Class Action Fairness Act (cafa) Notices cafa may 2017, to the Attorney General for the District of Columbia

Download 56.08 Kb.
Size56.08 Kb.

Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Notices

CAFA May 2017, to the

Attorney General for the District of Columbia

Notice Date

Case Number


Case Name Summary of Issue

Fairness Hearing Date

For more information



(D. N.J.)

Villanueva, et al. v. Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC

Re Defendants: Liberty Holding, LLC, Javlin One, LLC, and Javlin Capital, LLC

Plaintiffs allege that Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC (“LAS”) obtained judgments in violation of federal law (the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) by filing a lawsuit, serving the lawsuit, and entering a judgment against debtors, where the lawsuit and judgment was based on non-payment of a debt originating from U.S. Bank DDA (checking accounts) in which LAS alleged a right to interest calculated at a contractual rate. The class action lawsuit also alleges that Holdings is the alter ego of LAS and LAS fraudulently transferred assets to the Javlin Parties.

Not set yet

For more inforamtion write to:
Joshua L. Ross

Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting &

Shlachter P.C.

209 SW Oak Street

Suite 500

Portland, OR 97204





Re Defendant: Mazars CPA Limited

Plaintiff alleges that Auditor Reports were false and misleading because: (1) Mazars CPA did not conduct its audits in accordance with Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) standards; (2) Telestone’s consolidated financial statements did not present fairly, in all materials respects, either the financial position of Telestone and subsidiaries as of 12-31-2009, 12-31-2011 or the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the periods ended 12-31-2009 and 12-31-2011; (3) Telestone’s financial statements were not presented in accordance, with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, rendering the Auditor Reports not in compliance with PCAOB standards; and (4) the Auditor Reports were also false and misleading because Telestone’s internal controls were not effective but were instead plagued by significant material weakness. The Complaint further alleges that the price of Telestone’s publicly-traded securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period as a result of Defendants’’ allegedly false and misleading statements, and that when the truth was revealed the price of Telestone stock fell, causing damage to purchasers of the Telestone stock during the class Period.

Not set yet
Prepared by Brenda Berkley

For more information write to:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Attn: Casey E. Sadler

1925 Century Park East

Suite 2100

Los Angeles, CA 09967
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello


Attn: Donald A. Ecklund

5 Becker Farm Road

Roseland, NJ 07068



(S.D. W.Va.)

Crystal Good, et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company, et al

Re Defendants: American Water Works Services Company, Inc., Eastman Chemical Company, Gary Southern and Dennis P. Farrell

Plaintiffs allege that American Water, WVAW, Eastman and the other defendants could have prevented or avoided the event with better precautionary measures, compliance with applicable regulations and the use of reasonable care.

Not set yet

For more information visit:



(N.D. Cal.)

In re: Uber FCRA Litigation

Re Defendants: Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants obtained consumer background check reports in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and related state laws (the “Background Check Laws”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to provide proper notice regarding their intention to procure background check reports, to obtain proper authorization to procure background check reports, and to provide required information and copies of the reports before taking “adverse employment actions” against them, in violation of the Background Check Laws.

Not set yet

For more information write, call or fax:

Tina Wolfson

Robert Ahdoot

Theodore W. Maya

Bradley K. King

16 Palm Ave.,

West Hollywood, CA 90069
310-474-9111 (Ph.)
310-474-8585 (Fax)



(C.D. Cal.)

Lorean Barrera v. Pharmavite, LLC

The lawsuit claims that the labeling and packaging of products containing glucosamine and/or chondroitin made by Pharmavite LLC, including TripleFlex and products made for BJs by Pharmavite, contain false, deceptive, and misleading statements. The lawsuit does not claim that these products are unsafe, and makes no claims about the safety of the products.

Not set yet

For more information write to:
Elaine A. Ryan

Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.

