Thursday, February 6, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 26
ARUBA NETWORKS: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Calif. Court
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Approves Most of $8.5-Bil. MBS Settlement
BARNES & NOBLE: "Nguyen" Suit Over HP TouchPad Tablets Stayed
BARNES & NOBLE: Files New Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation
BARNES & NOBLE: "Torrez" Suit Over Zip Code Request Now Dismissed
BARNES & NOBLE: Class Cert. Hearing in "Lina" Labor Suit in March
BARNES & NOBLE: Seeks Summary Judgment in "Trimmer" FLSA Suit
BIOMET INC: Settles Faulty Hip Replacements MDL for $56 Million
BODUM PORTUGUESA: Recalls 28,000 Rose Gold Glass Coffee Presses
BP WEST: Consumers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Debit Card Fee Suit
BRITAX CHILD: Recalls 224,800 Strollers Due to Amputation Hazard
CARE BAKERY: Recalls Bread Products Due to Undeclared Milk
CARE BAKERY: Updates Recall on Bread Products
CONSTELLIUM NV: Discovery in Suit by Retirees to End January
CUBIC CORP: Transit Customers Allege Violation of Fraud Act
CUBIC CORP: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over Fare Collection System
DOLLAR GENERAL: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Ala. Labor Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Settlement Pursued in Suit Over Background Check
DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Faces Suit by EEOC for "Black Applicants"
DOLLAR GENERAL: Bid to Appeal Remand of "Varela" Suit Pending
DOLLAR GENERAL: Bid to Appeal Remand of "Main" Suit Still Pending
DOLLAR GENERAL: Response to Conditional Cert. Bid Due March
DOLLAR GENERAL: Trial in "Buttry" Labor Suit Set for Feb. 17
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Kocmich" Labor Suit in Fla. District Court
FACEBOOK INC: Files Motion to Consolidate Private Messages Suits
FAMILY DOLLAR: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Overtime Class Action
FLUSHMATE: Settles Class Action Over Exploding Toilet for $18MM
FRED & FRIENDS: Recalls Infant Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard
GE APPLIANCES: Recalls Dehumidifier Due to Burn Hazards
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 660 TRAX Cars Due to Fuel Leakage Risk
IKEA N.A.: Expands Recall of Jr. Beds That Pose Laceration Hazard
INNO BAKERY: Recalls Cookies & Biscotti Due to Undeclared Milk
K12 INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action in Va.
LEIGHTON: Supreme Court Tosses MCI's Discovery Bid in Class Action
NO EXCESS: Recalls Relakz Children's Outerwear Due to Choking Risk
OMEGA FOOD: Recalls Tago Wafers Due to Undeclared Egg
ONTARIO, CANADA: Two Thunder Bay Women Join Foster Care Suit
PACCAR: Recalls 1,025 Trucks Due to Defective Door Latches
PACCAR: Recalls 1,646 Trucks Due to Defective Seatbelt Buckles
PETITE CREATIONS: Recalls Fresh Feeders Baby Cubes With Rattle
PFP ENTERPRISES: Recalls Beef Products Over E. Coli Concerns
PURE ENCAPSULATIONS: Sued for Misrepresenting Betaine Product
SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Faces Class Action Over Water Contamination
SOUTHEAST CREDIT: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime in Texas
STERIS: Amsco 3085 Hospital Bed May Bring Serious Injuries
STEWART'S SHOPS: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in New York
SYSTEM SENSOR: Recalls System Sensor Beam Smoke Detectors
TARGET CORP: Faces "Mousa" Class Suit Over Data Security Breach
TELESIGHT LLC: Contacted Class in Violation of TCPA, Suit Says
TRANS PECOS: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Mud Logger Claims
UNITED STATES: 1,000 Workers Join Class Action Over Gov't Shutdown
UNITED STATES: Larry Klayman Challenges Surveillance Efforts
VARIETES PIERRE: Expands Recall on Boutique Selection Plush Toys
VIRGINIA: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Suit Certified as Class Action
WEST MARINE: Recalls 4,600 Folding Bicycles Over Defective Frames
WESTERN BEEF: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages
WESTERN ELECTRICITY: Fails to Pay System Operators' OT, Suit Says
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Recalls 1,307 Trailers Over Defective Locks
WR GRACE: Emerges From Bankruptcy, Trusts to Pay Asbestos Victims
ZARA'S PASTA: Recalls Pasta Products Over Undeclared Gluten
* Medical Device Manufacturers Neglect Testing in Women, FDA Says
Aruba Networks, Inc. faces a shareholder lawsuit filed in the
California, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013.
On May 23, 2013, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Mazzafero v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., was filed in
California against the Company and certain of its officers. The
purported class action alleges claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to defend the
litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available,
the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or
range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable.
Suevon Lee, writing for Commercial Litigation Insider, reports
that Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick approved most
of a $8.5 billion settlement on Jan. 31 struck between Bank of
America and investors exposed to major losses from troubled
mortgage-backed securitizations prior to the financial crisis.
It was the final ruling issued by the Commercial Division judge
before her appointment to the Appellate Division, First Department
became effective on Feb. 3.
In a 54-page ruling, Justice Kapnick said the settlement --
reached in June 2011 with 22 investors after a year of discussion
only to be challenged by a small contingent of investors led by
insurance behemoth AIG for allegedly falling short of covering
actual losses -- was made in good faith and within the bounds of
reasonableness.
The judge held that Bank of New York Mellon, as the trustee for
these certificate holders, "did not abuse its discretion in
entering into the settlement agreement and did not act in bad
faith or outside the bounds of reasonable judgment."
Justice Kapnick, who presided over a nine-week evidentiary hearing
in 2013 during an Article 77 proceeding initiated to approve the
settlement, noted it was "clear" that BNYM placed "considerable
weight" on the fact that the settlement had the backing of 22
institutional investors, including BlackRock, MetLife, Pa-cific
Investment Management Company and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation.
The settlement, which involves 530 trusts comprised of loans that
stemmed from subprime lender Countrywide Financial acquired by
Bank of America in 2008, extinguishes potential claims arising
from a failure to repurchase faulty loans and successor liability,
The much-anticipated decision from the trial court on Jan. 31 was
regarded as an opportunity to establish some precedent-setting
groundwork as to what extent trustees have a duty in protecting
the interests of investors of such securities.
Justice Kapnick did reject one piece of the settlement in holding
that the trustee had not acted in good faith in settling loan
modification claims, which involves the repurchase of up to $31
billion worth of modified loans that are separate from the $8.5
billion figure.
"It is clear that the Trustee was aware of the issue and did
include it in a list of settlement issues to discuss with Bank of
America," Justice Kapnick wrote, adding that BNYM could have
retained an expert to "opine on the contract interpretation of the
various provisions of the PSAs that address the repurchase of
modified loans."
Justice Kapnick stayed an entry of her judgment until Feb. 7.
"We are pleased that the Court refused to approve the proposed
settlement in its entirety and found that the trustee acted
unreasonably in agreeing to compromise billions of dollars of
investor claims," AIG said in a statement. "We respectfully
disagree with the other aspects of the Court's ruling, which are
not supported by the record and which set a dangerous precedent
that could eliminate important protections for investors."
Mark Zauderer -- mzauderer@fzwz.com -- partner at Flemming Zulack
Williamson Zauderer who is among counsel representing AIG, said
the case "will continue for years to come both at the trial and
appellate levels."
AIG and other investors who opposed the settlement -- a list which
at one point included four dozen entities but has since
significantly narrowed -- argued in court briefs that the
discussion talks among investors, Bank of America and BNYM
amounted to "a secret low-ball settlement" without the trustee
"investigating or valuing any of the claims."
Objectors furthermore argued that fairness in settlement was
stymied due to the conflict of interest created by Mayer Brown's
representation of BNYM when it had counted among its clients Bank
of America plus several of the institutional investors.
A waiver at the outset provided that should settlement
negotiations fail, Mayer Brown would not bring action against Bank
of America on behalf of BNYM.
AIG also argued there was no loan file review conducted prior to
settlement and that investors' losses are projected at $100
billion.
Justice Kapnick's opinion notes that amidst negotiations,
conducted over the course of a year via face to face meetings,
conference calls and "thousands of email exchanges," the
negotiated figure ranged from $1.5 billion on Bank of America's
end to $16 billion by the institutional investors.
In a statement, BNYM said it was "extremely pleased that the court
has vindicated the trustee's actions by overwhelmingly approving
the settlement." Matthew Ingber -- mingber@mayerbrown.com -- a
partner at Mayer Brown, declined to comment on the ruling.
AIG said it plans to file post-trial motions challenging aspects
of the court's ruling and to determine how losses per trust would
be assessed along with the method of allocating the settlement
amount among the trusts.
Were any issues to head to the First Department on appeal,
Justice Kapnick is automatically recused from serving on the
presiding panel, said Office of Court Administration spokesman
David Bookstaver.
The settlement is not consummated until all appeals are exhausted.
The Superior Court for the State of California granted the motion
of Barnes & Noble, Inc. to stay a case filed by Kevin Khoa Nguyen
and the action has been stayed pending resolution of the Company's
appeal from the court's denial of its motion to compel
arbitration, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California against the Company. The complaint is
styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California
state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for
HP TouchPad Tablets placed on Barnes & Noble's website in August
2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and
false advertising under both New York and California state law,
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law,
and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance
of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a
specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does
not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response
to the complaint on May 18, 2012, and moved to compel plaintiff to
arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant to a
contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012.
The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration, and
the Company appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Company filed its opening brief on the appeal on
February 11, 2013. The answering brief was filed on April 13,
2013, and the Company's reply brief was filed on May 23, 2013. The
Company has also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to
transfer the action to New York. The court granted the Company's
motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action has been
stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from the court's
denial of its motion to compel arbitration.
Barnes & Noble, Inc. filed a second motion to dismiss a suit filed
Illinois over the tampering of PIN pads in certain of its stores,
according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct.
Barnes & Noble had discovered that PIN pads in certain of its
stores had been tampered to allow criminal access to card data and
PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the
terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October
24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action
complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern
District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of
California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other
classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes &
Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach
of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims
such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data
breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive
practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief
including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or
punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four
cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single Judge in the
Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second
motion to dismiss. That motion is pending, and a decision is not
expected from the Court until January 29, 2014 or later. It is
possible that additional litigation arising out of this matter may
be commenced on behalf of customers, banks or other card issuers,
payment card companies or stockholders seeking damages allegedly
arising out of this incident and other related relief.
The Company also has received inquiries related to this matter
from the Federal Trade Commission and eight state attorneys
general, all of which have either been closed or have not had any
recent activity. The Company intends to cooperate with them if
further activity arises. In addition, payment card companies and
associations may impose fines by reason of the tampering and
federal or state enforcement authorities may impose penalties or
other remedies against the Company.
The suit Dustin Torrez, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. has been
dismissed, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
On October 11, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
for the State of California against the Company. The complaint was
styled as a California state-wide class action. It alleged
violations of California Civil Code section 1747.08 (the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971) due to the Company's alleged
improper requesting and recording of zip codes from California
customers who used credit cards as payment. The complaint was re-
filed in the Superior Court for the State of California on
December 23, 2011 as a separate action. The Summons and Complaint
have not been served on the Company for either action. On February
10, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request that the action filed in
December be dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal was entered in
The hearing date for the certification motion in Lina v. Barnes &
Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al. is March
21, 2014, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making the
following allegations against defendants with respect to salaried
Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of
California from the period of August 5, 2007 to present: (1)
failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed
meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure
to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for
business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage
statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation
that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt
from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no
allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations
or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.
The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. The
parties have completed pre-certification discovery. On October 18,
2013, the court changed the previously ordered certification
motion schedule. The current schedule is as follows: Plaintiff's
motion for class certification was due November 11, 2013, Barnes &
Noble's opposition is due January 13, 2013, and plaintiff's reply
is due February 25, 2014. The hearing date for the certification
motion is March 21, 2014. No trial date has been set.
Barnes & Noble, Inc. filed a summary judgment motion in a suit
filed by a former Assistant Store Manager (ASM) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
On January 25, 2013, Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former Assistant
Store Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL). Specifically, Trimmer alleges that he and
other similarly situated ASMs were improperly classified as exempt
from overtime and denied overtime wages prior to July 1, 2010,
when the Company reclassified them as non-exempt. The
complaint seeks to certify a collective action under the FLSA
comprised of ASMs throughout the country employed from January 25,
2010 until July 1, 2010, and a class action under the NYLL
comprised of ASMs employed in New York from January 25, 2007 until
July 1, 2010. The parties have completed the first phase of
discovery with respect to the individual claims asserted by
Trimmer and one opt-in plaintiff only. The Court has stayed all
class-wide discovery at this point. The Company filed a summary
judgment motion on November 25, 2013.
Sakthi Prasad, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. medical
device maker Biomet Inc. will pay at least $56 million to settle a
multi-district lawsuit relating to defective metal hip
replacements, a court filing showed, ending a protracted legal
tussle.
The litigation involves Biomet's metal-on-metal hip replacement
device known as M2a Magnum. Hundreds of plaintiffs claimed in
various courts across the country that the hip device led to
The lawsuits were combined and jointly heard at the federal court
of Indiana, the state where Biomet is headquartered. The multi-
district litigation began in 2012.
As part of the settlement, Biomet will deposit $50 million into an
escrow account and another $6 million into an attorney fee fund,
the filing showed. The agreement with the plaintiffs shall extend
to all pending cases, and any future lawsuit filed in a federal
court on or before April 15, 2014.
Plaintiffs who have received a Biomet M2a 38 or M2a Magnum hip
replacement system as part of an initial hip replacement that was
rectified more than 180 days after it was implanted shall receive
a base award of $200,000.
Biomet, however, maintains that the injuries, losses and damages
were not due to its hip implants.
"Plaintiffs and Biomet are mindful of the uncertainties engendered
by litigation and are desirous of settling and compromising their
differences by entering into this settlement agreement," Judge
Robert Miller wrote in his order.
Biomet said in a statement late on Feb. 3 that it is pleased to
reach a settlement and resolve the lawsuits.
The case is Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability
Litigation (MDL 2391), Case No. 12-02391, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Indiana.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Starbucks Coffee Co., of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary
recall of about 28,000 Bodum rose gold glass coffee presses.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.
The glass carafe can fall out of the metal frame and plastic base
of the coffee press and break or shatter, posing laceration and
burn hazards to consumers.
Bodum has received about 14 reports of the glass carafes breaking
or shattering when the coffee press' plastic base separated from
the metal frame. There have been four reports of minor injuries,
including two lacerations and two burns.
The recall involves Bodum rose gold Chambord locking lid 8-cup
glass coffee presses. The coffee press' glass carafe, screen and
plunger are held in place by a metal frame which is rose gold-
colored with a black molded plastic base. Consumers put ground
coffee and hot water in the glass carafe and push the plunger and
screen down through the water to brew coffee. The coffee presses
are 10 inches high by about 4 inches in diameter. The coffee
press has a locking lid. Bodum is printed on the glass carafe.
Bodum and SKU number 11029732 are printed on a white label on the
bottom of the base. Bodum and Made in Portugal are embossed on
the bottom of the black plastic base.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/u4zdva
The recalled products were manufactured in Portugal and sold
exclusively at Starbucks nationwide and online at starbucks.com
from November 2013 through December 2013 for about $40.
Consumers should stop using the recalled coffee presses
immediately and return them to the Starbucks store where purchased
or contact Bodum for a full refund. Consumers who purchased the
coffee presses online should contact Bodum for a pre-paid return
label to return the coffee presses to receive a full refund.
Laura Gunderson, writing for The Oregonian, reports that a
Multnomah County jury sided with consumers on Jan. 31 in a class-
action lawsuit accusing BP West Coast Products of wrongly charging
35 cents extra to Oregon consumers who paid for gas with a debit
card at Arco stations and AmPm minimarkets.
And although the company plans to appeal the decision, a BP
spokesman said, the company will no longer charge the 35-cent fee
as it reviews "options and alternatives."
Steven Scharfstein, a Lake Oswego lawyer, was the named plaintiff
in the case, which was originally filed in December, 2011, and
sought to create a class out of Oregon customers who'd paid the
fees at any of about 50 stations. The case, which alleged that BP
didn't follow Oregon laws in alerting customers of the charge, was
brought by Portland lawyer David Sugerman.
The award allows consumers who bought gas between Jan. 1, 2011,
and Aug. 31, 2013, to recover $200 for the violations of the
state's Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act.
"We are disappointed with the verdict and we intend to appeal,"
said Scott Dean, a BP spokesman. "Although BPWCP continues to
believe that the debit card fee is a reasonable method to cover
bank transaction fees and is not part of the price of gasoline or
goods offered at ARCO retail locations, we are suspending charging
the debit card fee in Oregon while we review our options and
alternatives."
Mr. Sugerman could not comment on the case, which was set to move
into a new phase on Feb. 3. However, a release from Sugerman's
office said "case evidence showed that there are likely close to
2.9 million victims in the class."
Britax Child Safety Inc., of Fort Mill, S.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 216,000 in the United States and 8,800
in Canada B-Agile, B-Agile Double and BOB Motion stroller.
The hinge on the stroller's folding mechanism can partially
amputate consumers' fingertips, break their fingers or cause
severe lacerations, among other injuries, when they press the
release button while pulling on the release strap.
Britax has received eight incident reports. Incidents include one
partial fingertip amputation, one broken finger and severe finger
lacerations.
The recall involves Britax B-Agile, B-Agile Double and BOB Motion
strollers. The single and double strollers were sold in various
color schemes, including black, red, kiwi, sandstone, navy and
orange. They were manufactured between March 2011 and June 2013
and have the following model numbers: U341763, U341764, U341782
and U341783 for the B-Agile strollers; U361818 or U361819 for the
B-Agile Double strollers; and U391820, U391821 and U391822 for the
BOB Motion strollers. The model number and the manufacture date
in YYYY/MM/DD format can be found on label located on the inside
of the stroller's metal frame near the right rear wheel.
http://is.gd/IK1atn
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at major
retailers and juvenile products stores nationwide, and online at
Amazon.com, albeebaby.com, buybuybaby.com, diapers.com,
ToysRUs.com and other online retailers from May 2011 through June
2013 for between $250 and $450.
Consumers should stop using the recalled strollers immediately and
contact Britax to receive a free repair kit.
Starting date: January 29, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Care Bakery
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8568
Care Bakery is recalling Care brand bread products from the
marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on the
label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the
recalled products described below.
The following products have been sold in Alberta and British
If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.
There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.
The recall was triggered by the recall of an ingredient containing
undeclared milk. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.
The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.
Affected products:
Common Name Size UPC
----------- ---- ---
Dinner Rolls 288 g. 8 57459 00003 3
Premium White Loaf 600 g. 8 57459 00004 0
Burger Buns 448 g 8 57459 00003 3
Deli Buns 408 g 8 57459 00001 9
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Distribution: British Columbia, Alberta
The food recall warning issued on Jan. 29, 2014 has been updated
to correct some product information. This additional information
was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.
Care Bakery is recalling Care Bakery brand bread products from the
These products have been sold in Alberta and British Columbia.
undeclared milk. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.
Dinner Rolls 6 rolls 8 57459 00003 3
White Bread 1 loaf 8 57459 00004 0
White Hamburger Buns 4 buns 8 57459 00002 6
White Deli Buns 4 buns 8 57459 00001 9
The parties in a suit filed by five retirees of Constellium Rolled
Products-Ravenswood LLC and the United Steelworkers union are
currently engaged in discovery, which will end in January 2014 and
dispositive motions are due in February 2014, according to the
company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
On February 20, 2013, five retirees of Constellium Rolled
Products-Ravenswood LLC and the United Steelworkers union filed a
class action lawsuit against Constellium Rolled Products-
Ravenswood LLC in a federal district court in West Virginia,
alleging that Ravenswood improperly modified retiree health
benefits. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Constellium
Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC was obligated to provide retirees
with health benefits throughout their retirement at no cost, and
that Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC improperly capped,
through changes that went into effect in January 2013, the amount
it would pay annually toward those benefits. In 2013, the caps
will result in additional costs of $5 per month for approximately
1,800 retiree health plan participants. The parties are currently
engaged in discovery, which will end in January 2014 and
dispositive motions are due in February 2014. The company believes
that these claims are unfounded, and that Constellium Rolled
Products-Ravenswood LLC had a legal and contractual right to make
the applicable modifications.
Cubic Corporation faces a suit filed by transit customers alleging
breach of contract, violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, unjust
enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Act, according to
the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
In October 2013, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against the
company and one of the company's transit customers alleging breach
of contract, violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, unjust
enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Act. The
Plaintiff claims he was wrongly charged (i) multiple times, at two
dollars each time, for calling the call center that the company
operates for patrons of the company's transit customer, and (ii) a
transfer and a second fare when he paid for a fare plus a
transfer. The plaintiff is seeking to have the case certified as
a class action for all patrons charged in such a manner. The
company is undertaking the defense of the transit customer
pursuant to the company's contractual obligations to that
customer.
Cubic Corporation faces suit over its operation of the transit
customer's fare collection system, according to the company's Dec.
5, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013.
In December 2013, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against the
of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment in
relation to the company's operation of its transit customer's fare
collection system. The plaintiff claims to have not been credited
the cost of her transit card even after registration of the card,
as is required under the terms of the cardholder agreement. The
plaintiff also claims to have attempted to load value onto her
transit card and although her bank account was debited when doing
so, she claims the value has never been added on her transit
account. The plaintiff is seeking to have the case certified as a
class action for all transit patrons who have experienced the same
alleged problems with the fare system. The company is expecting
to undertake the defense of the transit customer pursuant to the
company's contractual obligations to that customer. The company
is investigating this matter and will vigorously defend this
lawsuit. Due to the preliminary nature of this case, the company
cannot estimate the probability of loss or any range of estimate
of possible loss.
Dollar General Corporation is awaiting approval of a preliminary
agreement to settle for up to $8.5 million a suit alleging it
improperly classified store managers as exempt executive
employees, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
quarter ended Nov. 1, 2013.
On August 7, 2006, a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v.
Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-
01537-LSC) ("Richter") in which the plaintiff alleges that she and
other current and former Dollar General store managers were
improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seeks to recover overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 15,
2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the
court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store
managers. The Company opposed the plaintiff's motion. On March 23,
2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class. On
December 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or
former Dollar General store managers. Approximately 3,950
individuals opted into the lawsuit, approximately 1,000 of whom
have been dismissed for various reasons, including failure to
cooperate in discovery.
On April 2, 2012, the Company moved to decertify the class. The
plaintiff's response to that motion was filed on May 9, 2012.
On October 22, 2012, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion
granting the Company's decertification motion. On December 19,
2012, the court entered an Order decertifying the matter and
stating that a separate Order would be entered regarding the opt-
in plaintiffs' rights and Cynthia Richter's individual claims. To
date, the court has not entered such an Order.
The parties agreed to mediate the matter, and the court informally
stayed the action pending the results of the mediation.
Mediations were conducted in January, April and August 2013. On
August 10, 2013, the parties reached a preliminary agreement,
which must be submitted to and approved by the court, to resolve
the matter for up to $8.5 million. The Company has deemed the
settlement probable and recorded such amount as the estimated
expense in the second quarter of 2013.
The Company believes that its store managers are and have been
properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that
the Richter action is not appropriate for collective action
treatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some,
although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiff
store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.
The parties in the suit Jonathan Marcum v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (Civil
Action No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) have continued informally to discuss
a potential settlement, according to Dollar General Corporation's
Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2013.
On April 9, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in
Virginia entitled Jonathan Marcum v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (Civil
Action No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) in which the plaintiffs, one of
whose conditional offer of employment was rescinded, allege that
certain of the Company's background check procedures violate the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Plaintiff Marcum also alleges
defamation. According to the complaint and subsequently filed
first and second amended complaints, the plaintiffs seek to
represent a putative class of applicants in connection with their
FCRA claims. The Company filed its response to the original
complaint in June 2012 and moved to dismiss certain allegations
contained in the first amended complaint in November 2012. That
motion remains pending. The plaintiffs' certification motion was
due to be filed on or before April 5, 2013; however, plaintiffs
asked the court to stay all deadlines in light of the parties'
ongoing settlement discussions. On November 12, 2013, the court
entered an order lifting the stay. The court has not issued a new
scheduling order or otherwise imposed any new deadlines on the
parties.
The parties have engaged in formal settlement discussions on three
occasions, once in January 2013 with a private mediator, and again
in March 2013 and July 2013 with a federal magistrate. Although
these formal discussions did not result in a resolution of the
matter, the parties have continued informally to discuss potential
settlement. The Company's Employment Practices Liability
Insurance ("EPLI") carrier has been placed on notice of this
matter and participated in both the formal and informal settlement
discussions. The EPLI Policy covering this matter has a $2
million self-insured retention.
The suit entitled Equal Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC
d/b/a Dollar General (Case No. 1:13-cv-04307) continues in the
Illinois, according to Dollar General's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
In September 2011, the Chicago Regional Office of the United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or
"Commission") notified the Company of a cause finding related to
the Company's criminal background check policy. The cause finding
alleges that Dollar General's criminal background check policy,
which excludes from employment individuals with certain criminal
convictions for specified periods, has a disparate impact on
African-American candidates and employees in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII").
The Company and the EEOC engaged in the statutorily required
conciliation process, and despite the Company's good faith efforts
to resolve the matter, the Commission notified the Company on July
26, 2012 of its view that conciliation had failed.
On June 11, 2013, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled
Equal Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar
General (Case No. 1:13-cv-04307) in which the Commission alleges
that the Company's criminal background check policy has a
disparate impact on "Black Applicants" in violation of Title VII
and seeks to recover monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of a class of "Black Applicants." The Company filed its
Answer to the Complaint on August 9, 2013. The court has not
entered a scheduling order and there are no other pending
deadlines at this time.
The Petition for Permission to Appeal an order remanding the case
filed on behalf of "key carriers" against Dollar General
Corporation to the Superior Court of the State of California is
pending, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 1, 2013.
On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen
California and Does 1 through 50 (Case No. RIC 1306158) ("Varela")
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside in which the plaintiff alleges that he and
other "key carriers" were not provided with meal and rest periods
in violation of California law and seeks to recover alleged unpaid
wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment
interest, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs. The
Varela plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California
"key carriers" as to these claims. The Varela plaintiff also
asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed
under California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").
The Company removed the action to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California (Case No. 5:13-cv-01172VAP-
SP) on July 1, 2013, and filed its Answer to the Complaint on July
1, 2013. On July 30, 2013, the plaintiff moved to remand the
action to state court. The Company's response to that motion was
filed on August 19, 2013.
On September 13, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion and
remanded the case. The Company filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
on September 23, 2013. The Petition for Permission to Appeal is
A status conference was scheduled by the Superior Court for
January 24, 2014.
The Petition to remand the case filed on behalf of "key carriers"
against Dollar General Corporation to the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Sacramento is pending,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov.
Similarly, on June 6, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Victoria Lee Dinger
Main v. Dolgen California, LLC and Does 1 through 100 (Case No.
34-2013-00146129) ("Main") was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Sacramento. The Main
plaintiff alleges that she and other "key carriers" were not
provided with meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements and
appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California wage
and hour laws and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages,
declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs. The Main plaintiff seeks to represent
a putative class of California "key carriers" as to these claims.
The Main plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business
practices and seeks to proceed under the PAGA.
The Company removed this action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 2:13-cv-
01637-MCE-KJN) on August 7, 2013, and filed its Answer to the
Complaint on August 6, 2013. On August 29, 2013, the plaintiff
moved to remand the action to state court. The Company's response
to that motion was filed on September 19, 2013. On October 28,
2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion and remanded the case.
The Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November
7, 2013. The plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 15,
2013. The Petition remains pending.
The plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the
lawsuit entitled Judith Wass v. Dolgen Corp, LLC (Case No. 13PO-
CC00039) was due to be filed on or before February 3, 2014, and
Dollar General Corporation's response is due to be filed on or
before March 5, 2014, according to Dollar General's Dec. 5, 2013,
for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2013.
On May 31, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Judith Wass v. Dolgen Corp,
LLC (Case No. 13PO-CC00039) ("Wass") was filed in the Circuit
Court of Polk County, Missouri. The Wass plaintiff seeks to
proceed collectively on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly
situated non-exempt store employees who allegedly were not
properly paid for certain breaks in violation of the FLSA. The
Wass plaintiff seeks back wages (including overtime), injunctive
and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On July 11, 2013, the Company removed this action to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case
No. 6:113-cv-03267-JFM). The Company filed its Answer on July 18,
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee has set the matter Rachel Buttry and Jennifer Peters v.
Dollar General Corp. (Case no. 3:13-cv-00652) for trial on
February 17, 2015, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2013.
On July 2, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Rachel Buttry and Jennifer
Peters v. Dollar General Corp. (Case no. 3:13-cv-00652) ("Buttry")
was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee. The Buttry plaintiffs seek to proceed on a
nationwide collective basis under the FLSA and as a statewide
class under Tennessee law on behalf of non-exempt store employees
who allegedly were not properly paid for certain breaks. The
Buttry plaintiffs seek back wages (including overtime), injunctive
and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, compensatory and
economic damages, "consequential" and "incidental" damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Company filed its Answer on August 7, 2013. The plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims is due
to be filed on or before December 20, 2013. The Company's
response to that motion is due to be filed on or before March 3,
2014. The plaintiffs' motion for certification of their statewide
claims is due to be filed on or before September 22, 2014. The
court has set this matter for trial on February 17, 2015.
Dollar General Corporation is facing a labor lawsuit originally
filed by Lisa Kocmich v. DolgenCorp, LLC (Case No. 2013CA005841AX)
in the Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida but removed to the
(Case No. 8:13-cv-02705-RAL-MAP), according to Dollar General's
On September 16, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Lisa Kocmich v.
DolgenCorp, LLC (Case No. 2013CA005841AX) ("Kocmich") was filed in
the Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida. The Kocmich
plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis under
the FLSA on behalf of all similarly situated non-exempt store
employees who allegedly were not paid for all hours worked
(including overtime) as required by the FLSA. The Kocmich
plaintiff seeks back wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.
The Company removed this matter to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 8:13-cv-02705-
RAL-MAP) on October 21, 2013. The Company filed its Answer on
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Facebook has
filed a motion to relate cases after a second class action
alleging Facebook private messages aren't private was filed in
On Dec. 30, Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley initiated their
class action against Facebook, alleging violations of federal and
state law in connection with the purported scanning of URLs in
private messages between Facebook users.
On Jan. 21, David Shadpour filed a separate class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in
Oakland, alleging similar facts and asserting the same state law
as the Campbell complaint, according to the motion.
Both complaints assert legal violations based on the same alleged
conduct: the alleged scanning of URLs in private messages between
Facebook users for the purpose of delivering targeted advertising
and building user profiles.
Messrs. Campbell and Hurley are seeking an order determining that
this action may be maintained as a class action; judgment against
Facebook for the asserted causes; appropriate declaratory relief
against Facebook; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
against Facebook; and statutory damages. They are being
represented by Michael W. Sobol, Melissa Gardner, Rachel Geman and
Nicholas Diamand of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; and
Hank Bates, Allen Carney and David Slade of Carney Bates & Pulliam
PLLC.
Mr. Shadpour is seeking an order determining that the action be
maintained as a class action; judgment against Facebook for his
and the class members' asserted causes; and appropriate
declaratory relief against Facebook; an award of statutory damages
for each violation. He is being represented by Lionel Z. Glancy
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP; and Jeremy A. Lieberman, Lesley
F. Portnoy and Patrick V. Dahlstrom of Pomerantz LLP.
Facebook is being represented by Joshua A. Jessen --
jjessen@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Mr. Shadpour's case has been assigned to District Judge Paul Singh
Grewal. Messrs. Campbell and Hurley's case has been assigned to
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
numbers: 4:13-cv-05996, 5:14-cv-00307
David McAfee and Dan Packel, writing for Law360, report that a
Pennsylvania federal judge on Jan. 30 tossed a putative class
action brought against Family Dollar Stores Inc. by a former store
manager who said the company failed to pay him for overtime hours,
holding that the plaintiff was exempt because of his management
responsibilities.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel granted summary judgment
in favor of Family Dollar and against named plaintiff
Albert Itterly, who brought the suit in 2008 under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The judge sided with Family
Dollar, which had argued that Mr. Itterly was exempt from the
overtime provisions of the PMWA because of his executive
On Jan. 31, attorneys for Mr. Itterly filed a notice of appeal to
the Third Circuit, seeking to reverse the summary judgment.
The judge's Jan. 30 order is a win for Family Dollar in the long-
running dispute in which Mr. Itterly sought to represent other
store managers who weren't paid overtime. Judge Stengel accepted
the company's arguments that Mr. Itterly was primarily a manager
and that he regularly directed the work of two or more employees.
Mr. Itterly filed suit in March 2008, alleging that Family Dollar
and its subsidiary Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania Inc. broke
the law when they didn't compensate him for overtime hours worked
between July 21, 2007, and Nov. 24, 2007. Mr. Itterly, who worked
an average of 63 hours per week and was paid a $930 weekly salary,
said he was misclassified as an exempt employee under the PMWA,
and therefore didn't receive proper overtime payment.
But, according to Judge Stengel, there are 21 similar cases
against Family Dollar in the Western District of North Carolina,
each of which were each decided on summary judgment favoring the
company. In each case, the store manager plaintiffs made very
similar allegations under similar circumstances, according to the
judge.
"In each circumstance, the court granted the defendant's motion
for summary judgment," Judge Stengel wrote. "There have been no
compelling reasons presented that would justify ruling differently
in this case."
Joel M. Cohn -- jcohn@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP, counsel to Family Dollar, said the company was very
pleased with the judgment.
Mr. Itterly is represented by Mark J. Gottesfeld of Winebrake &
Santillo LLC.
Family Dollar is represented by John A. Ybarra --
jybarra@littler.com -- Shanthi V. Gaur and Kristine Grady Derewicz
-- kderewicz@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC and Joel M.
Cohn of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
The case is Albert Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores Inc. et al.,
case number 5:08-cv-01266, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Igor Kossov, writing for Law360, reports that a class of
plaintiffs suing Flushmate over pressurized flushing mechanisms
that sometimes cause toilets to explode filed an unopposed motion
to settle on Jan. 31, having been offered $18 million by the
The cash relief will go to consumers who own or previously owned
the toilets equipped with the so-called Flushmate System, which
causes some porcelain toilets to crack or burst explosively,
allegedly causing property damage and injuries to the class
members. Flushmate has an ongoing recall for its products and
provides free repair kits to consumers, but this is the first cash
The $18 million common fund may increase if more money is needed
to cover damage and personal injuries. The proposed claims period
will last for a minimum of two years, according to court
documents. The settlement was reached after four days of
mediation before a retired judge, according to court documents.
In January 2013, a California federal judge stripped multiple
claims from a class action accusing Flushmate of misleading
consumers about defects in its pressurized flushing mechanisms
despite knowing that the flaws could cause toilets to explode.
United Desert Charities sued Flushmate, its parent company, Sloan
Valve Co., and toilet manufacturer American Standard in August
2012, claiming they failed to properly design and test the Series
503 Flushmate III Pressure-Assist Flushing System and that the
defendants marketed the toilet as "trouble-free" while failing to
disclose to consumers the potential for leaks, ruptures and
possible toilet explosion.
United Desert Charities' suit followed on the heels of a
nationwide recall of 2.3 million Flushmate mechanisms, announced
by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in June 2012. The
commission noted that it had received 304 reports of product
malfunctions, including 14 reported "impact or laceration"
The defective products, made from two pieces of injection-molded
plastic, were manufactured between October 1997 and February 2008,
according to the CPSC.
Although the company issued a repair kit following the recall,
United Desert Charities says the kit fails to repair the defect
and cannot even be installed in many toilets. The system must be
repaired by a professional plumber, but Flushmate has refused to
pay the associated labor cost, according to the complaint.
United Desert Charities is represented by Birka-White Law Offices.
Flushmate is represented by SNR Denton.
The case is United Desert Charities v. Flushmate, case number
2:12-cv-06878, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.
Fred & Friends, of Cumberland, R.I., a division of Lifetime
Brands, Inc., of Garden City, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 183,000 in the United States and 17,000 in Canada Fred &
Friends Chill Baby Artiste, Volume and Panic pacifiers. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.
The pacifiers fail to meet federal safety standards. The beard on
the Artiste and the knob on the Volume pacifiers can detach,
posing a choking hazard to young children. In addition, the
ventilation holes on the Volume and Panic pacifier guards are too
Fred & Friends has received one report of the knob on the Volume
pacifier detaching. No injuries have been reported.
The recall involves three styles of Fred & Friends Chill Baby
pacifiers, including the Artiste with a black plastic beard and
mustache, Volume with a black volume control knob and Panic with a
red panic button. The pacifier's name and UPC are printed on the
packaging. The Artiste's UPC is 728987021282, the Volume style's
UPC is 728987020599 and the Panic style's UPC is 728987020605.
The pacifiers are plastic and silicone rubber and measure about 2
inches wide and 11/2 inches tall.
http://is.gd/7jKKJj
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
department stores, gift, drug, toy, baby product, grocery and home
decorating stores, and hospital, museum gift shops nationwide and
various websites from April 2013 through December 2013 for about
$10.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifiers away from
young children and return them to Fred & Friends for a $12 refund.
Fred & Friends is providing a postage paid envelope for consumers
to return the recalled pacifiers.
GE Appliances, of Louisville, Ky., announced a voluntary recall of
about 350,000 in the United States and 2,700 in Canada (Gree
previously recalled 2.2 million dehumidifiers under 12 other brand
names in September 2013) dehumidifiers. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The dehumidifiers can overheat, smoke and catch fire, posing fire
and burn hazards to consumers.
The firm has received 16 reports of incidents with the recalled
GE-brand dehumidifiers, including 11 reports of overheating with
no property damage beyond the units, and 5 reports of fires beyond
the units which were associated with about $430,000 reported in
property damage. This is in addition to more than 71 fires and
$2,725,000 in property damage reported with other brands of Gree-
manufactured dehumidifiers in the previous recall. No injuries
have been reported.
The recall involves 30, 40, 50, 65-pint dehumidifiers with the GE
brand name. Recalled model numbers are listed below. The brand
name, model number, pint capacity and manufacture date are printed
on the nameplate sticker on the back of the dehumidifier. The
dehumidifiers are light gray plastic and measure between 19 and 23
inches tall, 13 and 15 inches wide, and 9 and 11 inches deep.
Model Number Capacity Manufacture Date
------------ -------- ----------------
ADER30LN 30 pint 1/08 through 12/10
(for January 2008 through December 2010)
ADEW30LN 30 pint
AHR30LL 30 pint
AHR30LM 30 pint
AHW30LM 30 pint
ADER40LN 40 pint
AHH40LL 40 pint
ADEH50LN 50 pint
AHH50LM 50 pint
http://is.gd/VYrQXm
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Sam's
Club, Walmart and other stores nationwide and in Canada, and
online at Amazon.com and Ebay.com, from April 2008 through
December 2011 for between $180 and $270.
Consumers should immediately turn off and unplug the dehumidifiers
and contact Gree to receive a refund.
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 660
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2014019
TC ID number: 2014019
Manufacturer recall
On certain model vehicles, the quick connectors that join the fuel
lines to the fuel tank may not have been properly secured. As a
result, the fuel line might loosen or disconnect, resulting in a
fuel leak. Fuel leakage, in the presence of an ignition source,
could result in a fire causing property damage and/or personal
Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, secure the fuel line quick
connectors.
Affected products: 2014 Chevrolet Trax model
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,500 (22,000 units were previously
recalled for repair in August 2013) KRITTER and SNIGLAR Junior
Beds. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
The metal rod connecting the guard rail to the bed frame can break
in use, posing a laceration hazard.
IKEA has received one additional report from the UK of a metal rod
on a SNIGLAR bed breaking. A child received a small scratch to
the arm from the broken metal rod.
Recalled IKEA junior beds include the KRITTER and SNIGLAR models
with a guard rail on one side. The pine wood KRITTER beds have
animal cut-outs, such as a dog and cat on the headboard. A label
on the headboard or underside of the KRITTER bed has a date stamp
of 1114 to 1322 representing the year and week of production
(YYWW), a 600.904.70 model number, and 19740 supplier number. The
SNIGLAR natural beech wood beds have a white painted fiberboard
insert on the headboard and footboard of the bed. A label on the
headboard or underside of the SNIGLAR bed has a date stamp of 1114
to 1318 (YYWW), a 500.871.66 model number, and 18157 supplier
number. This recall expands the date stamp for SNIGLAR beds to
1049 to 1318. The beds measure about 65 inches long by 30 inches
wide with a 22 to 26 inch high headboard.
http://is.gd/mwqNzH
The recalled products were manufactured in Poland, Bosnia
Herzegovina and Romania and sold exclusively at IKEA stores
nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from July 2005 through
May 2013 for between $60 and $90.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled KRITTER and
SNIGLAR junior beds and contact IKEA to receive a free repair kit.
Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert
Recalling firm: INNO Bakery
Distribution: British Columbia
----------- ---- ----
Birds Nest Cookies 270 g 6 77210 08020 9
Cranberry Pistachios Biscotti 250 g 6 77210 00601 8
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Jan. 31 disclosed
that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against K12,
Inc. and certain of its senior executives. The action is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. K12, Inc., et al.,
1:14-cv-00108-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va.), and asserts claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in K12
common stock during the period from March 11, 2013 through
October 9, 2013, inclusive. A copy of the Complaint can be found
on the website for counsel for the Plaintiff at
http://www.blbglaw.com
The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially misleading
statements and omissions about K12 -- one of the largest private
education management organizations in the United States --
regarding its student enrollment and revenue growth prospects for
fiscal 2014, including compliance with state regulations governing
enrollment. During the Class Period, the Company publically
endorsed analysts' consensus estimates for full fiscal 2014
financial guidance and emphasized that K12 was "on track to have
one of the best business development years" in the Company's
history, which was supposed to "drive even higher growth for
fiscal 2014" than in fiscal 2013. Further, the Complaint alleges
that Defendants falsely touted K12's "serious" attention to
regulatory compliance. These and similar misrepresentations and
omissions were made on the Company's quarterly earnings calls and
at industry conferences.
On October 8, 2013, after the market closed, the Company alerted
investors to the fact that, contrary to Defendants' public
representations during the Class Period, K12's growth prospects
were limited and impeded by the Company's failure to timely invest
in promotional efforts to enroll new students in fiscal 2014. As
the Company disclosed at the end of the Class Period, K12's "own
promotional program started later than it should have, and drove
more applications later in the summer" when it was too late to
convert them into student enrollments. In addition, K12's growth
prospects were hampered by the Company's failure to consider and
adhere to legal compliance requirements affecting student
enrollment in fiscal 2014. As the Company further acknowledged,
K12 failed to "appropriately" consider increased compliance
requirements that were applicable in certain states in the fiscal
2014 enrollment season. On October 8, 2014, K12 filed a Form 8-K
with the SEC, which included a press release revealing that K12's
actual fiscal 2014 revenue guidance was $905-$925 million -- not
the $986.8 million figure endorsed weeks earlier -- because 2014
enrollments were below the levels that investors were told to
expect due to critical operational and performance deficiencies at
K12's enrollment centers. In response to this disclosure, K12
stock fell significantly, by more than 38%, falling from a closing
price of $28.59 on October 8, 2013 to a closing price of $17.60 on
October 9, 2013.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for the
false and misleading statements and omissions issued by Defendants
during the Class Period. In addition, the Complaint alleges that
Defendants Chief Executive Officer Ronald J. Packard, President
and Chief Operating Officer Timothy L. Murray, former Chief
Financial Officer Harry T. Hawks, and Chief Financial Officer
James J. Rhyu violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from
January 31, 2014. Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion
for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is April 1, 2014. Any member of
the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed Class.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at (212) 554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com
Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that Leighton
has secured a first-round victory in the class action brought
against it over its disclosure of an investigation into the
company's dealings in Iraq by the Australian Federal Police.
The Victorian Supreme Court on Jan. 31 threw out an application by
class-action litigant Melbourne City Investments seeking unlimited
discovery into the company's affairs for a period extending back
as much as two years. The court also upheld Leighton's
application to stop MCI from using a letter of legal advice to the
company regarding the alleged knowledge of senior Leighton
executives of bribery in Iraq.
Judge James Judd also ordered that MCI's statement of claim be
struck out, but granted leave for MCI to re-plead its case.
MCI, led by former Minter Ellison partner Mark Elliott, who is
also acting as MCI's solicitor, brought the action against
Leighton in the wake of media reports about the allegations in
October last year.
According to the reports, former acting chief executive David
Stewart and Leighton International boss David Savage were
allegedly aware in 2010 the company had allegedly paid kickbacks
to government officials in Iraq.
Leighton disclosed to the market in 2012 it was being investigated
by the AFP.
Mr. Elliott sought the extended disclosure period alleging that it
was likely Leighton was aware of the investigation by the AFP much
earlier than was disclosed and was also aware of the alleged
payments as far back as 2010.
However, Justice Judd said allowing such a lengthy period of
discovery would be "fishing for a cause of action" and as such was
impermissible.
Justice Judd also criticized elements of MCI's pleading, saying
MCI had not sought to ascertain whether the legal advice letter
was confidential before referencing in its pleading.
The matter will be heard again on February 14.
Posting date: January 30, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37757
Affected products: Relakz brand children's outerwear with neck or
waist drawstring
The recall involves these products:
Product Description Color Style number
------------------- ----- ------------
Long-sleeved, high-neck pink leopard pattern 428028G
fleece sweatshirt with
neck drawstring
Striped long-sleeved, pink and mauve 428019KG
hooded fleece sweatshirt striped with a dog printed
with neck drawstring on it
Short-sleeved, hooded, aqua blue (turquoise) 427025G
tunic-length fleece sweatshirt
with a decorative cord in the
hood and a waist drawstring
Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caught
on playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in
strangulation, or in the case of vehicles, in the child being
dragged.
Neither Health Canada nor No Excess Inc. has received reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of this product.
3,562 recalled sweatshirts were sold at L'Aubainerie stores.
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold between
July 2013 and January 2014.
Distributor No Excess
Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the
garment to eliminate the hazard.
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Peanut
Recalling firm: Omega Food Importers Co. Ltd.
Distribution: National
Brand Name Common Name UPC
---------- ----------- ---
Tago Cocoa Wafers 5 908310 286709
Tago Cream Wafers 5 908310 286082
Tago Halvah Wafers 5 908310 286853
Tago Crispy Wafer with 5 908310 286365
Cocoa Cream (70%)
CBC News reports that Two Thunder Bay women say they hope a class
action lawsuit will help children in foster care. Holly Papassay
and Toni Grann are former crown wards and now claimants in the
suit. They allege the province failed to protect the rights of
children in its care. The lawsuit alleges that the province
failed to protect their legal rights and that it should have
informed them they could be entitled to compensation.
Ms. Grann said she's joining the class action suit so the lawyers
can draw attention to problems in the system. "The compensation .
. . It's not our prime motive. But it is a way to get it out there
and it is the vehicle that they can use to help create change."
Lawyer Sandy Zaitzeff filed the suit in Thunder Bay, in
partnership with a law firm from Toronto.
Ms. Papassay and Ms. Grann say they suffered abuse when they were
crown wards. Ms. Papassay is named as the representative
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Mr. Zaitzeff said both women were entitled to apply for
compensation, but the province never told them.
Ms. Grann said her early childhood was also a nightmare. Ms.
Grann said she could have used the money for counselling, however
both women emphasized at a news conference on Jan. 30 that that's
not the main reason for the lawsuit.
The allegations haven't been proven in court.
Mr. Zaitzeff noted it will take a few years for the lawsuit to be
certified.
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
System: Other
Units affected: 1025
number: 14KWB/114-A
On certain vehicles, the driver and passenger door latches may
fail and remain either permanently locked or unlocked. If this
were to occur, the driver and/or passenger(s) may not be able to
quickly exit the vehicle in an emergency, which could increase the
risk of injury.
Dealers will replace affected door latches.
Maker Model Model year(s) affected
----- ----- ----------------------
KENWORTH T680 2013, 2014
PETERBILT 579 2013, 2014
System: Seats and Restraints
number: 14KWC / 114-B
On certain vehicles, the seat belts may not comply with Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies. Due to
a defect in manufacturing, the seat belt buckle may not release as
required by the standard. This could hinder egress from the
vehicle in an emergency, increasing the risk of injury.
Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace affected seatbelt
buckles.
KENWORTH T800 2014
PETERBILT 320 2014
KENWORTH C500 2014
KENWORTH W900 2014
Issue: Choking Hazard
Affected products: Fresh Feeders baby cubes with rattle
The recall involves a type of rattle into which food can be
introduced in the silicone pouch, enabling the baby to taste
various foods. The products can be identified by UPC
Baby Cubes feeders are shaped in a rattle-type circular handle to
which the silicone pouch is attached. Only one model is
available: Ref# SH-9711 in a green and yellow colour.
This toy does not meet the Canadian safety requirements for the
size and shape of rattles. The handle of these rattles can enter
and become lodged in a child's throat which poses a
choking/suffocation hazard to young children.
The latch can also break and detach from the rattle, which poses a
choking hazard to young children. If the latching system opens,
the food contained in the silicone pouch can also pose a choking
risk.
An incident in which the latching system broke was reported to
Health Canada but no injury was reported.
Approximately 1272 units were sold in Canada, in Sobeys stores
only.
The recalled rattles were manufactured in China and sold from
February 2013 to January 2014.
Distributor Petite Creations
Consumers should stop using the product immediately and contact
Petite Creations to obtain more information on how to proceed at
1-450-981-9842 or email Petite Creations.
Barry Shlachter, writing for Fort Worth Star-Telegram, reports
that a Fort Worth meat company called PFP Enterprises is recalling
about 15,900 pounds of beef products because they may be
contaminated with six strains of E. coli, the Department of
Agriculture's food safety service announced on Feb. 5.
No reports of illnesses have been received, it said.
The cuts, mainly fajita or skirt steak, were produced on Dec. 5
and shipped to stores and restaurants in Arizona, Puerto Rico,
Oklahoma and Texas, it said. One item was identified as 20-pound
boxes of Movie Grill Sliced Tenderloin.
PFP's own testing showed that beef trim had tested "presumptive
positive" for toxin-producing E. coli strains, but the company
"inadvertently did not carry the test out to confirmation, and not
all affected product was held," it said
The company did not immediately return calls about the recall.
Consumers with questions are advised to contact PFP at 817-546-
The Food Safety Inspection Service advises consumers to cook beef
at a temperature of 145 degrees with a three-minute rest time.
The only way to confirm that beef is cooked to a temperature high
enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that
measures internal temperature, it adds.
Troy Kelly, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pure Encapsulations Inc. a/k/a Pure Encapsulations,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00215-RGK-PJW (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2014)
alleges negligent and intentional misrepresentation with respect
to the Company's Betaine HCI Pepsin product.
The Plaintiff alleges that Pure Encapsulations has made, and
continues to make, affirmative misrepresentations and omissions
regarding its Betaine product. The Plaintiff contends that as a
consequence of the Company's unfair and deceptive practices, the
Plaintiff and other consumers have purchased Betaine under the
false impression that, by consuming the product they would be
enjoying the healthful and nutritional benefits associated with a
product which they reasonably believed, based upon the Defendant's
representations, was derived from sugar beets, rather than betaine
hydrochloride that was created synthetically.
Pure Encapsulations Inc., a/k/a Pure Encapsulations, was
incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Massachusetts. Pure
Encapsulations is a formulator, manufacturer and distributor of a
variety of health supplements, including Betaine.
Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
jason@kazlg.com
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
369 South Doheny Drive, Suite 415
Rebecca Forand, writing for South Jersey Times, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed by 12 borough residents
against Solvay Specialty Polymers in regards to Paulsboro's public
water supply being contaminated with chemicals that were used in
the company's plastics-making enterprise.
Tests of Paulsboro's main water supply -- well No. 7 -- has found
levels of perfluorochemicals (PFCs), such as perfluorononanoic
acid (PFNA) up to 150 parts per trillion, or .15 parts per
PFCs and PFNA are bioaccumulating chemicals that were used by
Solvay -- located in neighboring West Deptford -- from the 1980s
through 2010. Effects of the chemicals are still being studied,
but according to the Environmental Protection Agency, they can be
toxic to laboratory animals and wildlife.
The lawsuit is asking for declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, including
medical monitoring costs.
"The named Plaintiff(s) fear harm to themselves, their families,
property and any reasonable member of the potential class members
likewise fear harm," the lawsuit states.
The plaintiffs are claiming negligence, private nuisance, public
nuisance, strict liability, past and continuing trespass and past
and continuing battery. They are asking for medical monitoring,
damages up to $5 million and the provision of clean water, as well
as punitive and compensatory damages.
"Solvay's negligent acts and omissions proximately caused and
continue to proximately cause damage to the plaintiff(s) and other
class members in the form of bodily injury," the lawsuit reads.
It also asks for individual purification systems that clean all
water being consumed or used in bathing and cleaning.
Recently, Paulsboro's governing body and the Department of
Environmental Protection have warned for "extreme caution" to be
used when drinking the borough's public water. Parents of the
most sensitive residents, those younger than a year old, should be
using bottled water to prepare formula or feeding their infants
liquid formula, according to the DEP.
As of Jan. 31, Solvay has begun offering cases of bottled water to
Paulsboro residents who are pregnant or nursing, or if there is a
child younger than one in the home. One case per week is
available for qualifying residents and can be picked up at Weiss
True Value hardware store on Broad Street.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Lewis G. Adler, Louis
D. Fletcher, Roger C. Mattson and Paul DePetris.
Melody Dareing, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that
Lori Stephenson filed a class-action lawsuit Jan. 13 in the
Sherman Division of the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, against Southeast Credit Systems LP, Trigon Investors LLC,
Jeff Hurt and Joe Longbotham, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. She is filing suit of all others of similar
situations, the complaint states.
The lawsuit states the company is a national provider of national
receivable management services and the individuals are company
owners. Ms. Stephenson was employed as a debt collector from
October 2004 to June 5, 2013. She, and other class members, often
worked in excess of 40 hours a week, but weren't paid by the
defendants one-and-a-half times pay, the complaint alleges.
The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid back wages and liquidated
damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation found due,
court costs, attorney's fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.
Ms. Stephenson is being represented by Jeffrey Smith and Barbara
Hale -- bhale@metrocrestlaw.com -- of Blanscet Hooper & Hale LLP.
United States District Court Eastern District of Texas Court Case
No. 4:14-CV-0019-RAS-DDB.
Amy O. Callaghan at Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold, McCartney &
Giuffra LLP reports that the Amsco 3085 hospital bed, designed for
surgical use, has proven to be drastically defective with
continual events of the bed collapsing involuntarily during
surgery. A defective hospital bed in any case is dangerous, but a
collapsing bed during surgery could bring about serious injuries,
if not fatalities.
Steris, the manufacturer of this defective surgical table, claims
it to be "one of the most reliable and popular surgical tables."
However, in hospitals across the US, there have been numerous
instances where the table power and/or handheld positioning
controls have failed or the table itself has collapsed.
An FDA report suggests the malfunctions of the table are likely
caused by the intrusion of liquids into the handheld position
control which is not fluid-proof or watertight. Whether or not
this has been the cause of malfunction in each case, the widely
used surgical bed is, undoubtedly, not up to satisfactory
standards.
Holly Gregory, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stewart's Shops Corp., Case No. 7:14-cv-00033-TJM-ATB
(N.D.N.Y., January 9, 2014) is brought for violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws.
Ms. Gregory alleges that the Company has systematically failed to
pay its workforce for all hours worked in violation of state and
federal law. She was employed at the Company's West Carthage, New
York store as a non-exempt hourly employee.
Stewart's Shops Corp. is a New York domestic business corporation
with its principal place of business in Saratoga County, New York.
Ryan M. Finn, Esq.
HACKER MURPHY, LLP
7 Airport Park Blvd.
E-mail: rfinn@hackermurphy.com
System Sensor, of St. Charles, Ill., announced a voluntary recall
of about 610 system sensor reflected beam smoke detectors.
When used with certain power supplies, the reflected beam smoke
detectors can fail to send a signal to the fire alarm control
panel that sounds the alarm and fail to alert occupants of a fire.
There were no incidents that were reported.
The recall involves System Sensor's reflected beam smoke detectors
with model number BEAM1224S and date codes 2111 through 3053. The
YMMW format date codes stand for (2111) 2012-November-1st week of
Nov. through (3053) 2013-May-3rd week of May. The detectors are
ivory and black and measure 10 inches high by 71/2 inches wide.
The model number and date code are printed on a label on the back
of the detector's cover and on the product's packaging. The
reflected beam smoke detectors were used primarily in commercial
buildings as part of the fire alarm system. Detectors used with
acceptable power supplies, as listed on the company website, do
not need to be replaced.
http://is.gd/IWNPP3
The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Alarm system, security equipment and electrical equipment
contractors and dealers for use in commercial building fire alarm
systems from November 2012 through May 2013 for about $800.
Owners with the affected smoke detectors powered by a power supply
that is not on the company's acceptable list available online,
should contact System Sensor to receive free replacement smoke
detectors. System Sensor and its distributors are contacting
purchasers directly.
Ayman Mousa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-00037-DOC-JPR
(C.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) accuses the Company of failing to
secure and protect its customers' personal information provided to
it, which encompasses e-mail addresses, passwords, credit and
debit card numbers, expiration dates, and mailing and billing
On December 19, 2013, the Company made public its largest and most
wide-reaching security breach to date. Target revealed that
hackers had succeeded in gaining access to 40 million credit card
records, debit card records, and other personal financial
information for many of its customers.
Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation based in
Minneapolis, of Minnesota. Target is a nationwide retailer ranked
36th on the Fortune 500 list.
Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
369 S. Doheny Drive, Suite 415
nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com
sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
COUNSELONE, P.C.
E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com
justin@counselonegroup.com
Florencio Pacleb, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TeleSight, LLC, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:14-cv-00200-R-CW (C.D.
Cal., January 9, 2014) accuses the Defendants of negligently,
knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
TeleSight, LLC is a "person" as defined by the Communications Act.
According to the complaint, TeleSight used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" to place its daily calls to the Plaintiff seeking
to collect the debt he allegedly owed. The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.
369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
E-mail: tfriedman@attomeysforconsumers.com
nbontrager@attomeysforconsumers.com
L. Paul Mankin, IV, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN, IV
8730 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 310
E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com
Jeffrey Janczak, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly
Situated v. Trans Pecos Well Logging, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-
00001-RAJ (W.D. Tex., January 9, 2014) alleges that Trans Pecos
failed to pay its "mud loggers" overtime as required by the Fair
Instead, Mr. Janczak contends, Trans Pecos pays its mud loggers a
flat amount for each day they work -- regardless of whether they
were working overtime or not. The collective action seeks to
recover the unpaid wages and other damages owed to these workers.
Trans Pecos is a Texas company with its principal office in the
Western District of Texas, Pecos Division. Trans Pecos offers a
variety of mug logging services, including horizontal mud logs,
real time streaming mud logging, gas monitoring, digital mud
sample pictures, and hydrocarbon cut tests.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
Jenna Greene, writing for Legal Times, reports that more than
1,000 "essential" federal employees who had to work during the
government shutdown have joined a lawsuit alleging the government
owes them money for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Class action plaintiffs firm Mehri & Skalet amended its Oct. 24
complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, adding 1,017
workers and requesting that the court authorize notice of the
lawsuit be sent to all 1.3 million federal employees who had to
work when the government was closed. Partner Heidi Burakiewicz --
hburakiewicz@findjustice.com -- is lead counsel in the case.
The shutdown began Oct. 1 after Congress failed to pass a budget
for the new fiscal year. Federal employees deemed "essential" had
to continue working but weren't paid until after the shutdown
ended Oct. 16.
That violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the plaintiffs'
lawyers say, because the law requires that employees receive
minimum wages and overtime pay on their regularly scheduled
paydays.
The first biweekly pay period affected by the government shutdown
was Sept. 22 to Oct. 5. While employees received a partial
paycheck on their regularly scheduled payday, it did not include
money for work performed from Oct. 1 to Oct. 5. (All federal
workers were paid retroactively after the government re-opened.)
The plaintiffs in Martin et al. v. United States say they are
entitled to "liquidated damages" because they showed up for work
but weren't paid on time. "This is not a windfall for these
employees," according to Mehri & Skalet's website. "Liquidated
damages are intended to compensate employees for the losses they
may have suffered as a result of not receiving the proper wages
when due."
The firm argues that liquidated damages will equal the minimum
wages the government was required to pay essential employees but
did not on their regularly scheduled payday, and double the amount
of the overtime that was unpaid on that date.
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that Larry Klayman,
the attorney and activist challenging the U.S. government's
surveillance efforts in court, on Feb. 3 told a judge he was eager
to begin collecting information and evidence from national
security agencies while part of his case is on appeal.
Mr. Klayman won a ruling in December from U.S. District Judge
Richard Leon that the government's collection and storage of
Americans' telephone data likely violated individual privacy
rights under the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Department of Justice
is appealing Leon's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit.
Mr. Klayman on Feb. 3 told Judge Leon that he wanted to begin
discovery as soon as possible on the pieces of his case not on
appeal, including his challenge to the government's alleged
collection of Internet communications. "These matters need to
move forward," he said.
The Justice Department has asked Judge Leon to dismiss the claims
that are not on appeal. Marcia Berman, an attorney in the Federal
Programs Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division,
said today in court that the government feared the disclosure of
classified information once discovery begins.
Judge Leon said his first step will be to consider whether he can
hear the government's motion to dismiss while the appeal on the
constitutional issues is pending.
Mr. Klayman filed several lawsuits challenging government
surveillance efforts following leaks earlier this year by
ex-National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Mr. Klayman and his co-plaintiffs sued as subscribers of
telecommunications companies that were reportedly the subject of
NSA intelligence-gathering efforts.
On Dec. 16, 2013, Judge Leon concluded the NSA's bulk collection
of telephone records "almost certainly" violated the individual
privacy rights of American citizens. He ordered an injunction
halting the collection of records for Mr. Klayman and another
plaintiff, but put that order on hold pending a likely appeal by
the Justice Department.
The government appealed soon after. Mr. Klayman also filed an
appeal. Judge Leon found the court lacked jurisdiction to
consider Mr. Klayman's claim under the federal Administrative
Procedure Act, which was separate from the constitutional claim.
Mr. Klayman's case has grown narrower in the weeks since Leon's
ruling. On Jan. 10, the Justice Department asked Leon to dismiss
aspects of Mr. Klayman's lawsuit that didn't involve
constitutional issues, including claims under the Administrative
Procedure Act and Stored Communications Act; claims for relief
from programs that allegedly collect Internet metadata (the
government said it discontinued the program in 2011) and target
Internet communications; and common law tort claims.
Mr. Klayman replied on Jan. 30 that he was withdrawing his
Administrative Procedure Act and Stored Communications Act claims
and would file an administrative federal tort claims case.
"However," he wrote, "the constitutional claims will continue to
be vigorously pursued." He said he'd continue to pursue claims
challenging the alleged collection of Internet-based data and
Subcategory: Toys
Affected products: Boutique Selection plush penguin, dolphin and
The recall involves plush toys in the shape of penguins, dolphins
and seals made of 100% polyester.
The penguin has a white front, grey back, yellow ring around its
neck and black and orange head. The dolphin has a white front and
grey back. The seal is all white. The eyes of the stuffed
animals are made of small black plastic beads. The products bear
the item number and Universal Product Code (UPC) on a detachable
cardboard label, the words "imported by VPP" and permit number
QC-003253 on a label sewn into the bottom of the plush toy.
Products affected by this recall:
Plush Toy Size Item number
--------- ---- -----------
Penguin 17.8 cm. (7 inches) 190052
Dolphin 24.1 cm. (9.5 inches) 190053
Seal 21.6 cm. (8.5 inches) 190051
Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has identified
that the hard eyes can detach from these plush toys. These small
parts pose a choking hazard to young children.
Neither Health Canada nor Varietes Pierre Prud'homme Inc. has
received reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of
these products.
Approximately 904 of the recalled plush toys were sold in Canada.
The recalled plush toys were manufactured in China and sold from
Dec. 2012 to Jan. 2014.
Importer Varietes Pierre Prud'homme Inc.
St-Jerome
Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from
children and return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.
The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed that on January 31,
2014, a federal district court in Virginia certified as a class
action a lawsuit challenging that state's ban on marriage for
same-sex couples, extending the scope of those represented in the
lawsuit to all same-sex couples in the state who cannot legally
marry or whose legal marriages performed elsewhere are not
recognized by the commonwealth.
The case was initially filed on behalf of two couples by the
American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, Lambda
Legal, and the law firm Jenner and Block.
"We want to be clear that we're fighting for families across the
state," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, executive director of the
ACLU of Virginia. "This marriage ban affects families in a number
of different ways by denying them the many protections that come
with marriage. It's important that our case address the many ways
that families are hurt by our discriminatory laws."
The lawsuit was originally filed on August 1, and argued that,
through the marriage bans, Virginia sent a purposeful message that
lesbians, gay men, and their children are viewed as second-class
citizens who are undeserving of the legal sanction, respect,
protections, and support that heterosexuals and their families are
able to enjoy through marriage.
"The stories of our clients are just a small representation of the
thousands of stories across the country in states like Virginia
that deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry," said
Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual
and Transgender Project. "We're glad that this case will apply to
all Virginians who wish to make a lifelong commitment to each
other, and hope that Virginia will follow the 17 other states that
have preceded it in granting marriage equality."
The couples named originally in the class action case are:
Joanne Harris, 38, and Jessica Duff, 33, of Staunton, who have
been together since 2006 and have a four-year-old son, Jabari.
Christy Berghoff, 34, and Victoria Kidd, 35, who are from
Winchester and have been together almost ten years. They have a
one year old daughter, Lydia. They married legally in Washington,
DC, but their home state does not recognize their marriage.
"We are pleased that the court has certified this case as a class
action. With this certification, all the same-sex couples in
Virginia seeking the freedom to marry and those who want Virginia
to recognize their marriages have officially become part of the
fight against the state's discriminatory constitutional and
statutory marriage bans," said Greg Nevins, counsel in Lambda
Legal's Southern Regional Office based in Atlanta.
West Marine Products Inc., of Watsonville, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,600 Folding Bicycles. Consumers
The bicycle's frame can break during use, posing a fall hazard to
the rider.
West Marine has received three reports of the bicycle's frame
breaking, resulting in bruises and scrapes to a rider.
The recall involves two models of folding bicycles, the Jetty
Express 2 and the Port Runner 2, that are designed for use in and
around docks and marinas. The Jetty Express 2 has a blue and
white frame and folds at a hinge in the middle. Jetty Express 2
is printed on the bike's frame. The Port Runner 2 has a red frame
and folds at a hinge in the middle. Port Runner 2 is printed on
the bike's frame.
http://is.gd/dJHOiY
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at West
Marine stores nationwide, online at http://www.westmarine.comand
in the West Marine catalog from March 2010 through July 2013 for
between $300 and $400.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and8
return them to West Marine for a free replacement folding bicycle.
James Pittman v. Western Beef, Inc., Western Beef Retail, Inc.,
Peter Castellana, Jr., Thomas Moranzoni And Richard Fraschilla,
Individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-80030-DMM (S.D. Fla., January 9,
2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated employees of the
Defendants to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief under the
Western Beef, Inc. and Western Beef Retail, Inc. own and operate a
company for profit in Palm Beach, Florida, and employ persons like
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees to work on their
behalf in providing labor for their practice. The Individual
Defendants managed, owned, direct and operated a retail
supermarket business.
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 707
E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
Matthew Cartier, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Western Electricity Coordinating Council, a Utah
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00079-WJM-MJW (D. Colo., January 9,
2014) alleges that although the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated reliability coordinator system operators worked overtime
hours for the Company, it failed to pay them all overtime
compensation due under state and federal law.
Western Electricity Coordinating Council is a Utah corporation
headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. WECC operates under a
delegation agreement with North American Electric Reliability
Corporation, a not-for-profit entity, as the Regional Entity
responsible for coordinating and promoting bulk electric system
reliability in the Western Interconnection. WECC's service
territory extends from Canada to Mexico.
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
On certain travel trailers, some deadbolt locks could fail and
lock the interior handle, preventing a person located inside the
travel trailer from being able to exit when the door is locked.
This could increase the risk of injury.
Dealers will replace affected deadbolt locks.
WINNEBAGO MINNIE 2012, 2013, 2014
SUNNYBROOK BRISTOL BAY 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2011
2012, 2013, 2014, 2011,
SUNNYBROOK EDGEWATER 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
SUNNYBROOK HARMONY 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
SUNNYBROOK SUNSET CREEK 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
SUNNYBROOK TITAN 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
SUNNYBROOK REMINGTON MICROLITE 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
WINNEBAGO ONE 2012, 2013, 2014
WINNEBAGO ULTRA LITE 2012, 2013, 2014
WINNEBAGO LITE FIVE 2012, 2013, 2014
SUNNYBROOK BROOKSIDE 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
The Associated Press reports that W.R. Grace, the Maryland-based
chemical company forced into bankruptcy because of asbestos-
related lawsuits, has emerged from Chapter 11 protection.
The company posted on its website on Feb. 3 that its
reorganization plan had gone into effect. The company had filed
for bankruptcy in 2001.
The asbestos lawsuits alleged that hundreds of people in the
Montana town of Libby were killed or sickened by exposure to
asbestos dust that came from a former Grace mine.
The Daily Record reports that the reorganization plan involves two
trusts to compensate people who say they were injured by asbestos.
Grace employs more than 1,000 people in Maryland.
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten
Recalling firm: Zara's Pasta Production Ltd.
Gluten-Free & Lactose-Free 250 g 6 20353 03410 3
Linguini
Gluten-Free & Lactose-Free 250 g. 6 20353 03510 0
Butternut Squash Mezzaluna
Gluten-Free & Cow Milk-Free 250 g. 20353 03511 7
Goat Cheese & Green Pea Mezzaluna
Laurel Beth Penn at Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold, McCartney &
Giuffra LLP reports that medical device manufacturers such as
DePuy, Johnson & Johnson, and Stryker repeatedly neglect
comprehensive device testing in women.
Does the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) test devices? No, they
rely on tests done by the manufacturers. However, the FDA now
reports women may not have been included equally in clinical post
approval studies of many medical devices. According to the FDA,
it is essential to adequately include the participation of women
when analyzing these devices which are used to treat certain
diseases. In order to properly examine the outcomes and possible
harmful results, there need be a proportionate input of women in
these clinical trials as women may react differently than men.
Failure to include women can create a gender bias within these
post-approval studies.
Until January 2013, the inclusion of women may have been
overlooked and the sex differences regarding the safety and
effectiveness of these devices not properly studied. Going
forward, women need to be ensured that their sex specific
predominance to particular diseases be measured equally to men
when studying medical devices effectiveness.
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,