it demonstrates a bigger will of thepeople behind the privacy group's claims, and it shifts the centerof gravity away from Dublin to the continent, where Facebook hasbeen given a harder ride where data protection and user privacyare concerned -- for example in Austria's neighbor, Germany.The longer list of complaints highlights not only new featuresintroduced by Facebook in recent years, but also touches on biggerthemes such as how the government co-opts Internet services togather information, the rise of big data and their potentiallycreepy role in ad-based revenue models. -- Data use policy which is invalid under EU law -- The absence of effective consent to many types of data useSupport of the NSA's 'PRISM' surveillance programmeTracking of Internet users on external websites (e.g. through'Like buttons') -- Monitoring and analysis of users through 'big data' systems -- Unlawful introduction of 'Graph Search' -- Unauthorized passing on of user data to external applicationsFERGUSON CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit Claims-----------------------------------------------------------------Keilee Fant, Roelif Carter, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson Jr.,Alfred Morris, Anthony Kimble, Donyale Thomas, Shameika Morris,Daniel Jenkins, Ronnie Tucker, Tonya Deberry, et al., v. The CityOf Ferguson, Case No. 4:15-cv-00253 (E.D. Mo., February 8, 2015),is brought on behalf of all impoverished people who were jailedindefinitely and none was afforded a lawyer or the inquiry intotheir ability to pay by the City of Ferguson because they wereunable to pay a debt owed to the City from traffic tickets orother minor offenses.City of Ferguson is a municipal corporation, organized under thelaws of the State of Missouri.The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander G. Karakatsanis, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 916 G St., NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 681-2409 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Brendan D. Roediger, Esq. John J. Ammann, Esq. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 100 N. Tucker Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 977-2778 Facsimile: (314) 977-1180 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com - and - Thomas B. Harvey, Esq. 7751 Carondelet, Suite 201 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 482-3342 Facsimile: (314) 932-2702 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Transmissions-----------------------------------------------------------David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a FordFiesta and Ford Focus transmission lawsuit has been filed afternumerous reports of transmissions that slip, jerk, shudder andperform a host of other unwanted problems.The class-action lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Omar Vargas,Robert Bertone, Michelle Harris and Sharon Heberling who want thealleged transmission problems fixed in the 2011-2013 Ford Fiestaand the 2012-2013 Ford Focus.The lawsuit alleges the $1,095 dual clutch transmission(powershift transmission) is marketed as an advanced automatictransmission offering the fuel economy of a manual transmissionwith the easy operation of an automatic transmission.However, the lawsuit alleges the transmission was manufactureddefective and is causing Fiesta and Focus owners nothing butheadaches. Owners complain about vehicles that lurch forward,experience delayed acceleration, delayed downshifting and vehiclesthat have trouble stopping.Owners of the Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus have complained toCarComplaints.com about the same problems mentioned in thetransmission lawsuit."Huge problem that Ford knows about and continues to ignore. Theyreplaced it with the same stock parts, meaning that this issuewill come up again after the warranty. I've had problems withthis car multiple times regarding the transmission and havevisited the dealership over and over again due to this problem." - 2011 Ford Fiesta owner / Toronto, Canada"First attempt of repair, shuddering in acceleration, delay inacceleration, grinding in shifting. Had 3 other attempts of therepair from continuous issues. Reported to ford for lemon law." - 2011 Ford Fiesta owner / Lemon Grove, California"FORD has manufactured a terrible automatic transmission. Took itin today was told there is no fix. Personally, I think FORD hasits dealers denying problems and not properly documentingcomplaints to avoid a tremendous recall. The Assistant Servicemanager told me that they get a tremendous amount of complaints onthis, And are kept busy all the time." - 2012 Ford Focus owner / Tampa, FloridaThe Ford transmission lawsuit alleges Ford knew or should haveknown as early as 2010 the powershift transmissions had seriousproblems. The plaintiffs claim the alleged defect causespremature wear to transmission clutch plates and other components,leading to early failure and costly repairs.The Ford Fiesta / Ford Focus transmission lawsuit was filed in theU.S. District Court of the Central District of California, WesternDivision - Vargas et al. vs. Ford Motor Company.The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC.GENERAL NUTRITION: Sued in Ark. Over Herbal Products Misbranding----------------------------------------------------------------Alyssa Clemmons, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. General Nutrition Corporation, GeneralNutrition Centers, Inc., and GNC Holdings, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-05036 (W.D. Ark., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendantsmislabeled its Herbal dietary supplement products because theyfailed to contain the medical herbs represented by the label.The Defendants are Pennsylvania corporations focused on the retailsale of health and nutrition related products, including vitamins,supplements, minerals, herbs, sports nutrition, diet, and energyproducts.The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 845-3305 Facsimile: (479) 845-2198 E-mail: email@example.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, PA 1101 Garland, Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA 12870 US Hwy 98 West Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over ReCAPTCHA Program-----------------------------------------------------Clinton Nguyen, writing for BostInno, reports that Gabriela Rojas-Lozano of Williamstown, Mass., has filed a lawsuit against Googleaccusing the company of unlawful use of free labor in itsreCAPTCHA program.The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of "all personswho have responded to a reCAPTCHA prompt in order to access awebsite or certain features of a website while they were UnitedStates residents."The program -- which satisfies major websites' needs to closetheir gates to spam bots and Google's need to digitize itsphysical stores of literature, newspapers and academic articles --requires users to transcribe distorted words and numbers to provethey're human.The reCAPTCHA software works by combining a control word, whichthe program can decipher, with a word from printed material thatit can't decipher. Users need to transcribe the control wordcorrectly to pass, but the indecipherable word isn't part of itssecurity requirements, according to the Boston Business Journal.The program determines what that indecipherable word is by drawingthe most frequently submitted answer. That ends up transcribingpart of a book or address numbers on Google Maps piecemeal.The lawsuit alleges that Google unfairly profits from reCAPTCHA byco-opting free labor from the many users that have to use it toaccess and perform regular tasks on sites. In addition, companieslike The New York Times pay Google to digitize their archives."Google, in essence, operates a highly profitable transcriptionbusiness built upon free labor, which it deceptively and unfairlyobtains from unwitting websites users, in violation of theirrights as consumers, who are offered no choice but to transcribewords for the sole purpose of enriching Google," the lawsuit says.And the lawsuit's central allegation is Google's nondisclosure ofits profits."Although Google derives substantial profit from thetranscriptions of images generated by users of websites thatemploy reCAPTCHA, Google does not disclose to website users thatGoogle is profiting from their time and effort," the lawsuit says."Nor does Google compensate users for such time and effort."GUAM: Ancestral Landowners Meet to Discuss Class Action-------------------------------------------------------Malorie Paine, writing for Pacific Sunday News, reports thatBertha Carriaga Cruz, an ancestral landowner, said she's afraidshe'll become her family's third generation not to receivecompensation for land long held under government control.Ms. Cruz was one of nearly 100 ancestral landowners who gatheredon Jan. 24 at Harvest Christian Academy in Mongmong-Toto-Maite todiscuss a recent class-action complaint filed against thegovernment of Guam.She was attending the meeting in hopes of bringing awareness tothe issue of receiving compensation for ancestral lands, Ms. Cruzsaid. Her father, Albert J. Carriaga, and her grandfather,Juan P. Carriaga, died before receiving compensation owed to them."I'm looking at not being compensated, either," she said. "I'mafraid I'll be an heir who won't get compensated. It's been threegenerations without compensation. I don't think a lot of peopleknow this is happening."Island landowners had almost 1,000 acres of property in Tiyan,according to Pacific Daily News files. The land has been underthe control and use of the government-run airport agency fordecades.Vicente "Benny" Crawford, an ancestral landowner, said on Jan. 24the purpose of the meeting was to provide an update on details ofthe formal complaint that had been filed.Mr. Crawford, through attorneys, filed a class-action complaintagainst GovGuam, including the governor and the A.B. Won Pat GuamInternational Airport Authority.The complaint requests a jury trial and asks that the ancestrallandowners receive compensation for land being used by theairport, Mr. Crawford said.The land, formerly used as Naval Air Station Agana, is currentlyused as part of the runway, terminals and other facilities of theA.B. Won Pat Guam International Airport. The land is in use andcan therefore not be returned to the ancestral owners."We are no longer asking for the land, but for money," Mr.Crawford said.Some of the landowners in attendance at the Jan. 24 meeting havefought for compensation since 2001, he said.Legal mattersSan Francisco-based law firm Girard Gibbs LLP and the Guam LawOffices of Ignacio Cruz Aguigui will provide legal representationfor the landowners.Mr. Crawford said on Jan. 24 he was going to let the lawyershandle the legal end because he feels confident in theirabilities.The complaint cites several local laws that have been passedduring the past two decades, which require GovGuam to make good-faith efforts to compensate ancestral landowners."The government of Guam, the GALC and the GIAA have deprived classmembers of the enjoyments of their rights to their ancestralproperty and have continued to deprive them of theircompensation," according to the complaint.The lawsuit also questions whether GovGuam violated due processrights of the ancestral landowners and the Equal Protection Clauseby compensating some ancestral landowners but