1215 E. Camelback Road

Suite 300

Phoenix, AZ 85016




Tammy Tapia-Matos v. Caesarstone, LTD, Yosef Shiran, and Yair Averbuch

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated certain federal securities laws by making misrepresentations or omissions of material fact concerning the price of quartz and Caesarstone’s gross profit margins. It is also further alleged that Defendants issued an allegedly false statement concerning the increase in quartz prices in 2014. The class Period ends on August 15, 2015, when information purportedly contradicting each of Defendants’ alleged false statements was made public.

Not set yet

For more information write to:
Gonen Haklay


101 Greenwood Avenue

Suite 440

Jenkintown, PA 19046
Jeremy A. Lieberman

Michele S. Carino


600 Third Avenue

20th Floor

New York, NY 10016



(D. Mass.)

Huttemann v. Barberich et al.

Re Defendants: Timothy Barberich, Chadwick Cornell, Cynthia Feldmann, Douglas Godshall, Seth Harrison, Ray Larkin, Jr., Stephen Oesterle, Robert Stockman, Robert Thomas, Denis Wade, and HeartWare International, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were involved in drafting, producing, reviewing and/or disseminating the materially false and misleading statements. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants were aware or should have been aware that materially false and misleading statements were being issued by the Company in the Recommendation Statement and nevertheless approved, ratified and/or failed to correct those statements, in violation of federal securities laws. The Individual Defendants were able to, and did, control the contents of the Recommendation Statement. The Individual Defendants were provided with copies of, reviewed and approved, and/or signed the Registration Statement before its issuance and had the ability or opportunity to prevent its issuance or to cause it to be corrected.

Not set yet

For more information write, call or fax:
Joseph Levi

Michael H. Rosner

Justin G. Sherman

30 Broad Street, 24th Floor

New York, NY 10004
212 363-7500 (Ph.)
212 363-7171 (Fax)

Mitchell J. Matorin

18 Grove Street

Suite 5

Wellesley, MA 02482
781 453-0100 (Ph.)
888 628-6746 (Fax)



(W.D. Mich.)

Peter Anda v. Roosen Varchetti & Oliver, P.C., et al.

Re Defendants: Richard G. Roosen, Paul E. Varchetti, Lynn M. Olivier, Web Equity Holdings, LLC Cavalry SPV I, LLC and Main Street Acquisition Corp.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated state and federal law by initiating garnishments against Michigan judgment debtors in which Defendants included in the stated amount of the judgment certain costs that were actually incurred by Defendants but which Plaintiff contends were not recoverable, or had not been determined to be recoverable at the time they were added to the judgment balance. Plaintiff asserts that such acts render Defendants liable for statutory damages under the FDCPA and for refunds and account adjustments under Michigan law.

Not set yet

For more information write to:
Phillip C. Rogers

6140 28th Street S.E.

Suite 115

Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Michael O. Nelson

1104 Fuller N.E.

Grand Rapids, MI 49503



(S.D. Ind.)

Donald B. Gray v. Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan and Vectren Corporation

Plaintiff alleges that the SIGECO Plan was merged into the Vectren Plan. Participants in the SIGECO Plan were given the option to either continue having their retirement benefits calculated under the same formula provided in the SIGECO Plain (“Traditional Formula”), or they could instead have Plaintiff retirement benefits calculated pursuant to the same terms as new participants in the Vectren Plan (“Cash Balance Formula”). This lawsuit only pertains to former SIGECO Plan participants who elected to have their future retirement benefits calculated under the Cash Balance Formula. The Plaintiffs alleged that Vectren violated the federal pension law – the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and/or the lawful terms of the Vectren Plan based on how Vectren calculated benefits and communicated with participants about the SIGECO Plan and Vectren Plan benefits.

Not set yet

For more information write or call:
Lane C. Siesky

Siesky & Viehe, PC

4424 Vodel Road

Suite 305

Evansville, IN 47715
812 402-7700 (Ph.)
Todd C. Barsumian

Barsumain Law LLC

5455 Old Indiana 261

Newburgh, IN 47630
812 618-1744 (Ph.)