not others.The lawsuit aims to determine whether the airport has beenunjustly enriched by its use of the ancestral lands.The Ancestral Lands Commission, which returns excess federalproperty to its original owners, has collected more than $3million through lease payments that is available to compensatelandowners, according to news files.Despite the airport receiving millions in revenue from itstenants, the landowners "remain empty-handed," the complaintstates.Ms. Cruz said she has hopes that by bringing attention to theissue, something will be done for her family and others in similarsituations.ILLINOIS: May Face Class Suit Over Sex Offender Housing Shortage----------------------------------------------------------------Steve Mills, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that stateprison officials hold close to 1,250 inmates beyond their releasedates every year -- not because they pose a threat to the publicbut because they cannot find a place to live that parole officersfind suitable, according to court papers and interviews.For Illinois taxpayers, the extended stays add as much as $25million a year in prison costs, compared with the far lower tabfor parole.It's a practice commonly known as "violating at the door" becauseguards at one time walked inmates who had completed theirsentences to the prison gates, only to return them to their cellsfor failing to find a suitable home -- considered a paroleviolation.Now, according to prison officials, such dramatic "turnarounds"rarely if ever take place, yet hundreds of inmates continue to beheld every year for months or even years beyond their releasedates. They must be set free by the time their terms of paroleend, sometimes as long as three years later.The practice, which mostly affects convicted sex offenders, raisesa host of concerns, most notably that inmates released only aftertheir parole has ended will miss out on those benefits on theirsudden return to the outside world."It defeats the very purpose of parole by putting the inmate backin prison instead of in that transition period where you aresupposed to receive rehabilitation," said E. King Poor, a Chicagoattorney who has represented inmates affected by the practice."It's bad for the inmate, it's bad for society."Exacerbating the problem is the woefully limited space for sexoffenders in the state's halfway houses. According to stateprison officials, only nine beds are reserved for sex offendersthroughout the state -- none of them in Cook County, where thelargest number of parolees go to live.Critics charge that the turnaround practice -- as it is also known-- has an outsized impact on the poor because they already facemany obstacles in finding housing. Add to that the fact thatconvicted sex offenders face housing restrictions unlike otherinmates, and finding a suitable home becomes an even greaterchallenge. Critics allege, too, that parole officers sometimesact arbitrarily in ruling out a home as suitable, a charge prisonofficials dispute.Illinois Department of Corrections officials admit frustrationover the hundreds of inmates whose releases are delayed but saytheir hands are tied by restrictions that prohibit some sexoffenders from living near schools, parks and other places wherechildren congregate. Inmates who miss out on probation can posemore of a threat to the public once they're finally released thaninmates who were able to transition back into society,acknowledges the department, which also handles parolees."They're going to get out eventually, so here's the key: Do youwant to discharge somebody after they've gone through parole andbeen helped and assisted, or without those services and withoutthe state having a legal right to supervise anything you do?" saidTom Shaer, a department spokesman. "We believe it's better to goback to society in a supervised fashion. We believe in the parolemission."According to Mr. Shaer, about 1,000 convicted sex offenders areheld each year beyond their release date -- a rate that officialshave said has been fairly consistent over about the past decade.The same fate befalls about another 250 inmates without a sexcrime background, mostly because their potential homes are notsuitable for electronic monitoring, a requirement of their parole,he said.Prison costs almost $22,000 a year for each inmate, compared withabout $2,000 a year for those on parole, according to Mr. Shaer.Officials have said the convicted sex offenders are not heldbeyond their release dates because they pose a danger to thepublic. If they were regarded as still a threat, authoritiescould seek to have them deemed a sexually violent person under thelaw and committed indefinitely, according to Mr. Shaer."There's no determination of risk in this," said Alexa van Brunt,an attorney at the MacArthur Justice Center at NorthwesternUniversity's law school who has worked on the issue.According to corrections officials, the practice began about adecade ago under Roger Walker, then the department's director. Itis a byproduct of state laws and parole rules that require inmatesto have a suitable place to live before they are released onmandatory supervised release, also known as parole. Inmates canbe held for the duration of their parole, often three years, if aparole officer finds their housing unsuitable. In those cases,they'd receive none of the services they would get on parole bythe time they finally are set free.For a department with an annual budget exceeding $1.25 billion butstruggling with overcrowding and money woes, the turnaroundsappear to be a drain in many ways."It makes no sense from a financial, legal or moral perspective,"said Alan Mills, executive director of Uptown People's Law Center,which represents the poor on prison and other issues.Mr. Shaer insisted the department's officers work hard to try tofind suitable housing for parolees, but he acknowledged, "We havebudget issues and we have legal issues on this."Inmates have challenged the practice in court but have beenunsuccessful. Most recently, inmate Johnny Cordrey asked theIllinois Supreme Court to rule the practice unconstitutional,saying it violated his equal protection and due process rights.Mr. Cordrey, who in 1993 was sentenced to 36 years in prison forkidnapping and rape, claimed he was imprisoned beyond his paroledate because he was indigent and could not find housing.Mr. Cordrey was scheduled to be paroled for three years beginningin April 2013, but he could not find a home that met requirements.On the day he was to be released, he instead was served with aparole violation and kept locked up at Menard Correctional Centerdownstate.He remained there for another 11/2 years before he was finally setfree in October 2014."The guy had no support, no tools, so we just threw him out on thestreets," said Mr. Poor, who represented Mr. Cordrey before thestate's highest court. "I said, 'Johnny, what are you going todo?' He said, 'I don't know.' That same story gets repeated overand over with other inmates."Mr. Cordrey was given a one-way bus ticket, traveling to Peoria inhopes of finding space at a Salvation Army shelter, Mr. Poor said.While Mr. Cordrey had already been released, the state supremecourt took the case because it determined it was a matter ofpublic interest. In the end, though, the court, while noting thepolicy appeared to present a genuine issue, concluded the statelegislature might be a better forum to deal with it.Mr. Poor said he hoped to work with the state attorney general'soffice to find a solution without returning to court, but he saida class-action lawsuit was also a possibility. He said the statecould "buy lots of therapy and halfway houses" with the moneyspent on the extended prison stays.A spokesman for Attorney General Lisa Madigan said the office wasopen to taking part in discussions to resolve the issue."Ultimately, any discussion would need to include legislators andpeople who play a critical role in the criminal justice system,"said the spokeswoman, Maura Possley.Herman Townsell, who spent 71/2 years in prison for a 1994 homeinvasion, kidnapping and sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl andhas been in and out of prison since for various offenses, was setto be released from state prison in October 2013, but he could notfind a place to live that a parole officer deemed suitable. Heended up spending another year in prison, according to documents.Now he moves between his mother's South Side residence or thehomes of friends and relatives when he isn't homeless and sleepingon the train or wherever he can stay warm. He said he works whenhe can."I don't know what they want me to do. I really don't. Therestrictions are impossible," said Mr. Townsell, 47. "I get tiredof going back to prison. But it's almost impossible to find aplace to live. Murderers don't have it as hard."INDUSTRIAL BAKERY: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT--------------------------------------------------------------Rosa Maria Carrato Alvarez and all others similarly situated under29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Industrial Bakery Inc., Jorge E. Castillo,Patricia F. Castillo, Case No. 1:15-cv-20465 (S.D. Fla., February5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to payovertime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.The Defendants own and operate a bakery in Dade County, Florida.The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: email@example.com CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit Claims-----------------------------------------------------------------Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Fant, Byeon Wells, MeldonMoffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson Jr., Tonya Deberry, et al.v. The City of Jennings, Case No. 4:15-cv-00252 (E.D. Mo.,February 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of all impoverished peoplewho were jailed indefinitely and none was afforded a lawyer or theinquiry into their ability to pay by the City of Jennings becausethey were unable to pay a debt owed to the City from traffictickets or other minor offenses.City of Jennings is a municipal corporation, organized under thelaws of the State of Missouri.The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander G. Karakatsanis, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 916 G St., NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 681-2409 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Brendan D. Roediger, Esq. John J. Ammann, Esq. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 100 N. Tucker Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 977-2778 Facsimile: (314) 977-1180 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com - and - Thomas B. Harvey, Esq. 7751 Carondelet, Suite 201 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 482-3342 Facsimile: (314) 932-2702 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com FOUNDATION: Judge Must Face Home Care Nurses' Wage Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a California judgeon Jan. 23 rejected Kaiser Foundation Hospitals' bid for a quickwin in a putative class action alleging the company pressuredunionized home care nurses to underreport their hours worked,rejecting Kaiser's argument that the dispute should be handled bythe plaintiff's union.Kaiser had argued in a summary judgment motion that home carenurse Antonio Gonzalez cannot bring a putative class actionagainst Kaiser because, under California Labor Code Section 514,the state's statutory overtime requirements do not apply when anemployee is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreementthat otherwise delineates wage and hour practices and provides aregularly hourly pay rate more than 30 percent over the stateminimum wage.On Jan. 23, Thomas R. Kaufman -- firstname.lastname@example.com -- ofSheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, representing Kaiser, urgedLos Angeles Superior Court Judge John Shepard Wiley Jr. to reversehis tentative ruling denying the motion. Kaiser argued thatSection 514 rendered Mr. Gonzalez's overtime claim as somethingbetter addressed in a union grievance, and said that Mr.Gonzalez's claim that he wasn't paid straight time can only bepursued as a claim for breach of the collective bargainingagreement -- a claim Gonzalez didn't bring."If you have this collective bargaining agreement and your unionhas bargained in protections that include overtime for every hourworked . . . then your redress is to sue under your collectivebargaining agreement," he said. "No one's suggesting that heshould have to work without pay or that he's not entitled toredress."Judge Wiley, however, disagreed, noting in his written tentativeruling, and again in court, that although the court must referencethe union agreement to determine what Gonzalez should have beenpaid for any purported off-the-clock work, that does not mean hisclaims are preempted."Thank you for your excellent oral argument. I fear I have notconvinced counsel that I'm correct, so we're going to have toagree to disagree," the judge said.Mr. Gonzalez filed suit against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals,Kaiser Permanente and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. inCalifornia court in September 2012, alleging Kaiser had a practiceof requiring home care nurses to work "off the clock" before andafter their shifts.Mr. Gonzalez alleges that when he was employed in Kaiser's hospiceand home health palliative care department from January 2007 into2012, he was regularly required to work more than the hoursspecified as the official start and end of his shifts, but Kaiserrefused to pay him for those hours.Kaiser required Mr. Gonzalez to record his time using a "dailyactivity record," and Mr. Gonzalez then used that record tocomplete a paper time sheet that he submitted for payrollprocessing, according to Judge Shepard's Jan. 23 ruling.According to the ruling, Gonzalez contends that under pressurefrom his supervisors, he did not record all the hours he worked onthe daily records or his time sheets.Mr. Gonzalez sought to represent a class of all nonexempt homehealth care nurses who were subject to similar labor lawviolations from August 2008 onward.On Jan. 23, Judge Shepard noted that certifying a class in thecase might be "more difficult" than surviving a motion for summaryjudgment, and asked the parties to set a schedule for classcertification proceedings.The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas W. Falvey, J.D. Hendersonand Daniel O'Neil-Ortiz of the Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey;and Timothy B. Sottile, Michael F. Baltaxe and Wendy K. Marcus ofSottile Baltaxe APLC.Kaiser is represented by Thomas R. Kaufman and Kathryn A. Visosky-- firstname.lastname@example.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter &Hampton LLP.The case is Gonzalez v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals et al., casenumber BC492725, in the Superior Court of the State of California,County of Los Angeles.LOVE HONEY: Falsely Marketed Pleasure Gel Products, Action Says---------------------------------------------------------------Tania Warchol f/k/a Tania Racha, on behalf of herself, all otherssimilarly situated and the general public v. Love Honey, Inc.,Case No. 3:15-cv-00238 (S.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges thatthe Defendants falsely market an over-the-counter Fifty Shades ofGrey Come Alive Pleasure Gel for Her product as having beneficialand aphrodisiac properties to increase pleasure and enhanceorgasms, despite that none of the ingredients in the Product,individually or in combination, provide such benefits.Love Honey, Inc. is Delaware Corporation that operates an onlineshop that sells sex toys and sexy lingerie.The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com INC: Founder Comments on Shareholder Class Action--------------------------------------------------------P. Vincent Mehdizadeh -- Founder and Majority Shareholder ofMedbox, Inc. -- commented on the recent lawsuit commenced inCalifornia Central District Court (2:15-cv-00426-BRO-JEM) by ashareholder rights law firm.Based on information provided to Mehdizadeh by his attorney, aftera complaint has been filed, the plaintiffs must petition the courtand ask that the case be certified as a class action lawsuit. Inorder to be certified as a class action case, there must be enoughplaintiffs to make joinder of individual cases impractical andthere must be common issues among the plaintiffs. Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005provide specific details about when a case qualifies for classaction designation."I just wanted to clarify that one lawsuit was filed and announcedon the company's ticker without, to my knowledge, obtaining thecompany's consent. Thereafter, 8 different Plaintiff's firms, orpotentially just referral services, announced that same lawsuit,again without seeking the company's permission in citing thecompany's ticker symbol, in an effort to further solicit clients.It's a shame that we live in a 'sue first and get clients later'type of world but that is the reality," stated Vincent Mehdizadeh,Founder and Majority Shareholder at Medbox. "I was personallysued in the lawsuit and I can safely say that the allegationscontained in the complaint are not accurate. During my tenurewith the company I personally witnessed a very supportiveshareholder base and I still believe the same holds true to thisday. In addition, I will be personally engaging an independentpublic company accounting firm, on my own, to review prior periodsas stated and address GAAP compliance, materiality, and fight thissuit vigorously. Although this is not a formal company responseon the matter, I needed to set the record straight and now Ihave." About P. Vincent MehdizadehP. Vincent Mehdizadeh founded Medbox's main subsidiary, MedicineDispensing Systems, in February 2008. He commenced operations forthat company in 2010, and in December of 2011 sold that company towhat became Medbox, Inc. Mr. Mehdizadeh served as seniorconsultant from December 2012 until May 10, 2013 for Medbox, Inc.and then transitioned to Chief Operations Officer and BoardChairman for Medbox, Inc. through May of 2014. Mr. Mehdizadeh wasresponsible for creating the 2 main patents behind the company'stechnology, helping to assemble the talented management team atMedbox, and also developing the concept behind the business modelsdriving revenue for the company.METROPOLITAN JANITORIAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says----------------------------------------------------------------Jesus Gomez and Elizabeth Gomez, individually and on behalf ofother employees similarly situated v. Metropolitan JanitorialServices, Inc., and Patricia Douglas, Case No. 3:15-cv-50025 (N.D.Ill., February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants failureto pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees atleast the Illinois mandated minimum wages for all hours worked ina workweek.Metropolitan Janitorial Services, Inc. is an Illinois-basedcommercial and residential cleaning company.The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com STANLEY: Faces Class Action Over 2004-07 High Risk Loans---------------------------------------------------------------DeadlineDetroit.com, citing Free Press' John Gallagher, reportsthat newly disclosed e-mails and documents give the clearestevidence yet that high-level banking officials pushed subprimemortgage loans knowing some Detroiters couldn't pay them. And thatsparked a foreclosure crisis in Detroit.The new documents were revealed in a potential class action byAfrican-American Detroit homeowners against Morgan Stanley, one ofthe nation's largest Wall Street investment firms. The lawsuit,Adkins et al vs. Morgan Stanley, alleges the high-risk loans in2004-07 were racially discriminatory because they"disproportionally impacted" thousands of metro Detroit blackborrowers.Lawyers for five Detroit plaintiffs say the internal bankdocuments show officials encouraged New Century, a now-bankruptlender, to push the loans and that Morgan Stanley ignored itsnormal credit standards so it could pool the mortgages asinvestments for lucrative fees. The lawsuit seeks unspecifieddamages.A Morgan Stanley spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit,which was filed in 2012. But in its written responses to thesuit, the firm denies backing racially discriminatory predatoryloans. Morgan Stanley has already agreed in settlements with U.S.government regulators to pay about $1.5 billion for its role inthe larger subprime scandal.MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Set to Rule on Mortgage Loan Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Detroit Free Press reports that U.S. District Judge Harold BaerJr. has yet to decide whether to certify the case as a classaction a suit filed against Morgan Stanley. Expect that sometimein the next several months.The case at a glance.Plaintiffs: Five named Detroit plaintiffs -- Beverly Adkins,Charmaine Williams, Rebecca Pettway, Rubbie McCoy and WilliamYoung -- plus Michigan Legal Services.Defendant: Morgan Stanley and several of its affiliates.At issue: Whether Morgan Stanley, one of the nation's leadinginvestment firms, encouraged the proliferation of predatorysubprime mortgage loans among African-American residents inDetroit in 2004-07.First key issue: Whether African-American residents in Detroitwere "disproportionately impacted" by Morgan Stanley's actions.Second key issue: Whether the case should be certified as a classaction involving at least 4,000 African-American homeowners in theDetroit area.Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkin Manhattan.Plaintiffs seeking: An injunction barring future such action andundetermined damages.NASDAQ OMX: Sued in Pa. Over Illegal Manipulation of Dividends--------------------------------------------------------------Stephen Rabin, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. John Doe Market Makers, Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC, andNasdaq OMX Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00551 (E.D. Pa., February5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manipulated options inadvance of dividend payments on underlying stock and exchangetraded funds for their personal benefit to the detriment of allother options investors during the Class Period.Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC is a Self-Regulatory Organization, which ownsand operates the PHLX Exchange, which focuses on options trading,trading more than 3,000 classes of equity options.Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns andoperates several securities exchanges.The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. Robin B. Switzenbaum, Esq. Phyllis M. Parker, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, P A 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq. Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Ave., Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com AUSTRALIA: Class Action Refund Deadline Passes-------------------------------------------------------News.com.au reports that National Australia Bank customers seekingto reclaim "unfair" exception fees had until Jan. 27 to register.The company managing a series of class actions on behalf of bankcustomers, Financial Redress, says the deadline for those seekingto reclaim "potentially millions of dollars in unfairly chargedexception fees" is Jan. 27.Financial Redress managing director James Middleweek on Jan. 26said that any NAB customer who believes they have been hit byexcessive exception fees in the past should complete theregistration process on www.financialredress.com.au by 4:00 p.m.AEDT on Tuesday, Jan. 27, so as not to miss out on possiblecompensation.NAB exception fees were on average around $30 before the bankreduced or eliminated them altogether in 2010.More than 40,000 NAB customers have so far joined the NAB ClassAction, which is part of a wider group of legal actions relatingto exception fees launched against eight of the major banks inAustralia.The lead case, against ANZ, is awaiting judgment in the Court ofAppeal after class action members won a Federal Court case on latefees."When we launched the registration process for the Class Actionsback in May 2010 the response was overwhelming. I commend NAB forits willingness to seek a settlement leading to compensation forits customers. It's high time that the other banks followedsuit," Mr. Middleweek said.Financial Redress Pty Ltd specializes in recovering compensationfrom financial institutions for excessive charges or mis-selling.Financial Redress joined forces with IMF Bentham Limited ("IMF")in 2010, and is now a subsidiary of IMF which is a public companylisted on the Australian Securities Exchange. IMF providesfunding for significant and large-scale litigation, including theBank Fees Class Actions relating to exception fees.NATURE MADE: Falsely Marketed Ginkgo Biloba Products, Suit Claims-----------------------------------------------------------------Mary Lisa Gara and Melanie Barber, on behalf of themselves, allothers similarly situated and the general public v. Nature MadeNutritional Products, Inc., and Pharmavite, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00209 (C.D. Cal., February 6, 2015), arises from the Defendantsfalse and misleading advertising campaign that the Nature MadeGinkgo Biloba Products provide a variety of health benefitscentered around improving mild memory problems, supporting mentalalertness, and supporting healthy brain function.Nutritional Products, Inc. is a California corporation thatprovides domestic and international product manufacturers with thesales, marketing, and product distribution services.Pharmavite, LLC is a California corporation, the maker of NatureMade vitamins and nutritional supplements.The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Skye Resendes, 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: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6994 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com & SON: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages----------------------------------------------------------------Elio Diaz, Christian Aguilar, Siloe Verduo and Mariano Diaz, eachon behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Neff &Son, Inc. t/a Chester River Landscaping, and Morton Gibbons-NeffIII, Donna P. Gibbons-Neff, and Morton Griffin-Neff IV, Case No.1:15-cv-00337 (D. Md., February 5, 2015), is brought against theDefendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed inexcess of 40 hours weekly.The Defendants own and operate a landscaping service companylocated in Chestertown, Maryland.The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvaro Augusto Llosa, Esq. Roberto N. Allen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN LLC 11002 Veirs Mill Rd, Ste 700 Wheaton, MD 20902 Telephone: (301) 861-0202 Facsimile: (410) 864-8895 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com PURINA: Sued Over Dog Deaths Caused by Toxins in Pet Food----------------------------------------------------------------Frank Lucido, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company, a Missouri corporation;and Does 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. 4:15-cv-00569 (N.D.Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's Beneful dogfood product contains substances that are toxic to animals andthat have resulted in the serious illness and death of thousandsof dogs.Nestle Purina Petcare Company is a Missouri corporation thatmanufactures, distributes, markets, and sells pet foods.The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq. Michael F. Ram, Esq. Matt J. Malone, Esq. Susan Brown, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 Facsimile: (415) 433-7311 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - John Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX, LITIGATION GROUP 201 N Franklin Street, Floor 7 Tampa, FL 33602-5157 Telephone: (813)275-5272 Facsimile: (813)275-9295 E-mail: email@example.com DOMINION: High Court to Hear Prague Earthquake Suit-------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that Oklahoma's highest court hasdecided to hear a lawsuit that alleges two oil companies areliable for injuries a Prague woman suffered during a 2011earthquake.The lawsuit by Sandra Ladra of Prague is among dozens of lawsuitsfiled in the past several years that allege oil and gas companiesare responsible for earthquakes. Similar lawsuits seeking class-action status have been filed against energy companies in Arkansasand Texas.A Lincoln County judge dismissed Ms. Ladra's case, but theOklahoma Supreme Court decided on Dec. 2 to hear her appealinstead of referring it to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals,the Tulsa World reported on Jan. 25.An attorney for one of the companies warned that the lawsuit, ifsuccessful, would cause energy companies to abandon wastewaterdisposal wells across the state."These wells will become economic and legal-liability pariahs,"Robert Gum, who represents Tulsa-based oil and gas company NewDominion LLC, told a Lincoln County judge during an Octoberhearing in the case.Spess Oil Co., based in Cleveland, Oklahoma, is also named as adefendant. Gum and attorneys for Spess have denied the companiesare responsible for triggering earthquakes.Numerous scientific studies and the U.S. Geological Survey havelinked wastewater injection wells to "induced" earthquakes. Thewastewater is a mixture of saltwater and toxic chemicals producedby oil and gas operations.Studies published in Science magazine and elsewhere have found thewaste pumped deep into faulted zones causes pressure to build up,triggering earthquakes miles away. Oklahoma recorded 567earthquakes last year of 3.0 magnitude or greater, more than inthe previous 30 years combined.The U.S. Geological Survey cited a study by one of itsseismologists and other scientists that found the Prague quake wastriggered by three wastewater injection wells nearby.Ms. Ladra's lawsuit alleges that New Dominion and Spess operatedwastewater disposal wells that triggered the Nov. 5, 2011,earthquake -- a 5.6 magnitude quake that was the largest in statehistory.NEW JERSEY: Child Welfare System Shows Progress, Judge Says-----------------------------------------------------------The Warrant Reporter's Emily Cummins, citing NJ Advance Media,reports that New Jersey's child welfare system received its 15threport card in nine years, evaluating its progress and improvementfollowing a 1999 class-action lawsuit that alleged neglect ofthousands of foster children."Federal monitor Judith Meltzer and her team at the Center for theStudy of Social Policy, a Washington D.C. think tank, concludedthe department met 19 of 43 requirements from January 2014 to June2014, showed progress in eight areas, and missed the mark on 16others," it reported.In her 200-page report, Ms. Meltzer said that the Department ofChildren and Families and its Division of Child Protection andPermanency (formerly the Division of Youth and Family Services,DYFS), is "light-years" better than it once was."Although there remain important . . . outcomes still to beachieved, the Department of Children and Families has demonstratedit is a system that is continually trying to improve itself,"according to the report submitted to U.S. District Court JudgeStanley R. Chesler in Newark.The release of the report follows the Federal District Courtdetermination by Judge Freda F. Wolfson that a Phillipsburg momhas the right to sue department heads and individual employees ofthe state Department of Children & Families, its Division of ChildProtection and Permanency and the Watchung Police Department.Michelle Mammaro, who was the victim of an assault by her husbandin 2011, claims that while delaying her case for months, statechild services workers attempted to "manufacture" evidence againsther.It took more than a year for a Warren County Family Court judge torule that Ms. Mammaro was not guilty of child abuse, according toher attorney Ken Rosellini, and during that time, Ms. Mammaroalleges that caseworkers and police violated her parental rightsand went "beyond their constitutional bounds."A management conference is scheduled for March, after which,Mr. Rosellini said, he plans to question the state employees underoath.The state Attorney General's Office, representing the stateagency, did not immediately respond to request for comment andstate Department of Children & Families declined to commentbecause of the pending litigation.NEW ORLEANS, LA: Settles Landfill Class Action for $8 Million-------------------------------------------------------------Gordon Russell, writing for The New Orleans Advocate, reports thatthe city of New Orleans and the operators of a New Orleans Eastlandfill that opened after Hurricane Katrina and quickly becamethe region's busiest dump have agreed to pay $8 million to settlea long-running lawsuit with a group of people who actually own theproperty on which the landfill sits.The settlement agreement -- which was filed in Civil DistrictCourt on Jan. 22 -- will make the city the owner of record of theland.It also will absolve the old property owners from anyenvironmental liabilities that might arise from the millions ofcubic yards of waste that have been dumped on the site, accordingto Joel Waltzer, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.The suit was filed in November 2007, roughly two years after thehastily permitted Old Gentilly Landfill opened its doors and begantaking in as much as 100,000 cubic yards of debris on busy days.The suit's central claim was a startling one: that most of theland under the dumping site -- which the city of New Orleanspurported to own -- actually belonged to hundreds of privatelandowners, who had purchased lots in three residentialsubdivisions that had been platted, but never built, decadesearlier.Many of the landowners were unaware that the city had taken overtheir land for a dump until Mr. Waltzer, who had been filing suitsagainst the Old Gentilly Landfill on environmental grounds, beganinvestigating. He discovered that about 80 percent of the dumpsite was in private hands and that the city was still mailingproperty tax bills to all of the landowners each year.One of them, Doretha Walker, then 77, became the lead plaintiff inMr. Waltzer's lawsuit. She recalled paying $6,000 in 1981 forfour adjoining lots in a subdivision with the optimistic monikerFlowerdale. Ms. Walker paid her modest property tax bill eachyear, hoping that one day Flowerdale might become a reality or atleast that her land might become more valuable. She neveractually laid eyes on the property.While neither Flowerdale nor its neighbors, christened Lichentagand Forestlawn, ever got built, the land did become more valuable,after a fashion. After Katrina, the otherwise unremarkable,desolate area off Old Gentilly Road suddenly had immense value asa dumpsite.The operators of the landfill -- the AMID/Metro Partnership, ajoint venture between construction company owner Stephen Stumpfand trash hauler Jimmie Woods -- were charging about $3.50 percubic yard for waste, meaning the site was generating hundreds ofthousands of dollars a day on busy days.How much the landfill has taken in since 2005 is unclear, but thefigure likely is in the tens of millions of dollars.Under a favorable deal it had with the city, AMID/Metro wasallowed to keep 97 percent of the money it generated, while thecity, the purported landowner, got the other 3 percent as a"royalty."It's not clear when the city helped itself to the land, but itapparently was decades ago. The post-Katrina Old GentillyLandfill actually sits atop an older city dump that had beenclosed in the 1980s. On all the paperwork filed with the stateDepartment of Environmental Quality, the city was listed as theowner.While people who win civil settlements against the city of NewOrleans often never get paid, or at best have to settle forpartial payment years after the verdict, Mr. Waltzer said a fundalready has been set up to pay the plaintiffs in this case. Hesaid a maximum of 25 percent of the $8 million settlement would goto attorneys' fees and costs and the costs of claimsadministration, with the remainder going to the claimants.The settlement calls for each property owner to receive about $1per square foot, plus a flat payment per owner, which works out toabout $12,000 for the owner of a typical subdivision lot.Mr. Waltzer said that amount "represents a premium price for theland in the area."In a prepared statement, he added: "While hurricane debris had togo somewhere, the landowners here were clearly mistreated. Theyclearly deserve the premium the settlement provides for theirruined land."The defendants have filed a motion seeking to keep confidentialthe terms of how the settlement is being funded.The suit is a class action, which means the court must hold afairness hearing to ensure the settlement is fair to the class.The hearing is set for April 13 before Judge Sidney Cates IV.Ms. Walker said she thinks the sum she'll get for her four lotswill be a "decent return on my investment" of $6,000, more than 30years ago."I'm very, very pleased," Walker, who's now 84, said in a briefphone interview. "I'm happy we've come to a settlement. I neverthought I would be receiving the money before I passed."NEW YORK: Denies Class Member's Rights to Vote, Action Claims-------------------------------------------------------------Rose Rossito-Canty, Diana Sepulveda, Frank Morano, Matthew J.Mari, Erik Pistek, Lawrence Gilder, David Pascarella, MichaelReilly, and for all similarly situated voters of the EleventhCongressional District in the State of New York v. Andrew M.Cuomo, in his official capacity as Governor of The State of NewYork, Case No. 1:15-cv-00568 (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), isbrought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated,who are being denied the right to vote for a Representative in thevacant Eleventh Congressional District of New York.Andrew M. Cuomo is a citizen of the United States and a residentof the State of New York, serving in an official capacity asGovernor of The State of New York.The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Castorina Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD CASTORINA, Jr. 1336 Clove Road Staten Island, NY 10301 Telephone: (718) 701-3100 Facsimile: (718) 701-3133 E-mail: email@example.com TIME COURIER: Faces "Bucio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime----------------------------------------------------------------Gloria Bucio, individually and on behalf of other employeessimilarly situated v. On Time Courier Corp. d/b/a Papa Philly andFood and Asif Mirza, Case No. 1:15-cv-01196 (N.D. Ill., February8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to payovertime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.The Defendants own and operate Papa Philly and Food restaurant inCook County, Illinois.The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com GENTLEMENS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT------------------------------------------------------------Christine Garcia, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. The Palms Gentlemens Club, and Does 1 to 10,Case No. 2:15-cv-00898 (C.D. Cal., February 6, 2015), is broughtagainst the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages inviolation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.The Palms Gentlemens Club owns and operates adult entertainmentclubs with locations in Anaheim and Santa Ana.The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Morris Rose, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT STARR 23277 Ventura Blvd Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: email@example.com'S CHICKEN: "Craig" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips--------------------------------------------------------------Michael Craig, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Patinella's Chicken Grill College Parkway, LLC andShelly Patinella, Case No. 2:15-cv-00072 (M.D. Fla., February 6,2015), seeks to recover unpaid tips, an additional equal amount ofliquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs underthe Fair Labor Standard Act.The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Lee County,Florida.The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PA 4223 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 Facsimile: (239) 549-3331 E-mail: email@example.com DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages---------------------------------------------------------------Kenneth W. Mercer and James Hanks, on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, LLC,Case No. 4:15-cv-00346 (S.D. Tex., February 6, 2015), is broughtagainst the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hoursworked in excess of 40 hours in a week.Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, LLC is a Texas limited liabilitycompany that operates a land based drilling rigs.The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq. BARON BUDD PC 3102 Oak Lawn Ave, Ste 1100 Dallas, TX 75214 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: email@example.com FOOD: "Santiago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages---------------------------------------------------------Adrian Santiago, Gustavo Galindo-Diaz, and Nabor Reyes-Megia, onbehalf of themselves, and other similarly situated employee v.Peace Food Cafe, Inc., Peacefood Cafe Too, Inc, and Eric H. Yu,Case No. 1:15-cv-00860 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), seeks torecover minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidateddamages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' feesand costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.The Defendants own and operate 2 Peacefood Cafe restaurants in NewYork.The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: email@example.com email@example.com RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims---------------------------------------------------------Danielle McCutcheon and Geoffrey Needham, individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated v. Pinnacle Recovery,Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00261 (S.D. Cal., February 7, 2015), seeksto stop the Defendant's unfair debt collection practice of failingto properly identify the original creditor of the alleged debt andillegally demanding payment of miscellaneous costs despiteproviding no information as to the origin or basis.The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Tara D. Newberry, Esq. 7854 W. Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 608-4232 Facsimile: (702) 946-1830 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com ENERGY: Accuses of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale-------------------------------------------------------------Edwin Bazini, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Michael J. Bradley, James W. Bryant, Rodney L. Gray,John W. McReynolds, Matthew S. Ramsey, Regency Energy Partners LP,Regency GP LP, Regency GP LLC, Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.,Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., and Energy Transfer Equity,L.P., Case No. 3:15-cv-00389 (N.D. Tex., February 6, 2015), isbrought against the Defendants for breaching their fiduciaryduties in connection with the proposed acquisition of all Regencycommon units in an unfair price and process.The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of EnergyTransfer Partners, L.P.Regency Energy Partners LP is Delaware and maintains its principalexecutive offices in Dallas, Texas. It is an independent midstreamenergy partnership involved in the gathering, processing,marketing, and transportation of natural gas and natural gasliquids.Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC are the limited partners RegencyEnergy Partners LPEnergy Transfer Partners, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnershipwith its principle executive offices located in Dallas, TX. Itowns and operates a diversified portfolio of energy assets.Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. and Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.are Delaware limited partnerships and the general partners ofEnergy Transfer Partners, L.P.The Plaintiff is represented by: Balon B. Bradley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BALON B. BRADLEY 5473 Blair Road, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (972) 991-1582 Facsimile: (972) 755-0424 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com FINANCIAL: Settles Suit Over Morgan Keegan Funds' Collapse------------------------------------------------------------------Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that RegionsFinancial Corp has agreed to $125 million of settlements toresolve lawsuits accusing it of mismanaging three Morgan Keeganbond mutual funds that collapsed in 2007 after investing heavilyin subprime mortgages and other risky debt.The preliminary settlements call for $110 million of cash to bepaid to investors in Morgan Keegan's Short Term Bond, SelectIntermediate Bond and Select High Income funds, and $15 million ofcash to go directly to the funds, less any legal fees.Papers outlining the settlements, which resolve two class-actionlawsuits by the funds' shareholders, were filed on Jan. 22 in thefederal court in Memphis, Tennessee, where Morgan Keegan hasoffices. Regions, a southeast U.S. regional bank, is based inBirmingham, Alabama.The settlements require court approval. Regions sold MorganKeegan to Raymond James Financial Inc in 2012.Regions had no immediate comment on the settlements. It has saidit would indemnify Raymond James for legal matters involvingMorgan Keegan, and that its indemnification obligation was valuedat $193 million as of Sept. 30, 2014.The settlements follow Regions' agreement in June 2011 to pay $210million to settle charges by the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission and other regulators that Morgan Keegan fraudulentlymisled investors about the risks of several funds.These funds included bond funds marketed as conservativeinvestments for older investors, but which nonetheless lost morethan half of their value in 2007 as credit conditions worsened.According to Morningstar Inc, the Select Intermediate Bond A fundfell 50.3 percent that year, while the riskier Select High IncomeA fund tumbled 59.7 percent.The SEC claimed that Morgan Keegan hid the falling value of somefunds between January and July 2007, and "recklessly" sold sharesat inflated prices.James Kelsoe, a Morgan Keegan portfolio manager, accepted asecurities industry ban as part of the SEC settlement.The three mutual funds in the Jan. 22 settlements now carry theHelios name, and are being liquidated, court papers show.Lawyers for the funds' shareholders plan to seek fees of up to 30percent of the settlement amounts. Shareholders had, in 2011,proposed partial settlements, but the court never ruled on theirmotion.The case is In re: Regions Morgan Keegan Securities, Derivativeand ERISA Litigation, U.S. District Court, Western District ofTennessee, No. 09-md-02009.SAKUMA BROTHERS: Class Action May Affect Mid-Columbia Farmers-------------------------------------------------------------Kristi Pihl, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that theWashington Supreme Court will take up a case this spring withpotential ramifications for many Mid-Columbia farmers andfarmworkers.The court is being asked to decide whether farmers are required topay farmworkers who earn wages based on how much they pickadditional, separate pay for rest breaks.Farmworkers may earn a wage based on how much they pick for anumber of crops, such as blueberries, cherries or asparagus. Theyare guaranteed to earn the state's minimum wage, but skilled, fastharvesters can earn quite a bit more.The argument is coming out of a class-action lawsuit filed byfarmworkers Ana Lopez Demetrio and Francisco Eugenio Paz againstSakuma Brothers Farms, a berry farm in Burlington, Wash.The farmworkers and Sakuma Brothers Farms finalized a settlementagreement resolving most of the claims in November. The farmersdid not admit any wrongdoing, but did agree to pay $850,000 tosettle claims and avoid the time and expense involved with alengthy lawsuit.However, the workers and the farm did not come to an agreementover claims made by the workers that they should receive extra payfor the 10-minute break they can take every four hours, accordingto court documents.Seattle attorneys for the workers -- Daniel Ford of Columbia LegalServices and Marc Cote of Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie -- saidin court documents that pay earned while a worker is working can'tbe used to compensate them for rest breaks.They also assert that employers should be required to pay workersfor rest breaks based on the average hourly earnings from piecework or the minimum wage, whichever is more.Adam Belzberg, a Seattle attorney representing the farmers, arguesthat the pay for rest breaks already is part of the piece ratecalculation. The state Department of Labor and Industries decidedagainst requiring separate and additional pay for rest breaks whendeveloping state rules in 1990.The plaintiffs are asking for a retroactive change, meaningfarmers would have to pay additional pay for work breaks to piecerate workers for several of the previous seasons. The WashingtonFarm Labor Association and Washington State Tree Fruit Associationestimate that it could cost tens of millions of dollars.The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case at1:30 p.m. March 17 at Heritage University in Toppenish.In the meantime, the associations have advised growers to makesure they are telling their workers that the piece ratecompensation is meant to cover the breaks they take.The industry groups also are raising money to support the cost ofwriting a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of growers who paypiece rate to workers. They have hired Jeffers, Danielson, Sonn &Aylward of Wenatchee and Stokes Lawrence of Yakima. They areasking their members to contribute $1 per piece rate worker to payfor the fund.SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims----------------------------------------------------------------Amanda Stone, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC, and Does 1 through10, Case No. 3:15-cv-00237 (S.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), seeks tostop the Defendant's practice of calling consumers' cellulartelephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing systemwithout first obtaining prior express consent of the called party.The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC is Delaware media/newspaperpublisher.The Plaintiff is represented by: G. Thomas Martin III, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 6565 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 410 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Telephone: (323) 940-1700 Facsimile: (323) 238-8095 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com XM: Courtroom Setbacks Spur Copyright Lawsuits-----------------------------------------------------Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports thatcourtroom setbacks for Sirius XM Radio Inc. helped spawn a freshwave of copyright lawsuits, with new plaintiffs targeting onlinemusic services over older recordings that were once consideredbeyond the reach of artists' and record companies' royaltydemands.But Sirius could still salvage its defenses -- and begin toreverse the plaintiffs' momentum -- if a California appeals courtgrants the company's pending plea for intervention.In a mandamus petition now before California's Second AppellateDistrict, Sirius' lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers argue that a statecourt judge in Los Angeles committed "clear error" when she ruledlast fall that record companies can claim performance rights topre-1972 songs under state law. (Musical compositions have beenprotected under federal copyright for nearly 200 years, butfederal copyright law only protects sound recordings made after1972.) The decision -- in a case brought by Capitol Records, SonyMusic Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Warner Music Group and ABKCOMusic & Records -- came sandwiched in between similar rulings byfederal judges in California and New York considering Sirius'broadcasts of pre-1972 recordings by the rock band The Turtles."Until now, no court has ever held that ownership of a recordingmade before 1972 includes the exclusive right to publicly perform,or authorize others to publicly perform, that recording once ithas been published," O'Melveny's Daniel Petrocelli --firstname.lastname@example.com -- wrote in the Dec. 15 petition. "To thecontrary, since the dawn of radio broadcasting in the 1920s,plaintiffs have urged radio stations to freely and widely performtheir recordings to promote their sale."Sirius tapped O'Melveny late last year to replace Weil, Gotshal &Manges, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton and Kramer LevinNaftalis & Frankel as defense counsel in nationwide litigationover pre-1972 recordings. The switch came after U.S. districtjudges in Los Angeles and New York ruled against Sirius inlawsuits brought by The Turtles' founding members, concluding thatowners of pre-1972 sound recordings have performance rights totheir songs outside of federal copyright law. Both judges havesince refused to reconsider those decisions; Judge PhilipGutierrez in L.A. declined to allow an immediate appeal, andJudge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan ruled that she'll consider nextwhether to certify the New York case as a class action.Emboldened by those decisions, on Jan. 22 Zenbu Magazines LLC,which owns the copyrights to sound recordings like The FlyingBurrito Brothers song "Sin City," filed a series of putative classactions in Northern California federal court. The suits seekroyalties on pre-1972 songs from streaming music servicesincluding Google Play Music and Apple's iTunes Radio.The newly launched cases may serve to underline one of O'Melveny'sarguments in the California appellate petition -- namely, awarning that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary Strobel openedthe floodgates when she sided with the record companies last year."[Strobel's] ruling imposes huge, immediate costs not only onSirius XM and its listeners, but on thousands of othernonparties," Sirius asserted. "That includes every AM and FM('terrestrial') radio station, retail store, restaurant, and barin California that performs pre-1972 recordings. . . . Similarlawsuits have already been filed against Sirius XM and PandoraMedia. And commentators have predicted that lawsuits againstterrestrial and Internet radio stations will soon follow."The record companies, of course, are fighting Sirius XM'spetition. The companies' lawyers, including Jon Eisenberg --email@example.com -- of Horvitz & Levy and RussellFrackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, argued in a Dec. 26 briefthat it would be premature for the appeals court to considerSirius' arguments.Judge Strobel's ruling, which pertained to jury instructions,"does not require Sirius XM to do or refrain from doing anything,"the record labels maintain. And, they argue, an immediate appealwouldn't save time or money, and would instead lead to "piecemealappellate litigation."Mr. Petrocelli and other lawyers for Sirius XM had the last wordin the briefing. In a Jan. 2 reply brief, they disputed thenotion that an immediate appeal would unnecessarily fracture thelitigation."The time for the court to resolve this issue is now," they wrote.SOUTH PALAFOX: 300+ People Join Class Action Over Landfill Odor---------------------------------------------------------------Kevin Robinson, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports thatmore than 300 people have joined a civil lawsuit against theowners of a controversial Pensacola landfill.The class-action suit, filed in Nov. 21 against South PalafoxProperties, seeks damages for roughly 325 Wedgewood residents whoallege they have suffered loss of property use, discomfort andannoyance as a result of odors emanating from the Rolling Hillslandfill on 6990 Rolling Hills Road. They are currently awaitinga response from South Palafox Properties legal counsel.Wedgewood residents have complained that emissions from thelandfill are causing them respiratory problems and eye irritation,as well as creating lingering, offensive odors. The FloridaDepartment of Health in Escambia County issued an air qualityhealth alert between July and August for the area around thelandfill, asserting that hydrogen sulfide levels had reached aminimal level of concern