Carol Manheim d/b/a Plantation Plaza Therapy Center v. Measurable Solutins, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that Measurable Solutions, a business training and consulting company

concentrating on healthcare-practice consulting, sent hundreds of thousands of advertisements to approximately 20,000 fax machines belonging to physical therapists and physical-therapy practices from 2011 through 2014 . Faxing unsolicited advertisements is illegal under federal law (as well as the laws of many states). The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, prohibits the sending of unsolicited advertisements, commonly called junk faxes, to fax machines.


For more information write to:
Marc B. Hershovitz

Marc B. Hershovitz, P.C.

One Alliance Center

4th Floor

3500 Lenox Road

Atlanta, GA 30326



(N.D. Ohio)

Sherri Lagrand v. IntelliCorp Records, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff alleged that IntelliCorp violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by furnishing background reports without following strict procedures to ensure public record information contained in the reports was complete and up to date, and without following reasonable procedures to ensure that the information in the reports was accurate.


For more information write to:
E. Michelle Drake

Berger & Montague, P.C.

43 SE Main Street

Suite 505

Minneapolis, MN 55414



(C.D. Cal.)

Boswell, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the California consumer protection statues, the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for Breach of Express and Implied Warranties.

Not set yet

For more information write to:
Jack Fitzgerald

The Law Office of Jack

Fitzgerald, P.C.

3636 4th Avenue

Suite 202

San Diego, CA 92103



(W.D. Tex.)

Regehr v. Graystar Management Services, L.P., GREP General Partner, LLC, Graystar Real Estate Partners, LLC

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Defendants violated the Texas Water Code and Texas Administrative Code by billing residents at their apartment complexes in Texas water and sewer fees that were not permitted. Defendants maintain that they properly assessed and collected the fees in dispute, and have denied all claims and allegations that they acted wrongfully or unlawfully.


For more information write, call or fax:

Bar No. 14303900


401 Congress Avenue

Suite 1540

Austin, Texas 78701-3851
512 474-6092 (Ph.)
512 692-2981 (Fax)





(E.D. Mich.)


In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation

The Bearings Action

The Truck and Equipment Dealer Cases

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants in each lawsuit entered into unlawful agreements that allegedly artificially raised the prices of Occupant Safety Systems and/or Vehicle Wire Harness System.

Not set yet

For more information write or visit:
Duane Morris LLP

30 South 17th Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103




Susan Moses v. Apple Hospitality REIT Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) by misrepresenting and omitting material facts about Triad’s business and financial results. Specifically, Lead Plaintiff alleges that Triad under-priced certain of its insurance products known as Modified Pool Insurance by knowingly or recklessly under-appreciating the risk involved in the transactions. Lead Plaintiff alleges that when Defendants disclosed the truth about Triad’s financial results, Class Members suffered damages as a result of the decline in the price of Triad common stock.

Not set yet

For more information write to:



655 West Broadway, Suite 1900

San Diego, CA 92101




Ayodapo Oladapo v. Smart One Energy, LLC

Plaintiff alleges that Smart One made misleading representations to consumers regarding energy cost savings they would receive by switching to Smart One as their natural gas supplier (including a guaranteed 10% savings for two months). He asserts causes of action for breach of contract/breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 13-101, et seq.

Not set yet

For more information write to:
Beatrice Yakubu, Esquire

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP

4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Suite 200

Washington DC 20016



(N.D. Tex.)

Seramur v. Rotobush Internaional LLC

Plaintiff alleges that Rotobrush International LLC ("Defendant"), violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the "TCPA"), by sending unsolicited fax advertisements without their consent, prior express invitation or permission, not in accordance with an existing business relationship, and without the required opt-out language.

Not set yet

For more information write to:
Brian J. Wanca


3701 Algonquin Road

Suite 500

Rolling Meadows, IL 60008



(S.D. Fla.)

Strickland, et al. v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, et al.

Plaintiffs allege that when a borrower was required to have insurance pursuant to a residential mortgage or home equity loan or line of credit, and evidence of acceptable coverage was not provided (for example, when the insurance policy did not exist or had lapsed), Carrington would place insurance in a manner such that Carrington allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Plaintiffs allege further that Carrington did so primarily to receive “kickbacks” or other consideration from American Modern Insurance Group, Inc., Defendants and/or Southwest Business Corporation. Plaintiffs also allege that the way in which Lender-placed insurance policies were obtained and placed caused the charges to borrowers attributed to premiums and the amount of coverage to be excessive.

Not set yet

For more information write, call or fax:
Adam M. Moskowitz

Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti

Rachel Sullivan

Robert J. Neary



2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor

Coral Gables, FL 33134
305 372-1800 (Ph.)
305 372-3508 (Fax)



(M.D. La.)

Laurie Nicholson v. Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System, et al.

Plaintiffs allege that Franciscan Missionaries and other Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”). The Complaint alleged that Defendants denied the Plans’ participants and beneficiaries the protections of ERISA by claiming the Plans were “church plans” that were exempt from ERISA. The Complaint alleged that the Plans did not qualify as “church plans.”

Not set yet

For more information write or fax:
Robert A. Izard

Mark P. Kindall

Douglas . Needham

Izard, Kindall &

Raabe, LLP

29 South Main Street

Suite 305

West Hartford, CT 06107




Santos v. The Carrington Companies, LLC, et al.

For more information see CAFA notice dated 5-17-2017 page 10 above.

Not set yet

For more inforamtion write to:
Roosevelt N. Nesmith

Law Office of Roosevelt

N. Nesmith, LLC

363 Bloomfield Avenue

Suite 2

Montclair, N.J. 07042



(C.D. Cal.)

Tessa Koenig, et al., v. Lime Crime, Inc.

Plaintiffs allege that Lime Crime discovered that malicious software was installed on the third party computer server that hosts its website. This server stored certain personally identifiable information (“PII”) of Lime Crime customers, which may have included names, addresses, website logins, and payment information. Customers’ PII may have been exposed between 10-4-2014 and 2-15-2015. In or around February 2015, Lime Crime sent Incident Notices to potentially affected customers to notify them of the Incident and offer one year of complimentary identify protection and fraud resolution. The lawsuit claims that Lime Crime maintained inadequate data security practices and delayed notifying customers of the Incident.

Not set yet

For more information write to:
William B. Federman

Joshua D. Wells


10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.

Oklahoma City, OK 73120



(N.D. Ill.)

Young v. County of Cook

Plaintiff alleges that Cook County was entitled to additional payments from the Defendants in relation to the Young v. Cook County lawsuit. As part of the settlement of Young v. Cook County, the County assigned certain claims to the class members. Class Counsel has handled the litigation against the insurers on behalf of the Class.


For more information call or e-mail:
Loevy & Loevy

Michael Kanovitz

Scott Rauscher
1-877-722-2928 (Ph.)




Richards-Donald, et al. v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Associate of America, et al.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA when they

(a) caused the Plans to offer exclusively proprietary investment options managed by TIAA or an affiliate, resulting in “total plan costs” higher than those of comparable plans; (b) selected an affiliate as record keeper of the Plans, which charged fees higher than those for other plans; (c) failed to prudently evaluate Plan investment options; and (d) engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA by receiving excessive fees.

Not set yet

For more informatin write to:
Gregory Y. Porter


910 17th Street, NW

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006
Mark Boyko


209 Capitol Street

Charleston, WV 25301



(N.D. Cal.)

Robert A. Pastor, Scott M. Van, Regina M. Florence, William E. Florence II v. Bank of America, N.A. (BANA)

The lawsuit concerns whether BANA impermissibly accessed consumer credit reports to conduct Account Review Inquiries of BANA customers after their account relationships with BANA allegedly had ended.

Not set yet

For more information write or call:
Joshua B. Swigart

David J. McGlothlin


2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101

San Diego, CA 92108-3551
619 233-7770 (Ph.)




Town & Country Jewelers, LLC v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that Meadowbrook violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending advertisements to persons’ telephone facsimile machines without prior consent.

Not set yet

For more information write, call, fax or e-mail:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.


1500 Allaire Avenue

Suite 101

Ocean, New Jersey 07712
732 695-3282 (Ph.)

732 298-6256 (Fax)



(N.D. Fla.)

John & Carrie Begley v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC

Plaintiffs allege that the REALServicing loan servicing system used by Ocwen was not fully compatible with the ACI weekly and bi-weekly payment plans, such that even when all ACI payments were made as and when scheduled, ACI Extra Payments were placed first into a suspense account and then eventually applied towards future monthly payments not yet due on the ACI Loan instead of applying those ACI Extra Payments immediately to reduce the ACI Loan’s principal balance (the alleged “Extra Payment Processing issue”). While this payment application would still have allowed a borrower to pay off his or her ACI Loan earlier than making only the scheduled contractual payments, Plaintiffs claim that the alleged Extra Payment Processing Issue prevented ACI Loans from paying off as quickly as contemplated by the ACI weekly and bi-weekly payment plans, and resulted in more interest being paid by the borrower than intended by the ACI weekly and bi-weekly plans. Therefore, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief and damages for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, negligence, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair

Trade Practices Act.

Not set yet

For more inforamtion write, call, fax or e-mail:
Bryan F. Aylstock

Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis &

Overholtz, PLLC

17 E. Main Street

Suite 200

Pensacola, FL 32502
850 202-1010 (Ph.)
850 916-7449 (Fax)



(N.D. Ga.)

Champs Sports Bar & Grill Co., et al. v. Mercury Payment Systems, LLC, et al.

Plaintiffs contracted with or through Defendants to process payment card transactions. Plaintiffs claim that on monthly invoices sent to them for these services Defendants: (1) marked up the interchange fees due to banks and the access fees due to Visa and MasterCard rather than pass the fees through at cost, and (2) charged fees that were not authorized by the contracts. Plaintiffs sued Defendants for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation of the federal and Georgia RICO statutes. The lawsuit seeks to recover the amount that merchants were overcharged and other relief. Defendants deny that that they acted improperly and assert they have no legal liability.


For more information write:
David M. Buckner

Duckner + Miles

3350 Mary Street

Iami, Florida 33133
Ken Canfield

Doffermyre Shields

Canfield & Knowles LLC

1355 Peachtree Street

Suite 1900

Atlanta, GA 30303-3238



(S.D. Tex.)

In re KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Contracts, KBR’s financial results, and the lack of internal controls related to the Contracts. It is further alleged that the price of KBR’s publicly traded common stock was artificially inflated as a result of Defendants’ allegedly false and misleading statements, and declined when the truth was revealed.


For more information write to:
Labaton Sucharow LLP

Louis Gottlieb

140 Broadway

New York, NY 10005
Bernstein Litowitz Berger &

Grossmann LLP

John Rizio-Hamilton

1251 Avenue of the Americas 44th Floor

New York, NY 10020



(E.D. Mich.)

In re: Heating Control Panels

Re Defendants: Alps Electric Co., Ltd., Alps Electric (North America), Inc., and Alps Automotive Inc. (End Payor Plaintiff)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a nearly decade-long conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the U.S. for Heating Control Panels.

Not set yet

For more information write, call or fax:
E. Powel Miller

Adam T. Schanatz

The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

950 W.University Drive

Suite 300

Rochester, Michigan 48407
248 841-2200 (Ph.)
248 652-2852 (Fax)



(D. Az.)