for long-term exposure to humans.The 166-acre construction and debris landfill had its permitrevoked by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection inlate July on allegations of code violations including failure tocontain odors, contaminating surface water and acceptingunauthorized materials. The landfill has been allowed to continueoperating while a state administrative judge reviews the DEP'sallegations.South Palafox Properties' legal team has argued the validity ofseveral of the DEP's claims, and well as asserted they are in theprocess of mitigating others.An attorney representing South Palafox Properties in the civilsuit, Eric Pellenbarg -- firstname.lastname@example.com -- of Tampa-based firm Phelps Dunbar, LLP, said he could not comment onpending litigation.Zakariah Johnson of Jacksonville firm Zakariah Johnson, PLLC, isrepresenting lead plaintiffs Ronnie and Wanda Shakir and roughly170 other households in the suit.Circuit Judge Michael Jones is presiding over the case, accordingto court records.SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued in N.D. Texas Over Rapid Reward Program----------------------------------------------------------------Cory Couch, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Southwest Airlines Co., 3:15-cv-00367 (N.D. Tex.,February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failureto award Companion Passes to its customers in accordance with theRapid Reward Program's Terms and Conditions. Specifically, theProgram's terms state that points for Companion Passes will beearned on credit card purchases made during the calendar year,without disclosing that points earned on purchases after the closeof the customer's billing cycle in December will actually beapplied only towards the next calendar year.Southwest Airlines Co. owns and operates a low-cost air carrierwith its corporate headquarters located at Dallas Love FieldAirport, 2702 Love Field Drive, Dallas, TX 75235.The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN LAW FIRM PLLC 404 W. 7th Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 299-5329 Facsimile: (512) 628-3390 E-mail: email@example.com - and - Reid Elkus, Esq. ELKUS, SISSON & ROSENSTEIN, P.C. 501 South Cherry St., Suite 920 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 567-7981 Facsimile: (303) 431-3753 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver CO, 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com & POOR'S: Settles Inflated Ratings Suits for $1.38BB-------------------------------------------------------------RJR News reports that ratings agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) hasagreed to pay a US$1.38 billion settlement to US regulators overallegations it knowingly inflated its ratings of risky mortgagebonds.The deal with the US Justice Department also resolves 19 otherlawsuits.In a statement, McGraw Hill -- the parent company of S&P -- saidthe settlement contains no findings of violations of law.S&P is the first credit agency fined over financial crisis-eraviolations.The settlement covers mortgage bond ratings between 2004 and 2007.The bonds, which included sub-prime mortgages, were blamed for thecollapse of the US property market and subsequent global financialcrisis.STAPLES INC: Faces "McCutcheon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime-----------------------------------------------------------------James McCutcheon, And All Other Similarly Situated Under 29 USC216(B) v. Staples, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00365 (N.D. Tex.,February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure topay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.Staples, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation that owns and operatesoffice supply chain stores throughout the United States.The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP Meadow Park Tower 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 706-0834 Facsimile: (469) 339-0204 E-mail: email@example.com LTD: Sued in D. Minn. Over Misleading Financial Reports-----------------------------------------------------------------Albert Smelko, Jr., individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Stratasys Ltd., David Reis and Erez Simha,Case No. 0:15-cv-00455 (D. Minn., February 5, 2015), alleges thatthe Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well asfailed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company'sbusiness, operations, and prospects.Stratasys Ltd. is a foreign corporation that manufactures three-dimensional printers and describes itself as a leading globalprovider of additive manufacturing solutions.The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Jack Reise, Esq. Robert J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: email@example.com INDUSTRIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims---------------------------------------------------------------G.M. Sign, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as therepresentative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. TaagIndustries Corp. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01143 (N.D.Ill., February 5, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice ofsending unsolicited facsimiles.Taag Industries Corp. is a manufacturer and distributor ofindustrial machineries and equipment.The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ross Michael Good, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com INC: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime--------------------------------------------------------------Arturo Flores, individually and on behalf of other employeessimilarly situated v. Taconazo, Inc., Inocencio Arceo, and MariaSocorro Arceo, Case No. 1:15-cv-01171 (N.D. Ill., February 6,2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to payovertime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County,Illinois.The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com CORPORATION: Faces "McFarland" Suit Over Defective Airbags-----------------------------------------------------------------Janet McFarland, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00153 (W.D. Pa., February 5, 2015), alleges that the DefectiveVehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that,instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury duringaccidents, they violently explode and expel vehicle occupants withlethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safetysystems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,and sells airbags.The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Bldg. 332 Minnesota St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103TARGET CORP: Judge Allows Data Breach Class Action to Proceed-------------------------------------------------------------Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports thata federal judge has given the okay for Target data breach lawsuitsto go ahead as a class action. The lawsuits allege Targetcustomers were harmed by a data breach from November 27 toDecember 15, 2013, that made their personal informationvulnerable. Approximately 110 million Target customers may havebeen affected by the data breach.According to Legal Newsline, Judge Paul A. Magnuson ruled that theclass action could go ahead, although some of the claims madeagainst Target were dismissed. The defendants had filed a motionto dismiss the class-action lawsuit.Judge Magnuson wrote in the 46-page ruling that the data breachwas "one of the largest breaches of payment-card security inUnited States retail history." The lawsuits were filed byconsumers who used either their credit or debit cards at Targetduring the weeks in question and whose personal information wascompromised.One hundred and fourteen plaintiffs have been named in the lawsuitso far, alleging they incurred unauthorized charges, lost accessto their accounts, and/or had to pay fees including card-replacement fees and costs associated with credit monitoringbecause of compromised personal financial information. Lawsuitshave also been filed by financial institutions affected by thedata breach.In filing a motion to dismiss the consumers' complaints, Targetargued that the plaintiffs could not show they were injured. Thejudge ruled, however, that the plaintiffs alleged injury --including unlawful charges and inability to pay other bills.Target's arguments "gloss over the actual allegations made and seta too-high standard for Plaintiffs to meet at the motion-to-dismiss stage," the judge wrote, finding that the plaintiffs hadmade plausible allegations that could be reasonably traced toTarget's conduct, which is enough to allow the lawsuit to proceedat this stage.Lawsuits filed against Target allege the company failed to usereasonable security practices. The judge dismissed a claim ofbreach of contract against Target.Other companies have also faced lawsuits alleging they failed toproperly protect consumer information. Home Depot also faceslawsuits concerning a data breach that allegedly exposed itscustomers' private information. The company also facesallegations that it did not alert consumers to the data breach ina timely manner.The Target lawsuit is In re: Target Corporation Customer DataSecurity Breach Litigation, MDL No. 14-2522, in US District Court,District of Minnesota.TARGET CORP: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding-------------------------------------------------------------Paul De La Torre and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated v. Target Brands, Inc. and TargetCorporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00559 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2015),alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its Herbal dietarysupplement products because they failed to contain the medicalherbs represented by the label.The Defendants own and operate a retailing company with itsprincipal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota doingbusiness in the State of Arkansas.The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: email@example.