Michael Reid, et al. v. I.C. Systems, Inc.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an Automatic Telephone Dial Systems, with or without a prerecorded or artificial voice message. Defendant called cellular telephone numbers in I.C. System’s business records coded as a wrong number.

Not set yet

For more information write or call:
Joshua B. Swigart

David J. McGlothlin

Hyde & Swigart

2633 E. Indian School Road Suite 460

Phoenix, AZ 85016
602 265-3332 (Ph.)



(S.D. Fla.)

In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation

Re Defendants: Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation and Mazda Motor of America, Inc. d/b/a Mazda North American Operations, BMW of North America, LC and BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Subaru of America, Inc., and Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. (currently known as Subaru Corporation) (collectively, “Defendants”)

Plaintiff alleges that certain automotive companies, including Toyota, manufactured, distributed, or sold certain vehicles containing allegedly defective Takata airbag inflators manufactured by Defendants Takata Corporation and TK Holdings, Inc. that allegedly could, upon deployment, rupture and expel debris or shrapnel into the occupant compartment and/or otherwise affect the airbag’s deployment, and that the plaintiffs sustained economic losses as a result thereof.

Not set yet

For more information write, call or e-mail:
David Boies



575 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10022
305 539-8400 (Ph.)



(W.D. Okla.)

Stamps Brothers Oil & Gas, LLC v. Continental Resources, Inc.,

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to calculate and pay interest owed pursuant to the Oklahoma Production Revenue Standards Act, when the first payment of royalties and/or overriding royalties occurred more than 6 months after the date of first sale of production from the Class Wells.


For more information write to:
Mark A. Wolfe

Pate & Wolfe

1900 N.W. Expressway

Suite 1300

Oklahoma City, OK 73118



(N.D. Cal.)

In re: Geron Corp. Security Litigation

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making three categories of false and misleading statements during the class Period: (a) Prior to March 2013, Defendants failed to disclose the full extent of the liver abnormalities observed in patents enrolled in the company’s phase 2a trial designed to test its telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, in patents with Essential Thrombocythemia and Polycythemia Vera (the “ET Trial”); (b) Defendants falsely represented that the Company was continuing to follow all patients previously enrolled in the ET Trial when in fact many patients had left the ET Trial and were no longer being followed; and (c) Defendants misrepresented that imetelstat was well tolerated and did not appear to worsen over time when Defendants were not aware whether imetelstat was well tolerated or worsening in patients who had left the ET Trial because those patients were no longer being followed. As alleged in the Complaint, on 3-12-2014, the FDA placed a clinical hold on the Investing New Drug (IND) for imetelstat due to the occurrence of persistent low-grade liver function test (LFT) abnormalities observed in the ET trial and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat.


For more information write to:
Richard W. Gonnello


685 Third Avenue

26th Floor

New York, NY 10017



(C.D. Cal.)

Boswell, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Plaintiffs allege that Costco’s brand of Kirkland Signature Organic Coconut Oil is advertised as being healthy, but the plaintiffs state this wasn’t the case and were damaged as a result of their purchase. Plaintiffs further allege that Costco’s brand of Kirkland Signature Organic Coconut Oil is advertised as being healthy, but the plaintiffs state this wasn’t the case and were damaged as a result of their purchase.

Not set yet

For more inforamtion visit:



(E.D. Mich.)

In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation

Re Defendant: SKF USA Inc.

Plaintiffs allege that they were injured as a result of SKF’s alleged participation in an unlawful conspiracy to raise, fix, maintain, and/or stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate markets and customers for Automotive Bearings in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and consumer protection laws as set forth in End-Payor Plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in the Automotive Bearings Action.

Not set yet

For more inforamtmion write to:
Cotchett, Pitre, &

McCarthy LLP

San Francisco Airport

Office Center

840 Malcolm Road

Suite 200

Burlingame, CA 94010

Share with your friends:

The database is protected by copyright © 2019
send message

    Main page