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: email@example.com - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA 12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093 E-mail: email@example.com - and - Richard R. Barrett,Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 380-5018 Facsimile: (866) 430-5459 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Toll Free: (877) 816-4443 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 250-4764 Facsimile: (479) 845-2198 - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222TIME WARNER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports--------------------------------------------------------------Cory Groshek, and all others, similarly situated v. Time WarnerCable Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00157 (E.D. Wis., February 6, 2015),is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair CreditReporting Act. Specifically by procuring a consumer report foremployment purposes without first providing a clear andconspicuous written disclosure, in a document consisting solely ofthe disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained foremployment purposes.Time Warner Cable Inc. provides cable television, high speedinternet and home phone service to consumers with its principalplace of business is located at 290 Harbor Drive, Stamford,Connecticut 06902.The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Modl, Esq. AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP 2 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 200 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 257-5661 Facsimile: (608) 257-5444 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Robert J. Gingras, Esq. Heath P. Straka, Esq. GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE 8150 Excelsior Drive Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (608) 833-2632 Facsimile: (608) 833- 2874 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com ON THE GREEN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime-------------------------------------------------------------Mirtha Michalski and other similarly situated individuals v.Turnberry on the Green Condominium Association, Inc., Case No.1:15-cv-20475 (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2015), seeks to recoverunpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair LaborStandard Act.Turnberry on the Green Condominium Association, Inc. owns andoperates a real estate company having its main place of businessin Miami-Dade County, Florida.The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: email@example.com QUALITY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Product Label----------------------------------------------------------------Bob McGovern, writing for Boston Herald, reports that two BayStaters are accusing potato chip giant Utz Quality Foods ofmislabeling its products as "all natural," alleging in a complaintthat some of them are made from genetically modified ingredients.Matt DiFrancesco and Angela Mizzoni filed a federal class-actionlawsuit against the Hanover, Pa.-based company earlier this month.The suit claims they and others have suffered financial lossesbecause Utz's "'All Natural' representations are deceptive, false,misleading, and unfair to consumers," according to the complaint.WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding-----------------------------------------------------------------Paul Dela Torre and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Case No.5:15-cv-00557 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that theDefendant mislabeled its Gingko Biloba and Ginseng Herbal dietarysupplement products because they failed to contain the medicalherbs represented by the label.Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is multinational retail corporation thatoperates a chain of discount department stores and warehousestores.The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: email@example.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA 12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Richard R. Barrett,Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 380-5018 Facsimile: (866) 430-5459 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Toll Free: (877) 816-4443 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: email@example.com - and - Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 250-4764 Facsimile: (479) 845-2198 - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222WALGREEN CO: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding-------------------------------------------------------------Paul De La Torre and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 5:15-cv-00556 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendantmislabeled its Herbal dietary supplement products because theyfailed to contain the medical herbs represented by the label.Walgreen Co. is a Chicago corporation that owns and operates adrug retailing chain throughout the United States.The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: email@example.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA 12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Richard R. Barrett,Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 380-5018 Facsimile: (866) 430-5459 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Toll Free: (877) 816-4443 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: email@example.com - and - Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 250-4764 Facsimile: (479) 845-2198 - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222WALGREEN CO: Faces "Hale" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding---------------------------------------------------------------Robin Chrystal Hale and Kaitlyn Pirtle, individually and on behalfof all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., GNC Holdings,Inc., Target Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01182 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2015), alleges that theDefendants manufactured and sold the Herbal Supplements whichfailed to contain the ingredients advertised and containedingredients not disclosed on the packaging.Walgreen Co. is a Chicago corporation that owns and operates adrug retailing chain throughout the United States.GNC Holdings, Inc. is Pennsylvania-based commercial enterprisesfocused on the retail sale of health and nutrition relatedproducts.Target Corporation owns and operates a retailing company with itsprincipal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota doingbusiness in the State of Arkansas.Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is multinational retail corporation thatoperates a chain of discount department stores and warehousestores.The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: email@example.com - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1144 West Lake Street, Suite 400 Oak Park, IL 60301 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: (708) 628-4950 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com - and - Jason Zweig, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 752-5455 Facsimile: (917) 210-3980 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Fresh Bread Advertising-------------------------------------------------------------Gary Craig, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reports that WegmansFood Markets is one of three supermarket chains being sued byseveral New Jersey shoppers who claim the supposedly fresh breadthey bought wasn't truly fresh.At seven Wegmans stores in New Jersey, the lawsuit alleges, thebreads advertised as freshly baked include bread pre-bakedelsewhere, brought to the stores, frozen, then reheated for sale.The lawsuit was brought in state court in New Jersey, but onJan. 21 the case against Wegmans moved to a New Jersey federalcourt since Wegmans is headquartered in Gates."We have not deceived or misled our customers in any way," Wegmansspokeswoman Jo Natale said in a statement on Jan. 24.The lawsuit is filed as class-action litigation, seeking torepresent those who bought the baked bread from a Wegmans in NewJersey after Dec. 14, 2008.The plaintiffs claim the baked bread advertising violates the NewJersey Consumer Fraud Act.YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Says----------------------------------------------------------------Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all personsand entities similarly situated v. Yellowstone Capital, LLC, CaseNo. 1:15-cv-00854 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), is brought againstthe Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer ProtectionAct, specifically by placing an auto-dialed, pre-recordedtelemarketing call to her cellular telephone number without herprior express written consent.Yellowstone Capital, LLC is a New York corporation that providescash advances to small and mid-size businesses.The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Barrett, Esq. John W. Barrett, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com jbarrett@,baileyglasser.com email@example.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 125 Summer St., Suite 1030 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.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 Facsimile: (50S) 319-3077 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com OTTO: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages-----------------------------------------------------------------Camilo Martinez and Zanatiel Flores, on behalf of themselves andothers similarly situated v. Zero Otto Nove Inc., Trattoria ZeroOtto Nove II, LLC, Restaurant Zero Otto Nove III, LLC,Roberto Paciullo, and Tony Dorma, Case No. 1:15-cv-00899(S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtimecompensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgmentinterest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair LaborStandard Act.The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York.The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com email@example.com* Foreign Teachers File Class Action v. Recruitment Firm--------------------------------------------------------Chris Joyner, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,reports that Georgia school districts have spent at least $52.5million in the last five years importing foreign teachers, mostlyto teach math, science and special education, but the districtshave not hired a single one.Instead they use recruitment firms, which can provide a buffer forschool districts who fear running afoul of federal laws governingthe H-1B visa system. Yet districts elsewhere have facedinvestigations and lawsuits over their involvement in visaschemes. Here are several:Prince George's County, Md.In November, the U.S. Department of Labor ordered the countyschools to pay $4.2 million in back wages and $1.7 million inpenalties for "willful" violation of H-1B rules between 2005 and2001.The district got into trouble when Filipino teachers said theywere charged fees for their visas and were paid less than theirAmerican colleagues. Federal law requires employers to bear thefees for an H-1B visa and pay their foreign teachers at least asmuch as they would an American worker.LouisianaFilipino teachers in parish districts across the state said a LosAngeles-based recruitment firm charged them immigration fees andthreatened them with deportation if they did not pay.One parish district agreed to reimburse their teachers for thefees and set aside $400,000 for future settlements. The teachersfiled a class action suit against the firm and the schooldistricts. In December 2012, a California jury awarded theteachers $4.5 million and ordered the recruitment firm to pay.Garland, TexasFor more than a year, the Garland Independent School District hasbeen embroiled in a scandal involving the importation of Filipinoteachers between 2008 and 2013.Several teachers claimed they were required to pay a lawyerthousands in immigration fees for their visa. A districtinvestigation determined the personnel director benefited from themisuse of the visa program by pocketing fees, taking recruitingtrips abroad and funneling the immigration work and housing tofamily members.The district offered refunds totaling more than $500,000 toimmigrant teachers. The investigation is ongoing. *********S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O NClass Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published byBankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. CristinaCanson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.Chapman, Editors.Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *