text:
Wednesday, July 16, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 140
40/40: Jay-Z's Nightclub Faces New Claims in Overtime Lawsuit
ABBOTT LABS: Summary Judgment Bids in Spin-Off Lawsuit Denied
AMERICAN WELDING: Recalls Propane Storage Tanks For Gas Leak
BANYAN TREE FOUNDATION: Donors Commence Suit Over Tax Sham
CAM COMMERCE: Acquisition by Great Hill Challenged in Dela. Suit
CANADA: Supreme Court Decision Says Governments Can be Sued
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: EEOC Files Lawsuit Over Sexual Harassment
CHESTER COUNTY: Pa. Federal Court Approves Settlement in "Ayres"
CITIGROUP: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Auction Rate-Related Suit
CREDIT SOLUTIONS: Customers Sue Firm for Causing Credit Problems
FORD MOTOR: Faces Mich. Lawsuit Over Alleged Age Discrimination
GRANGE MUTUAL: Ohio Charities to Share $14MM in Unclaimed Money
GREAT EASTERN: Faces Virginia Lawsuit Over Failure to Pay Wages
HARTFORD INSURANCE: Judge Certifies Class in Pre-Pricing Lawsuit
HOME DEPOT: Faces California Suit Over Defective Wine Cellars
KENTUCKY: Fayette County School Board Faces Sex Abuse Lawsuit
LAFAYETTE CONSOLIDATED: Court Approves $7.5M Wage Suit Agreement
LUCKY GREEN: Recalls Thai Basil Because of Possible Health Risk
NORTHSTAR EDUCATION: Faces Calif. Lawsuit for Breaking Contracts
QUIZNOS SUB: Lawyer Dubs Pennsylvania Suit as Copy Cat Lawsuit
SALMOLUX INC: Recalls Smoked Salmon for Possible Health Risk
TD AMERITRADE: Reaches Tentative Settlement in "Elvey" Lawsuit
TESLA MOTORS: Faces Calif. Suit Over Violated Employment Terms
ABSOLUTE CAPITAL: Sander Ingebretsen Files Colo. Securities Suit
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Georgia Securities Suit
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Stull & Brody Files Calif. Securities Suit
The Class Action Reporter reported on July 7, 2008, that a New
York City judge paved the way for a class-action suit
against rapper Jay-Z and his nightclub 40/40. According to the
report, the suit was filed by Celeste Williams, a former
employee who claims that the New York City nightclub did not pay
overtime or minimum wage.
CAR said that the judge ordered the club's management to turn
over the names of all employees over the past three years.
In an update, contactmusic.com relates that 40/40 employees are
hitting out at the club's managers for allegedly threatening
them against having any involvement in the ongoing labor
According to contactmusic.com, workers are now claiming the
club's general manager, Desiree Gonzalez, threatened one
employee she would "f*** up his tax life" for having any
involvement in the class-action suit. Moreover, the report
notes, a letter filed in court by the workers' lawyer stated
that the 40/40 boss allegedly told another worker she would
"lock him up" if he refused to sign a release for the court
Contactmusic.com relates that Federal Judge Loretta Preska
admitted earlier that the club owners violated federal labor
laws after reviewing an earnings report for at least two workers
who showed they were not paid for overtime at the club.
Hundreds of former employees could be eligible to collect on the
claims if their case wins in court.
Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois denied motions for summary
judgment filed by Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc.,
removing the plaintiffs' last obstacle to a trial to hear claims
that Abbott spun off Hospira in April 2004 to deprive employees
of pension and retiree health benefits and then lied to its
employees about those benefits in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.
The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned,
"Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott
Laboratories and Hospira, Inc.," alleging Abbott Laboratories,
faced with the prospect of paying its older employees
significant pension benefits when they retired, decided to spin-
off its Hospital Products Division, which employed many of its
older workers, to create Hospira.
The plaintiffs alleged that despite statements made by Abbott to
the employees to be affected by the spin-off that Hospira would
continue to offer the same benefits through the end of 2004,
Abbott knew that the decision to terminate these benefits at the
end of 2004 had already been made. The Judge noted in his
decision that some Hospira executives were offered "transition
bonuses" equal to the amount of their lost benefits.
The plaintiffs alleged Abbott terminated them during the spin-
off with the intent to interfere with their accrual of further
benefits under the Abbott benefit plans. Several of those
valuable benefits ended shortly after the former Abbott
employees reported to work for Hospira. Finally, Abbott and
Hospira adopted a two-year, no-hire policy that effectively
eliminated any rights plaintiffs would have retained under the
Abbott benefit plans.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Abbott designed the
spin-off to cut off the employees' pension benefits and insulate
itself from ever paying any of the increased pension obligations
accrued by its older employees as they approached their peak
salary years when their benefits were becoming considerably more
valuable.
The plaintiffs generally seek reinstatement as Abbott employees,
or reinstatement as participants in Abbott's employee benefit
plans, or an award for the employee benefits they have allegedly
lost.
In December 2005 Judge Gettleman granted plaintiffs' request for
a class against Abbott on two counts that includes all former
Abbott employees who were terminated between August 22, 2003
(the date the spin-off was announced), and April 30, 2004 (the
date plaintiffs were terminated), as a result of the spin-off.
In 2007, Judge Gettleman granted class certification to
thousands of Abbott Laboratories employees (Class Action
Reporter, April 9, 2007).
In his latest ruling, Judge Gettleman ruled the plaintiffs could
proceed to trial on all four claims:
1. Abbott spun off Hospira to interfere with employees'
receipt of benefits under Abbott's benefit plans.
2. Abbott refused to rehire employees who were transferred
to Hospira for a period of two years following the spin-
off, eliminating their ability to re-vest in any
benefits under the Abbott plans.
3. Hospira also adopted a policy under which it refused to
hire any employee who chose to retire from Abbott and
collect Abbott's retirement benefits for a period of two
years to save Abbott from paying such benefits.
4. Abbott misrepresented at the time of the spin-off that
it did not know whether Hospira would offer pension and
retiree medical benefits.
Those statements were belied by evidence that Abbott offered
"key" executives "transition bonuses" to compensate them for the
benefits they would lose from transfer to Hospira.
Judge Gettleman denied Abbott's and Hospira's motions because he
concluded that there were genuine disputes between the
plaintiffs' and defendants' versions of the facts that needed to
be resolved at trial.
"The Court's ruling clears the last remaining hurdle for the
plaintiffs to seek restitution for Abbott Labs' violations of
federal law that caused 10,000 people to lose valuable
retirement benefits," said Steven Sprenger, Esq., counsel for
the plaintiffs at the law firm Sprenger + Lang. "We are anxious
to get this case to trial as quickly as possible."
To reach this stage, the plaintiffs have had to overcome
Abbott's and Hospira's "scorched earth" defense of the claims
that has strung out the litigation for almost four years since
their complaint was filed in November 2004. First, Judge
Gettleman denied defendants' motions to dismiss the claims.
Then, in December 2005, he granted plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class of about 10,000 persons, a decision that the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals refused to disturb when challenged by
defendants. And now, after the discovery process has been
completed, he denied the defendants' motions for summary
The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman, presiding.
Representing the company:
James F. Hurst, Esq. (jhurst@winston.com)
35 West Wacker Drive, 41st Floor
The plaintiffs and class are represented by:
Steven M. Sprenger, Esq.
Mark A. Amadeo, Esq.
Sprenger & Lang, PLLC
1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 500
Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
Paul W. Mollica, Esq.
Jamie S. Franklin, Esq.
Meites, Mulder, Mollica and Glink
208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410
American Welding & Tank LLC, of Jesup, Ga., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
11,000 Conversion Underground Propane Storage Tanks.
The company said an odorant is added to propane to help alert
customers to propane leaks, but rust inside a propane tank can
cause the odor to fade. Some converted above-ground to
underground converted tanks can have an increased susceptibility
to odor fade, causing consumers to be unable to detect the odor
of propane in the event of a gas leak. This can pose a fire and
burn hazard to consumers if there is a leak in the propane gas
The firm has received a report in which two individuals
sustained first and second degree burn injuries, as they were
attempting to ignite an outside fireplace.
The recall includes 120 gallon to 1,000 gallon underground
propane storage tanks which were previously converted from
above-ground to underground storage tanks in the period of
January 2005 through April 2008.
These recalled propane storage tanks were manufactured in the
United States and were being sold to retail propane dealers in
the eastern United States, from January 2005 through April 2008.
Pictures of the recalled propane storage tanks are found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08594a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08594b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08594c.jpg
Necessary repairs will be performed at the tank by the retail
propane company. Known retail propane companies that sold the
recalled tanks have been notified directly of the recall and
will contact consumers directly.
For additional information, contact American Welding & Tank
toll-free at 866-614-0910 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.awtank.com/
A Hamilton law firm is planning a nationwide class action suit
seeking more than $50 million in damages from the Toronto-based
Banyan Tree Foundation, Steve Arnold writes for The Hamilton
According to the report, Banyan Tree, which was ranked in 2007
as the third largest charity in Canada because of the volume of
money it raised, today faces being cut from the country's list
of approved charities and as many as 65,000 people who donated
to it and similar programs face having to pay up to $63 million
in back taxes plus penalties and interest.
Hamilton Spectator relates that the foundation offered the deal
of a lifetime -- put down less than $30,000 in cash and get a
tax receipt for $100,000. The report explains that the plan
worked in such a way that in exchange for putting down small
amounts of cash as a donation and a security payment, donors to
the Banyan program could then take out a larger loan from a
related company and claim the entire amount as a tax deductible
donation to charity. The security deposit was to be invested
for the benefit of all participants.
The report says that the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit are
Oakville couple Kathryn and Rick Robinson, who were ensnared in
the plan. Lawyer David Thompson, of the Hamilton firm of
Scarfone Hawkins, is hoping to sign up hundreds more of donors.
"These are people who had legitimate donative intent, who
thought they were going to get a tax receipt, but now those
donations are being disallowed," Mr. Thompson told Hamilton
Spectator. "The Canada Revenue Agency is taking the position
that this whole thing is a sham," he added.
According to their statement of claim, which has yet to be
proven in court, the Robinsons took part in the program for
three tax years. They pledged a total of $90,000 in charitable
donations, putting down more than $34,000 in cash, taking out
$103,000 in loans and getting a tax receipt for more than
The report writes that the "pot of gold" turned into a chamber
pot when the Canada Revenue Agency refused to allow the tax
deductions on the grounds that the company through which the
loans were arranged did not have the money, so rather than cash
for charity, all that was generated was a circle of accounting
The Robinsons were ordered to pay back more than $21,000 in
taxes and interest for one year, with the warning reassessments
coming for other years they took part in the program.
The statement of claim in the lawsuit also names Promittere
Capital Group Inc., Promittere Asset Management Ltd., Rochester
Financial Limited and the Toronto law firm of Fraser Milner
Casgrain LLP, which is accused of issuing favorable tax opinion
letters on the program. Also named is Robert Thiessen, of
Toronto, who is identified as an officer and director of
Promittere Capital and Promittere Asset as well as president and
director of Banyan Tree.
Hamilton Spectator further notes that the suit also alleges the
security deposits paid by participants have been "compromised"
-- the investment manager who was supposed to be overseeing them
was charged last year with fraud and theft by Toronto police.
He's accused of using investor money to cover large losses in
trades on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and to finance his
personal lifestyle. His case has not yet been heard.
The report, citing a letter to donors that Mr. Thiessen posted
on the foundation's Internet site, notes that he vows "the
Foundation is defending its donors against any CRA
reassessments. But all of you should know that we have always
been, and will continue to be, absolutely above board in how we
structure and present our program. Our only priority is to
ensure that the many charities we support receive the donations
they so dearly need."
The report points out that since 2002, the foundation claims to
have received cash donations of more than $136 million, in-kind
donations of more than $67 million and to have given more than
$149 million to recipient charities. In the same period, it
says, it has issued $208 million in donation receipts. Of that,
32% went into annuities for long-term charity funding, 40% went
out as cash payments and 26% was held "as foundation assets for
future charitable activities."
Payments to charities have been frozen pending the outcome of
the challenge to the CRA ruling, the report says.
Levi & Korsinsky announced that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the proposed acquisition of CAM Commerce Solutions,
On June 10, 2008, CAM Commerce announced that it had entered
into a definitive merger agreement with Great Hill Partners, a
private equity investment firm.
Under the terms of the proposal, CAM Commerce shareholders would
receive $40.50 a share, or $180 million. CAM Commerce shares
closed at $37.54 the day before the announcement of the proposed
transaction, so the deal price reflects a 7.9% premium over the
prior day's closing price, but approximately a 10% discount to
the 52 week closing high for the stock of $45.25 per share.
CAM Commerce's board of directors has approved the deal, which
is subject to conditions including antitrust clearance and a
vote of the Company's shareholders.
The proposed transaction is expected to close in the fourth
quarter of CAM Commerce's fiscal year ending September 30, 2008.
Upon closing, CAM Commerce will no longer be publicly traded and
the surviving corporation in the merger will be privately owned
by an affiliate of Great Hill Partners.
CAM Commerce designs, develops, markets, installs and services
highly integrated retailing and payment processing solutions for
small to medium size traditional and eCommerce businesses based
on the company's open architecture software.
These integrated solutions include credit and debit card
processing, inventory management, point of sale, accounting,
Internet sales, gift card and customer loyalty programs, and
extensive management reporting.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Web site: http://www.zlk.com/
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that governments can be
sued for negligence when they ignore a judge's orders, a
decision that permits Saskatchewan elk and deer farmers to
pursue a class-action lawsuit against their province, Janice
Tibbetts writes for Canwest News Service.
The unanimous declaration arises from Saskatchewan government's
refusal to acknowledge a judge's decree that it acted unlawfully
in its treatment of farmers when it implemented a program five
years ago, amid a scare over chronic wasting disease that
devalued their herds, according to Canwest News.
The alleged mistreating of deer and elk farmers during the
provincially run program has resulted in the Saskatchewan
government being sued.
Canwest News recounts that the class-action lawsuit was filed by
attorney Reynold Robertson on behalf of Roger Holland of
Maidstone, Saskatchewan. Mr. Holland was later named as the
lead plaintiff of about 200 farmers, seeking to collectively sue
the government for financial damages.
The lawsuit centers around the 2003 government surveillance
program, in which the province monitored herds for chronic
wasting disease, a transmissible neurological disease in deer
and elk that is similar to mad cow disease.
In exchange for monitoring to ensure healthy herds, the province
required farmers to sign release forms absolving the government
of any obligation in the event that chronic wasting disease was
detected. Many refused to sign and the government then
downgraded their herds to the lowest possible status, making
them virtually unmarketable.
The farmers took the government to court and won, in a ruling
that found the government was wrong to downgrade the herd
status. Despite the decision, the government took no steps to
reinstate the farmers' certification or compensate them.
The farmers then pursued a class-action suit, claiming
government negligence in its decision to downgrade the herds and
subsequent failure to respect the court ruling.
Canwest News says that the 7-0 ruling reverses a Saskatchewan
Court of Appeal decision that threw out the class-action suit on
the grounds that governments have immunity from negligence
"Public authorities are expected to implement a judicial
decision," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. "It is,
therefore, not clear that an action in negligence cannot succeed
on the breach of a duty to implement a judicial decree."
The ruling, however, is only a partial victory for the farmers.
They were seeking a broader declaration that the Saskatchewan
government also could be sued for negligence for violating its
own law with a 2003 mandatory surveillance program that forced
some farmers into bankruptcy, Canwest News notes.
"It is well-established that mere breach of a statutory duty
does not constitute negligence," Chief Justice McLachlin wrote,
refusing to expand the law in the area.
The decision allows the farmers to go to court seeking to have
their class-action suit certified so they can attempt to recoup
their financial losses, according to the report.
On June 30, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
filed a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona against Cheesecake Factory Inc. over
alleged male-on-male sexual harassment, Andrea Chang writes for
the Los Angeles Times.
According to the complaint, the alleged harassment began around
November 2004. The suit, however, did not name any of the
employees who allegedly harassed the men or specify how many
people were involved.
The suit alleges that three victims were harassed for months by
groups of male employees at the chain's Chandler, Ariz.,
restaurant. The men were allegedly grabbed and forced to endure
simulated sex with their clothes on, the complaint said.
"It was unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that made all these
guys feel uncomfortable and unsafe, and affected their ability
to really do their jobs," said commission attorney Mary Jo
O'Neill. "They were constantly worried about being grabbed."
Moreover, Cheesecake Factory managers were aware of the problem
and "seemed to kind of find the whole thing amusing," Ms.
O'Neill said, and did not take measures to stop the harassment
or discipline the suspected employees. She added the commission
believed there were more victims.
The suit seeks monetary compensation for the victims and an
injunction ordering the 143-restaurant chain to improve its
policies and training programs to prevent the situation from
occurring again.
Calabasas-based Cheesecake Factory released a brief statement
late Thursday saying that the company was committed to providing
"a positive, productive and professional work environment."
"We have worked in good faith with the EEOC to try to resolve
these allegations," the statement said. "We believe all our
staff members should be treated with dignity and respect."
The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Cheesecake Factory, Inc., Case Number: 2:2008cv01207," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge Neil
V Wake, presiding.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
approved a settlement that was reached in the matter, "Ayres et
al. v. Chester County et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03328-RK," R.
Jonathan Tuleya writes for The Pottstown Mercury.
The suit was filed against the County of Chester, in
Pennsylvania, on Aug 13, 2007, by Jessica Ayres, Tanya Deaver,
and Aaron Salisbury. It eventually involved more than 200
Chester County Prison corrections officers.
In general, the suit alleged that the county violated labor laws
by regularly requiring corrections officers at the prison to
work more than 40 hours without compensation.
The parties subsequently decided to resolve the dispute.
Under the settlement deal, the county agreed to pay
$1.25 million, while admitting no violation of the law. Court
documents obtained by Pottstown Mercury revealed that more than
$509,000 of the sum paid by the county will go toward paying the
"fair and reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expense
occurred."
For the plaintiffs, the settlement calls for each to be
reimbursed for 1.5 hours of work per week at an overtime rate of
$22.50 for every week they worked between March 1, 2006, and
The settlement as to individual plaintiffs is capped at $3,510,
while the three original plaintiffs were awarded an additional
$2,500, according to the report.
The suit is "Ayres, et al. v. Chester County, et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-03328-RK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Robert F. Kelly,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Martin J. Sobol, Esq. (msobol@sobollaw.com)
Sobol & Associates, P.C.
Representing the defendants is:
Sarah E. Bouchard, Esq. (sbouchard@morganlewis.com)
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
On June 24, 2008, Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
order appointing Dr. Michael A. Passidomo as lead plaintiff in
the class action pending against Citigroup Inc. , Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc. and Citi Smith Barney on behalf of
investors in auction rate securities purchased from the
Defendants. Judge Swain appointed Zwerling, Schachter &
Zwerling, LLP to serve as Lead Counsel for the proposed class.
The first of the lawsuits involving the purchase of auction rate
securities from Defendants was filed in March 2008. The suits,
allege that since April 2002 Defendants deceived investors about
the risks of auction rate securities by, among other things,
falsely marketing auction rate securities as cash equivalents
that were highly safe and liquid investments.
However, as alleged in the complaints, auction rate securities
are complex financial instruments that only appeared liquid and
stable because Defendants were artificially supporting and
manipulating the market.
The auction rate securities market collapsed on February 13,
2008, after Defendants withdrew their support, rendering
investors' auction rate securities illiquid and worth
substantially less than par value.
In July, Judge Swain consolidated five proposed class
action lawsuits (Class Action Reporter, July 2, 2008).
Despite arguments that consolidating all the claims -- including
those that do not fall under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act -- would delay recovery for the class members, Judge
Swain consolidated four cases that asserted violations of
federal securities laws against Citigroup with one case that
only asserted claims under the Investment Advisor Act, which is
not subject to the PSLRA.
Judge Swain noted that one of the four cases that asserted
claims that are subject to the PSLRA also claimed violations of
the Investment Advisor Act.
The first identified suit is "Swanson v. Citigroup Inc. et al,
Case Number: 1:2008cv03139," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Miriam Goldman
Cedarbaum, presiding, with referral to Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
The appointed lead counsel is:
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
Web site: http://www.zsz.com/
A Texas-based company is being sued by a Seattle law firm for
allegedly doing more harm than good for thousands of consumers,
David Quinlan writes for KIROtv.com.
According to the report, the current down economy and credit
squeeze has more and more people looking for help in resolving
their problems with debt, and Credit Solutions of America
promises to help these people. However, many of its customers
claim that it has caused them more credit problems instead.
Now, KIROtv.com relates, a class action lawsuit has been filed
in Seattle against Credit Solutions, since one of the alleged
victims is from there. She refused to be identified, the report
Another customer, Darlene Bradford, shared with KIROtv.com that
the company "promised after three years I'd be completely out of
debt." Client Misty Adams also testified that the company
promised to lower her debt by about 50 percent.
Both Ms. Bradford and Ms. Adams had gotten deeply into credit
card debt, but they said after going to Credit Solutions for
help, they found themselves deeper in the red.
The report points out that more than 1,000 complaints against
Credit Solutions have been registered with the Better Business
Bureau within the past three years, leading the B.B.B. to warn
consumers that there are bad actors in the debt-resolution
"If they're asking you for money up front, (that's) a huge red
flag. Typically you don't pay someone $500 that can look at
your debt and help you get out of it," Paula Fleming of the
B.B.B. warns.
KIROtv.com notes that Credit Solutions charges a fee of 15% of
the debt amount. It promises to negotiate with the lenders so
the client can pay less -- up to 60% less.
However, Ms. Bradford said she paid Credit Solutions $1,000 in
fees and got no relief from her debt. She and Ms. Adams said
that while they waited for help from Credit Solutions, they
racked up late fees and finance charges.
Tyler Weaver, Esq., who is with the Seattle law firm filing the
national class-action lawsuit against Credit Solutions, accuses
the company of violating consumer protection laws. "We're
looking forward to litigating this. . . . Credit Solutions
doesn't answer phone calls, they don't contact creditors, and at
the end of the day they're paying money to Credit Solutions that
they could have [used] to pay off their debt in the first
place."
A spokeswoman from Credit Solutions told KIROtv.com that with
70,000 customers, there are bound to be cases of "human error,"
but that the company makes every effort to remedy any problem,
calling customer complaints the company's number one priority."
"Our settlement division has an unrivaled track record," the
company added.
On its Web site, the company claims a 99.32% satisfaction rate
with its customers, and says it has eliminated more than
$265 million of debt for its clients, the report notes.
However, Ms. Weaver dismisses those claims.
"I have not heard from anybody who has had a positive experience
with Credit Solutions," Ms. Weaver said. She added that if a
person finds himself in credit trouble, Credit Solutions does
not offer any services that he can't do himself.
Ford Motor Co. is facing a class-action complaint in Wayne
County Circuit Court claiming age discrimination, Bryce G.
Hoffman writes for The Detroit News.
Royal Oak attorney Michael Pitt, Esq., filed the lawsuit on
behalf of Joseph Wojciechowski, a salaried worker who was laid
off from Ford Motor.
In the lawsuit, Mr. Pitt alleges that the Dearborn automaker is
using discriminatory criteria to decide who gets the ax in the
layoffs, which are expected to begin in earnest later this week.
He said that such systems "have been proven to be biased in
favor of younger employees and biased against older members of
the organization."
Mr. Pitt is seeking class action status for the case, and is
hoping that more workers will come forward to join the lawsuit.
The suit asks the court to force Ford to reinstate Mr.
Wojciechowski and to grant him unspecified damages.
"We haven't seen the lawsuit yet," Ford spokeswoman Marcey Evans
told the Detroit News. "It's too early in the process for us to
comment."
Headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) --
http://www.ford.com/-- manufactures or distributes automobiles
in 200 markets across six continents. With about 260,000
employees and about 100 plants worldwide, the company's core and
affiliated automotive brands include Ford, Jaguar, Land Rover,
Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo, Aston Martin, and Mazda. The company
provides financial services through Ford Motor Credit Company.
The company has operations in Japan in the Asia Pacific region,
through Ford Japan Limited.
Thirty-four Ohio charitable organizations are about to share on
more than $14 million in uncollected money from a settlement of
a class-action lawsuit against Grange Mutual Insurance Co.,
Alison Grant writes for The Plain Dealer.
Grange Mutual, a $1-billion insurance firm based in Columbus,
Ohio, was accused of overcharging auto policyholders for
uninsured-motorist coverage. The company eventually paid
$51 million to settle the case. Patrick J. Perotti, Esq., of
Dworken & Bernstein Co. L.P.A., was the lead counsel in the
The lucky recipients will soon learn how much is their part of
the windfall, according to The Plain Dealer. Sponsors of the
awards though pointed out that as a group they are divvying up
the biggest award of its type in U.S. history.
The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, which provides legal
services for the poor and is one of the 34 recipients, is
benefiting from a legal doctrine called "cy pres" that allows
distribution of unclaimed awards in class-action settlements.
The Plain Dealer explains that cy pres -- a Norman French term
that means "as near as possible" -- says that damage awards
should follow as closely as possible the intent of the lawsuit
settlement. But more often -- to the shock of many -- unclaimed
money goes straight back to the company that paid the damages in
the first place, according to the report.
Mr. Perotti, who led the effort to arrange the Ohio cy pres
awards told The Plain Dealer, "That's the big Oh!' we're
focusing on." He explains to The Plain Dealer that cy pres is
not mandatory, and that lots of class-action lawyers don't even
know it is an option.
However, Mr. Perotti pointed out that those who do know may
avoid getting involved, because cy pres makes settlement
negotiations more complicated, while not returning an extra
penny in fees. He would like to change that mindset.
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Dworken & Bernstein Co. L.P.A.
Suite 200, 60 S. Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077-3949
Web site: http://www.dworken-bernstein.com/
Great Eastern Resort Corp., the parent company of Massanutten
Resort in McGaheysville, is facing a purported class action
lawsuit in Virginia over allegations that it failed to pay
employees overtime and even minimum wage, Pete DeLea writes for
Harrisonburg Daily News Record.
Initially, on July 21, 2006, Great Eastern filed a lawsuit in
Rockingham County Circuit Court claiming that two time-share
sales employees assigned to Massanutten Resort left the resort
to go work for a competitor, in violation of their contracts
that included a no-compete clause.
Both employees, as part of their employment agreement, signed a
contract stating they would not work for a competitor for a
specified amount of time or recruit employees away from
Massanutten, according to Great Eastern's lawsuit.
However, despite the binding contracts, Great Eastern claims
that both employees went to work at Shenandoah Crossing in
Gordonsville, which is owned by Bluegreen Corp. and Leisure
Capital Corp., Harrisonburg Daily relates.
In reaction to the lawsuit, the two former employees, Nancy
Wagoner, of Harrisonburg, Va., and John Bonsall, of Shenandoah,
Va., filed a counterclaim on Aug. 31, 2006. The countersuit is
claiming that Great Eastern failed to pay them overtime and, in
some cases, failed to pay them minimum wage.
Court documents revealed that Ms. Wagoner was employed at
Massanutten Resort from 1996 to 2005, while Mr. Bonsall worked
at the resort from 1999 until 2004, and was one of the resort's
top salesmen.
Harrisonburg Daily says that in April 2008, Judge James Lane of
The Rockingham County Circuit Court ordered that the countersuit
be opened to other sales employees at Massanutten.
Since then, Harrisonburg Daily relates, more than 100 former or
current time-share sales employees at Massanutten Resort have
signed on to the case.
The class-action lawsuit against Great Eastern is open to any
current or former sales employees or takeover managers who
worked at the resort from April 24, 2005, to the present, the
report notes.
Aside form back overtime and minimum wages, Harrisonburg Daily
points out that the plaintiffs are seeking liquidated damages
and attorney's fees. The deadline to opt-in to the class action
is on July 22, 2008.
Timothy E. Cupp, Esq.
Cupp & Cupp
1951 Evelyn Byrd Ave
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack certified a class
action complaint against Hartford Insurance Company alleging
that Hartford systematically reduced its payments by "pre-
pricing" bills submitted by medical providers in violation of
the insurance policies, Steve Gonzalez writes for the Madison
County Record.
Filed in 2000 by the Lakin Law Firm, on behalf of Winnie
Madison, the suit alleges the insurer engaged in a scheme to
reduce payouts under medical payments coverage in property and
casualty insurance policies by using biased third party software
programs to adjust claims.
On July 7, Judge Stack certified classes composed of "all
insured persons, or licensed medical providers by assignment,
who from August 8, 1990, to the date of this order:
(a) submitted a first-party claim for payment of a medical
bill to an Affiliated Hartford Company;
(b) had their claim submitted to computer review by
Hartford Fire;
(c) received or were tendered an amount less that the
submitted medical expenses by Hartford Fire; and
(d) received or were tendered an amount less than the
stated policy limits."
He appointed the Lakin Law Firm of Wood River, Freed and Weiss
of Chicago and Timothy Campbell of Godfrey as class counsel.
The judge excluded anyone from:
-- Delaware,
-- Florida,
-- Hawaii,
-- Kansas,
-- Kentucky,
-- Massachusetts,
-- Michigan,
-- Minnesota,
-- New Jersey,
-- New York,
-- North Dakota,
-- Oregon,
-- Pennsylvania and
-- Utah.
He also excluded anyone whose claims were referred to Hartford's
special investigative unit and found to be fraudulent and anyone
who had a claim denied because of a duplicate bill.
Through discovery, Judge Stack held that it was established that
Hartford Fire handled all medical payment claims regardless of
which Hartford company actually handled the papers; Hartford
Fire employed the claim handlers and entered into the vendor
contracts and Hartford Fire selected the percentile used by the
software and established the claims procedures and paid claims
for their account.
Hartford had told the judge that claims for medpay easily exceed
100,000 people during the class period.
"Based upon the number of class members, the geographical
dispersement of class members, and the ability and likelihood
that class members would bring a suit on their own behalf, the
Court finds that the proposed class action is so numerous that
joinder of all members would be impracticable," the judge wrote
in his ruling.
To contact appointed class counsel:
Lakin Law Firm PC
300 Evans Avenue, PO Box 229
Wood River, IL 62095-0229
Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/
Freed & Weiss
111 West Washington, Suite 1331
e-mail: Info@FreedWeiss.com
Timothy F. Campbell
3017 Godfrey Road
Godfrey, IL 62035-0505
Home Depot Inc. is facing a class action complaint before the
Los Angeles Superior Court over allegations that it sells
Franklin Industries' defective "Everstar" 36-bottle wine
cellars, which overheat, CourtHouse News Service reports.
Headquartered in atlanta, Georgia, The Home Depot Inc. (NYSE:HD)
-- http://www.homedepot.com/-- is a home improvement retailer.
The company, together with its subsidiaries, operates The Home
Depot stores, which are full-service, warehouse-style stores.
The Home Depot stores sell an assortment of building materials,
home improvement, and lawn and garden products, which are sold
to do-it-yourself customers, do-it-for-me customers and
professional customers. The retailer employs about 331,000
The Fayette County Board of Education is facing a purported
class action lawsuit over sex abuse allegations dating back to
the 1970s, Brandon Ortiz writes for Kentucky.com.
Charles Arnold, Esq., who represents the plaintiffs, told
Kentucky.com that the lawsuit was filed with the Fayette Circuit
Court on July 2008. Mr. Arnold pointed out that it is not
public record because it is about sex abuse allegations that are
more than five years old. State law requires that such suits be
filed under seal, Kentucky.com explains.
Though declining to discuss details of the allegations,
Mr. Arnold told Kentucky.com that there are four named
plaintiffs and that the school board is the only defendant.
According to the report, the lawsuit was filed about a year
after Carol Lynne Maner won a $3.9-million verdict against the
school board.
A jury found that the school board had ignored Ms. Maner's
allegations of sex abuse by six employees at Beaumont Junior
High School and Lafayette High School in the late 1970s and
early 1980s, the report recounts.
In the trial, Ms. Maner's attorneys argued that teachers during
that period brazenly had sex with students without any fear of
reprisal.
Ms. Maner also shared with Kentucky.com that 33 people who said
they were sexually abused stepped forward within four months
after her trial verdict. However, she did not know whether any
of those people are plaintiffs in the new lawsuit. She said
that she was not aware of the recent suit.
Kentucky.com adds that the new lawsuit was filed by Mr. Arnold
and Chris Miller, Esq., the same attorneys who represented Ms.
Maner in her case.
Christopher D. Miller, Esq.
Rambicure & Miller, PSC
219 East High Street
Lexington, Kentucky 40588-4188
e-mail: mwoodrich@rmplex.com
Web site: http://www.rmplex.com/
Judge Ed Rubin of the 15th Judicial District approved a
$7.5-million settlement deal in a class-action lawsuit against
the Lafayette Consolidated Government over disputed back wages,
Richard Burgess writes for 2TheAdvocate reports.
The nine-year-old lawsuit was filed by more than 500 police,
firefighters and city marshals. According to a May 30, 2008
report by the Associated Press, the lawsuit stemmed from LCG
docking hundreds of dollars from the employees' paychecks when a
state supplemental pay raise kicked in.
Representing the plaintiffs in the matter is Daniel M. Landrym,
III, Esq.
In May 2008, The City-Parish Council agreed to the payout after
years of fighting off the lawsuit. The settlement calls for a
payment of $2.2 million within two months after the settlement
becomes final and $5.3 million over the next six years,
according to the AP report.
2TheAdvocate says that the case recently came before Judge Ed
Rubin for a hearing on attorneys fees and objections from some
of the employees to the terms of the settlement, which is 60% of
the $12.4 million that an accountant determined is owed.
A small number of police, firefighters and city marshals had
objected to the size of the settlement, the way retirement
benefits were figured, the six years the city has to pay the
money and the $2.5 million in proposed attorney fees.
Lafayette Professional Firefighters Association President Donald
Chauvin had asked the judge to cap attorney fees at
$1.5 million, arguing that because employees were accepting only
60% of what they were owed, attorneys should take less, too.
In approving the settlement, Judge Rubin said the employees
might have a hard time collecting the money without making a
deal. That's because, 2TheAdvocate notes, government entities
generally cannot be forced to pay legal judgments, which is a
provision meant to ensure that lawsuits do not interfere with
essential public services.
"There is no legal obligation on an entity of government to pay
a settlement or claim," Judge Rubin explains.
However, the judge added that city-parish government might
instead be moved by a "moral obligation" to resolve the wage
dispute.
Eventually, Judge Rubin approved the terms of the settlement,
but trimmed attorneys fees to $2.25 million, or 30% of the total
pay-out. The percentage is not unusual for large class-action
lawsuits, 2TheAdvocate points out.
Daniel M. Landry, III, Esq. (dmlplc@bellsouth.net)
The Law Offices of Daniel M. Landry III
802 General Mouton
Web site: http://www.lafayettelaw.com/
Lucky Green Trading., Inc. of Garden Grove, CA is recalling Thai
Basil , because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella , an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.
Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.
Thai Basil was distributed through retail stores and direct
delivery to customers in Southern California, Arizona , and
Nevada on June 30, 2008.
The product was shipped in 14 LB cardboard cartons with 12
individual packages weighting approx.1.2 LB each in clear,
unmarked, plastic bags. The exterior cartons were labeled "16
DE SEPTIEMBRE S/N SANTA ROSA TAPACHULA NAYARIT, C.P. 63731"
"Thai Basil" and also had an attached sticker with Airway Bill
#027 1947 0861.
The recall was as the result of a random testing by the FDA
which revealed that the finished products contained the
Salmonella. The company has suspended distribution and
importation of the product as FDA and the company continues
their investigation.
Consumers who purchased basil should contact the store where
they purchased the product to determine if their basil is the
Thai basil involved in the recall. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 714-554-9293.
Northstar Education Finance broke its contract with its student
loan customers and raised their interest rates to generate extra
revenues to cope with its financial difficulties, a class action
lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of
California in Los Angeles by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP,
The suit also states that the scheme would reap $570 million for
Northstar.
"What kind of corporation protects its profits by breaking a
contract it's made with student borrowers?" said Brian Kabateck,
Esq., Managing Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner. "To add
insult to injury, the borrowers they're targeting are those the
company has recognized for their on-time payment histories.
Student borrowers have been victimized too many times and in too
many ways by the student lending industry. We're going to make
sure they don't get away with it this time. Northstar is
preying on recent graduates trying to pay off huge student debts
in a bad economy."
Northstar is one of the nation's largest student lenders, with a
loan portfolio of $5 billion. Northstar consolidates student
loans. Its business model is predicated on providing borrowers
with substantial reductions of their monthly payments. One of
its key enticements for customers was its "T.H.E. Repayment
Bonus" program, which reduced borrowers' interest rates by .75%
if they were up-to-date on their payments for 60 days. The
program is incorporated into the binding contract between
borrowers and Northstar.
In February 2008, with Northstar (like other financial
institutions) feeling an economic crunch, the firm announced it
was "temporarily" suspending the program.
For the plaintiff named in this case, that means a 33% increase
in her monthly payments -- from $120 to $160.
The suit seeks to force Northstar to reimburse students for
their extra payments and to comply with the terms of the
contract they entered into with their borrowers by reinstating
the .75% interest rate reduction.
The notice Northstar sent to its borrowers informing them of the
program's suspension can be accessed here:
http://www.thetodayedition.org/uploads/pdf/StudentBonusAnnouncement.pdf
Despite the claim made in the notice, the terms of the "T.H.E.
Repayment Bonus" program were not subject to change.
Northstar is candid in discussing its motive for breaking its
contract in this notice: "The money used to fund student loans
comes primarily from the sale of bonds and other securities. Due
to the credit crunch, the cost of financing has increased
significantly over the last six months. In addition, student
loan providers are facing much higher interest rates on
securities used to finance loans that have already been made."
Northstar is coping with their increased costs by raising its
borrowers' interest rates, despite the terms of their contract,
states the suit.
According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, St. Paul-based
Northstar operates with "A shell nonprofit make[ing] the loans,
while a for-profit subsidiary services them and pays employees."
The Star-Tribune also reported that while "NorthStar Education
Finance was created with state money as a not-for-profit company
that would guarantee loans Minnesota students took out for
college," today, its for-profit executives take home millions of
dollars a year in compensation. Northstar was cited by New York
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in his high-profile investigation
into the student lending and was among the lenders cited by a
U.S. Senate committee report into questionable marketing
practices, according to the Star-Tribune.
Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
Engine Company No. 28 Building
644 South Figueroa Street
e-mail: info@kbklawyers.com
Quiznos Sub's Chief Legal Officer, Richard Emmett, dismisses a
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in
Pittsburgh (Penna.) over alleged deceptive business practices as
nothing more than a copy cat version of those already filed, the
Blue MauMau reports.
Earlier, owners of shuttered local Quiznos Sub stores sued the
company accusing it of engaging in deceptive business practices
to lure people into buying franchises -- practices that
invariably cause the store to fail (Class Action Reporter,
July 8, 2008).
Rene and Gwen Vela of Enon Valley -- the owners of the former
Chippewa Township Quiznos store -- and Andrew Schry of Ellport,
who owned the sub sandwich shop along Wagner Road in Center
Township, claim that the company:
-- "engages in a policy of fraudulently and
deceptively inducing franchisees to purchase Quiznos
franchises" as it intentionally misrepresents terms of
the franchise contract, changes policies with no
warning, and also misrepresents financial predictions
and the likelihood a franchise will succeed;
-- oversaturates a geographical area with more franchises
than the market can support and doesn't conduct research
into whether an area can support even a single
franchise;
-- forces stores to buy food and supplies at a high price
from company-mandated suppliers and won't allow stores
to get cheaper products from other suppliers;
-- forces stores to accept coupons for free or discounted
food but doesn't reimburse the stores, cutting into the
stores' profits; and
-- once a store fails and closes, threatens to make
year agreement.
franchises liable for royalty payments laid out in a 15-
According to the complaint, the Velas were promised by Quiznos
representatives in 2005 that they could expect annual profits of
"over $100,000" from the store, and could pay off their mortgage
in three years.
In the lawsuit, an attorney wrote that in the spring of 2007,
the Velas were concerned about the lower-than-expected business
at their store, but were told by a local Quiznos representative
to "sit tight," that sales would improve in the summer, and that
the company would do what it could to help.
The lawsuit says that Quiznos engaged in racketeering and seeks
"We call it a "me too" lawsuit, meaning we're going to file one
as well," Mr. Emmett said. He feels franchisees' attorney,
Peter J. Daley and Associates, P.C., is just trying to pick off
some of the Pennsylvania franchisees.
Mr. Emmett said there is nothing new here and they are totally
unimpressed with the litigation. He adds, "His allegations are
all based on past business practices and we expect the same
results here that happened in Illinois. In fact, he alleged
some of the claims that were dismissed in both Illinois and
Wisconsin. So we're not quite sure where this gentleman is
coming from."
Denver-based Quiznos has more than 4,900 locations in 15
countries and 425 in Canada, where it boasts it is growing
fastest among quick-service restaurant chains.
Salmolux Inc. of Federal Way, WA, is recalling lot # 01418 of
its Wild Alaskan Smoked Salmon Nova Lox sold in 3 ounce packages
due to the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.
The recalled lot # 01418 of Wild Alaskan Smoked Salmon Nova Lox
was distributed in Arizona, California, and Nevada, in Von's
retail outlets and to Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia, and
Virginia in Food Lion retail outlets.
The product comes in a 3 ounce, blue package marked with lot #
01418 on its rear white label bearing the name of the product,
its ingredients, and an expiration date.
After routine testing by the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, Listeria monocytogenes was found in 3
ounce packages of Wild Alaskan Smoked Salmon Nova Lox.
Consumers who have purchased the recalled 3 ounce packages
bearing the lot # 01418 of the salmon are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 253-874-2026 x214.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the Food
and Drug Administration.
TD Ameritrade, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in a
purported class action lawsuit that accuses the company of
illegally selling e-mail addresses to spammers, David Kravets
writes for Wired News.
The suit is captioned, "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No.
3:07-cv-02852-BZ," which was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
The suit alleges that TD Ameritrade provides spammers with its
accountholders' private e-mail addresses, which sent and
continue to send unsolicited commercial e-mail messages --
particularly e-mail promoting certain penny stocks or stock spam
-- to these private e-mail addresses (Class Action Reporter,
June 16, 2008).
According to an analysis of federal court documents by Wired
News, the proposed agreement to settle the breach-of-privacy
class action could compensate as many as 6.3 million TD
Ameritrade customers whose data was stolen by hackers would cost
the Nebraska online brokerage firm less than $2 per victim and
at least $1.8 million in fees to the attorneys who brokered the
Previously, Wired News reported that Judge Vaughn Walker of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California put
off approving a proposed settlement reached in the matter.
According to Wired News, among the reasons for the delayed
approval is that the lead plaintiff, Matthew Elvey, an IT
computer consultant who signed the agreement, had opposed it in
open court during the settlement hearing in June 2008. Mr.
Elvery claims that it is not good for customers and that he was
"threatened" by his lawyers into signing it.
Mr. Elvey's opposition to the deal prompted Judge Walker to
request an hourly accounting of the proposed legal fees, which
are not unusually high by class action standards. Judge Walker,
the report said, apparently was concerned that the settlement
agreement might not provide any real benefits to the customers
whose data was stolen.
However, in a court brief filed on July 10, 2008, lead counsel
for the plaintiffs, Scott Kamber, Esq., of KamberEdelson in New
York, wrote, "The settlement provides the class members with
fair, reasonable and adequate compensation for their claims."
Mr. Kamber pointed out that Mr. Elvey's claims of coercion was a
"meritless accusation."
Also, in that same filing, Mr. Kamber is requesting $1,360 an
hour -- $1.8 million and counting for time worked by him and
others in his and other firms for bringing the case and
negotiating a proposed settlement to the matter.
Wired News says that the data theft, disclosed in September
2007, gave hackers access to customer names, phone numbers,
e-mail accounts and home addresses. However, according to
Ameritrade, there is "no evidence" Social Security or account
information was compromised.
The settlement agreement also pointed out that there is no
"evidence of identity theft." Customers fell victim, however,
to spam attacks.
The deal is demanding heightened data security and that
Ameritrade assists victims of identity theft at rewinding their
financial mess. It does not, however, spell out whether lax
security was cause for the breach.
ID Analytics, a company specializing in identifying organized
identity theft, and has been retained by Ameritrade to monitor
security, according to Wired News.
A central element to the agreement is a provision giving
affected customers a one-year subscription to spam-blocking
software in the form of Trend Micro Internet Security Pro, which
retails for about $70.
Court briefs filed by the parties involved in the case revealed
that TD Ameritrade struck a deal with Trend Micro, Inc. to
service the settlement agreement for about $6 million. A
solution for those using Apple computers was added to the deal,
court briefs obtained by Wired News indicate.
In all, lawyers in the case said Ameritrade is likely to spend
$10 million on the deal. With attorney's fees, the deal is
expected to run the Nebraska company $12 million, or about $2
for every affected customer covered by the lawsuit.
With regard to how much Ameritrade might shell out in the
settlement, Wired News relates that Mr. Kamber said in a court
brief to Judge Walker: "It is my understanding from information
and belief that TD Ameritrade's cost associated with this
settlement are well in excess of the $6 million paid to Trend
Micro."
Mr. Kamber adds, "Considering an undisclosed cost of ID
Analytics as well as costs to comply with enhanced security, I
believe the total costs of this settlement will approach $10
million."
The suit is "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
02852-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman, presiding.
Scott A. Kamber, Esq. (skamber@kolaw.com)
Kamber & Associates, LLC
11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
2757 Leonis Boulevard
e-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net
Tesla Motors Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of San Mateo over allegations that it violated terms of
employment, CNET News reports.
Tesla Motors' former director of public relations, David
Vespremi, filed the suit, asserting Tesla did not act in good
faith in its dealings with him and did not follow California
labor laws. He claims he was laid off in a company
restructuring at the end of last year.
Mr. Vespremi is also suing for libel and slander because of
allegedly disparaging comments made about laid off employees in
the press by company executives.
Mr. Vespremi brings this action on behalf of all individuals who
are currently employed, or formerly were employed, by Tesla
Motors in California, and who have been required to sign a
mandatory arbitration clause and non-solicitation clause that
are similar or identical to the ones signed by Mr. Vespremi at
any time during the four years prior to the commencement of the
lawsuit, through the final resolution of the lawsuit.
Mr. Vespremi brings this action in order to challenge the
following policies and practices:
(1) the mandatory arbitration clause required to be
accepted in offers of employment made by Tesla Motors
to potential employees; and
(2) the mandatory non-solicitation clause which is required
to be accepted in offers of employment made by Tesla to
potential employees.
He wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether Tesla's policy and practice of requiring its
employees to submit to a mandatory arbitration clause
that exclude the arbitration of certain claims set
forth in the Proprietary Information Agreement is an
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice
in violation of Business and Professions Code Section
17200, et seq.; and
(b) whether Tesla's policy and practice of requiring its
employees to submit a mandatory non-solicitation clause
is a violation of Business and Professions Code Section
16600 et seq., and an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
business act or practice in violation of Business and
Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.
Mr. Vespremi requests the court to grant the following relief:
-- for an order, pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 382, certifying this action as a class
action, appointing Mr. Vespremi as class representative,
and his attorneys as class counsel;
-- for a declaratory judgment that Tesla has violated
Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., as
a result of the aforementioned violations;
Business and Professions Code Section 116600 et seq., as
-- for a permanent and mandatory injunction prohibiting
Tesla, its officers, agents, employees, affiliated
companies, and all those working in concert with them,
from committing future violations of the laws and public
policies described in the complaint;
-- general damages;
-- special damages;
-- punitive damages;
-- statutory damages and penalties;
-- reasonable attorneys' fees;
-- interest as allowed by law;
-- costs of the suit incurred; and
-- all other further relief as the court deems just and
proper.
The suit is "David Vespremi et al. v. Tesla Motors, Inc. et al.,
Case No. CIV 474656," filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California in and for the County of San Mateo.
Yosef Peretz, Esq.
Emily Berg, Esq.
Kletter & Peretz
22 Battery Street, Suite 202
The law firms of Sander, Ingebretsen & Parish, P.C. and Kohn,
Swift, & Graf, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced against Absolute Capital Management Holdings
Limited and certain related individuals and entities.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all United States investors and
foreign investors controlled or advised by United States
residents who purchased shares or partnership interests in the
Absolute Return Europe Fund, the Absolute East West Fund
Limited, the European Catalyst Fund, the Absolute Octane Fund
Limited, or the Absolute Activist Fund between July 1, 2005, and
The Complaint alleges that Absolute Capital and certain current
or prior officers and directors manipulated the investment of
Absolute Capital partnership funds and violated the funds'
investment objectives and policies while making materially false
and misleading statements and omitting material facts necessary
to make those statements not misleading.
The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.0b-5.
When the truth about the defendants' investment practices first
emerged publicly in September 2007, the net asset value of the
funds declined steeply in connection with the revaluation of the
funds' investments following disclosure of defendants'
investment practices.
Daniel F. Wake, Esq. (dwake@siplaw.com)
Sander, Ingebretson & Parish, P.C.
633 17th Street, Suite 1900
George W. Croner, Esq. (gcroner@kohnswift.com)
Kohn, Swift, & Graf, P.C.
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of CompuCredit
Corporation common stock during the period between November 6,
2006, and June 9, 2008.
The complaint charges CompuCredit and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
CompuCredit provides credit and related financial services and
products to underserved and un-banked consumers.
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. As a result of
defendants' false statements, CompuCredit stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching
its Class Period high of $40.61 per share in December 2006.
Then, on June 10, 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported that
federal regulators were expected to seek more than $100 million
in fines and restitution against CompuCredit related to
deceptive credit-card marketing tactics and abusive debt-
collection practices. On this news, CompuCredit's stock dropped
$2.49 per share to close at $6.30 per share on June 10, 2008, a
one-day decline of 28% on extremely high volume.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:
(a) the Company's assets contained millions of dollars
worth of impaired and risky securities, many of which
were backed by loans to subprime borrowers;
(b) the Company was not adequately accounting for its
provision for loan losses in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles, causing its financial
results to be materially misstated;
(c) the Company's improper marketing and collection
practices would lead to large fines and would harm the
Company's future results;
(d) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
losses and defaults related to its subprime customers
than it had previously disclosed;
(e) given the deterioration in the market for asset-backed
securities related to subprime consumers, the Company
would be forced to reduce its lending operations due to
liquidity concerns as it relied upon the sale of its
asset-backed securities to fund its ongoing operations;
(f) given the increased volatility in the subprime market
and increased level of delinquencies and defaults that
CompuCredit was experiencing, the Company had no
reasonable basis to make projections about its
financial results.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of CompuCredit common stock during the Class Period.
Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
MRV Communications, Inc., between March 31, 2003, and June 5,
2008, inclusive.
The complaint charges that MRV and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, by
issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's employee stock option grant practices and financial
The complaint alleges that defendants caused or allowed MRV to
issue statements that failed to disclose or misstated that:
(i) MRV had problems with its internal controls that
prevented it from issuing accurate financial reports
and projections;
(ii) because of improperly recorded stock-based compensation
expenses, the Company's financial results violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and
(iii) the Company's public disclosures covering a seven-year
period presented an inflated view of MRV's earnings and
earnings per share, which would later have to be
restated.
On June 5, 2008, MRV announced that it expects to restate its
2002 through 2008 financial statements, and that its previously
issued financial statements, earnings press releases and similar
communications should no longer be relied upon. The restatement
relates to the previously undisclosed stock-option back-dating
problems and accounting issues and occurred after the Company's
earlier announced that a review of its options granting
practices found no evidence that grant dates were designed to
occur on dates with lower and more favorable exercise prices.
MRV's management has recently stated that it is likely that
these previous conclusions were incorrect. On this news, MRV's
stock price fell approximately 24%.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired MRV's common stock during the
Class Period, which is between March 31, 2003, and June 5, 2008.
Tzivia Brody, Esq.
Stull, Stull & Brody
MEALEY'S BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
Ritz-Carlton Marina del Ray, California
Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963
MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW
DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710
MEALEY'S NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION SUPERCONFERENCE
Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, Arizona
DEFENDING CONSUMER FRAUD ECONOMIC INJURY CLAIMS
Union League, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
POSITIONING THE CLASS ACTION DEFENSE FOR EARLY SUCCESS
FireSky Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, Arizona
AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT LIABILITY
Sutton Place Hotel, Chicago, Illinois
NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
Millennium Broadway Hotel, New York
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND
DEFENSE STRATEGIES
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
DEBT ELIMINATION SCAMS AND THE INTERNET
(TOGETHER WITH THE HBA COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMER LAW SECTION)
HBA PRESENTS: ACCORD AND SATISFACTION, NOVATION, RELEASES
AND OTHER CONTRACTS ISSUES
HBA PRESENTS: BUSINESS TORTS
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS HOT TOPICS FOR CIVIL LAW
ATTORNEYS IN TEXAS
HBA PRESENTS: EVALUATING CAR WRECK CASES
LITIGATING POST-SALE HOUSE CASES IN TEXAS: CLAIMS AGAINST
SELLERS, REALTORS AND INSPECTORS
SUBPRIME MORTGAGE: COVERAGE & BANKRUPTCY ISSUES ARISING
FROM SUBPRIME LENDING
BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
Phone: 1-888-287-8258; 503-291-7963
ASBESTOS INSURANCE: EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND ITS
IMPACT ON COVERAGE
ASBESTOS SERIES: BANKRUPTCY TRUST UPDATES, CLAIMS FILING CRIB
SHEET, AND NEW CARRIER STRATEGIES
ASBESTOS SERIES: DATA ANALYSIS, VENUE UPDATE, AND
STRATEGY REVIEW
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES: QUANTIFYING AND DEFENDING
DAMAGES AND OTHER SETTLEMENT TECHNIQUES
EXXON: SUPREME COURT RULES ON PREEMPTION & PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Law Institute - American Bar Association
Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
WRITTEN DISCOVERY
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com
LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
e-mail: abacle@abanet.org
USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F.
Dy, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.


Los Angeles progressive metal band The Human Abstract have released a music video for their song "Complex Terms" off their 2011 album Digital Veil via E1 Music. The video was recorded in Stuttgart, Germany during their Never Say the N-Word tour.
The Human Abstract is supposedly in the middle of a "break or hiatus" but have just recently posted a cover of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata as well as this video which throws the bands "break" status into question.


Considering it's a monday and I should be all like "ugh I'm so hungover from partying this weekend let me just slouch in this chair and act hungover (basically half the people in my class) I could be doing something else right now" ...even though it's 8am, I doubt you were invited to an 8am kegger but okay. Anyway, I had been really nervous all weekend because I was forced to do a group project, which I'll confess I'm INSANELY bad at because I always assume responsibility. I have major trust issues when it comes to school group projects (I promise I'm working on it). But do you blame me? I did end up doing all ten pages by myself... I'm not mad. Seriously, I'm not mad because I got a..... B+ (which was the highest group grade in the class)!!!! Basically all on my own so I was raging with personal satisfaction... privately, of course. Since it was a "group" project. Yet, I strongly believe I couldn't have mussled out a ten page mystery novel without the encouragement of my English professor, whom I had been asking constantly to quickly revise my rough drafts.
So today I took the time after class to tell Professor Gray how much I appreciate the time that she took this summer to edit my essays. She is an old lady of few words but she is truly the annotating princess!! No mistake gets past her.. grammatically or style wise. It's teachers like her that inspire me to continue writing. Her constructive criticism has helped me grow with every assignment. Because I am such a grammar/writing freak, I remember every single annotation so clearly. That way, when I'm writing again, I remember not to repeat the same mistake and it makes me feel so great!! Or even when I'm editing someone else's work, I can give them more of the right critiques. I don't know about you, but I love a good peer editor. Any way, she was surprised (not sure why because it's pretty obvious I love her) that I took the time to acknowledge her hard work and I realized I'd like someone to do the same for me.
It's so important to take the time to tell someone that you appreciate them. Don't feel dumb. Everyone has their own outstanding qualities and great talents that they work hard on and they all deserve to be acknowledged and appreciated at some point. It's not only important because you might never see them again but also because someone who is being acknowledged will acknowledge that you are taking time out of your own day to do so. Everyone's time is precious to them and taking time means so much more than you can imagine. You don't necessarily have to sit there and list all their great qualities but you could mention one thing that really stood out to you about them and give a simple "thank you for being you" (LOVE that phrase).
I meet people all the time that inspire me to be a little more patient, a little more fit, a little more experimental. There are so many things that we notice in certain people and because of them decide to apply it to our own lives. I know you want to quietly take it as your own quality but the truth is you adapted it from them and you should take the time to say thank you. I've noticed the more I practice saying thank you to someone that inspires me, even if I just met them, the easier it becomes to say it because it's turned into a habit. Don't feel shy because you didn't have the quality before or because you think you're stealing their light. Any humble person (which is the kind of people we should surround ourselves with anyway) will appreciate your thank you with an open mind.
So today I think you should take the time to say thank you to someone that has recently inspired you and maybe even changed you. Whether it was your professor, your classmate, your gym partner, your parents, your boyfriend, your boyfriend's sister, your sibling's bestfriend. ANYONE. Think of someone that's made you better and say thank you for that. Giving someone your time is timeless : it'll will never go out of style, be out-dated, or cliche.


JEGS Billet Y-Blocks are precision machined to perfection for high-flow and feature a blue or black anodized finish. The single inlet to dual outlet blocks are available in either 3/8" NPT or 1/2" NPT configurations. These blocks are capable of flowing more than enough fuel to feed two separate carbs, fuel rails or to supply that single carb dual feed setup. The JEGS Y-Blocks feature a 1/8" NPT fuel pressure tap, two stainless bolts and nylon lock nuts for mounting to a panel or fabricate your own bracket to display this functional show piece. The engraved "JEGS" logo adds that finishing touch to this great product!


Total travel distance is approximately 925 feet.
Exit the metro via the metro elevator.
Go 14 feet. Turn left.
Go 56 feet. Turn right.
Go 268 feet to a low stone wall.
Follow the wall to the left to the entrance of Building 66, the NIH Gateway Center on your right.
Staff will guide you through the security screening process and direct you to the exit.
From the exit door follow the sidewalk straight 100 feet to the sidewalk curb.
Turn right and follow the curb 160 feet to the second bus shelter.
This is the NIH Campus Shuttle stop.
Total travel distance is approximately 790 feet.
Exit the NIH campus shuttle. Walk to the right with the curb on your right and the bus shelter on your left.
At the end of the bus shelter turn left and walk 15 feet to the edge of the sidewalk.
Follow the sidewalk edge to the right 100 feet to the pedestrian portals. Push through a portal and walk to the right to al low wall.
Turn left and follow the wall to the end. Turn left and walk 22 feet to the corner of the metro elevators.
Continue straight with the metro escalators on your right. At the end of the metro escalator shelter tun left.
Go 25 feet to the edge of the sidewalk.
Turn right. Follow the e sidewalk 145 feet. Turn right.
Go 56 feet. Turn left.
Go 14 feet. The door to the elevator is on your right.
Total travel distance is approximately 1,250 feet.
Exit the NIH campus shuttle. Walk to the left with the curb on your left and the bus shelter on your right.
Follow the curb 75 feet to the corner.
Turn 45 degrees to your left at the curb cut and go 55 feet across the road in the crosswalk.
At the curb cut turn right 45 degrees and walk 65 feet across the road in the crosswalk.
At the curb cut turn right and follow the sidewalk 145 feet to the pedestrian gate.
Push through the gate and go 60 feet to a curbcut on your right.
Turn right 45 degrees and go 55 feet across the road in the crosswalk.
At the curb cut turn right 45 degrees and go 25 feet to a curb cut.
Go straight 25 feet across the road in the crosswalk.
Go straight 20' to a low wall.
Turn to the left and follow the wall 65' to the end of the wall. Walk straight 25 feet to another low wall.
Continue straight with the metro escalators on your right. At the end of the metro escalator shelter turn left.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Buildings 1, 2 and 3 to the accessible entrance of Building 1.
Total travel distance is approximately 180 feet.
Exit the NIH Campus Shuttle at the shuttle stop for Buildings 1, 2 and 3.
Wait for the shuttle to pull away. Turn around to cross the street.
Cross the street at the crosswalk curb cut.
At the opposite side of the road, turn right.
Go 35 feet to the entrance.
The entrance opens toward the exterior. It has a door operator button on the right side. It has a ½" threshold.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Buildings 1, 2 and 3 to the accessible main entrance of Building 2.
Total travel distance is approximately 85 feet.
Go forward 5 feet to the first sidewalk junction.
Go 5 feet to the curb cut.
Cross the street at the crosswalk, 35 feet.
Go 25 feet to the first sidewalk junction.
Go 13 feet to the entrance.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Buildings 1, 2 and 3 to the accessible main entrance of Building 3.
Total travel distance is approximately 375 feet.
At the opposite side of the road, turn left.
Follow the sidewalk 210 feet to a fork.
Follow the sidewalk for 85 feet as it curves to the left.
Proceed up the ramp to the entrance on the right.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 31 to the accessible main entrance of Building 4.
Total travel distance is approximately 865feet.
Exit the campus shuttle bus at the Building 31 stop.
Turn left and go 110 feet, following the sidewalk which will curve to the left.
Follow the sidewalk to the right 20 feet.
Turn left and follow the sidewalk 105 feet.
At the first sidewalk intersection turn right and walk straight 185 feet.
At the first curb cut turn right and cross the street in the crosswalk. The crosswalk is 70 feet.
At the next curb cut, turn right and cross the street in the crosswalk. The crosswalk is 60 feet.
At the curb cut go straight 50 feet. Turn right at the first sidewalk.
Go 25 feet. Turn left.
Go 30 feet. Turn right.
Go 82 feet. Turn right.
Go 12 feet and turn left.
Follow ramp 45 feet to front door of Building 4 on the left.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 12, 13 and 50 to the accessible main entrance of Building 5.
Total travel distance is approximately 1,800 feet.
Upon exiting the campus shuttle bus at the Building 12, 13 and 50 stop, ask the driver to direct you to the crosswalk to cross Center Drive.
Cross Center Drive and turn right. Follow the sidewalk 195 feet to a curb cut.
At the curb cut go straight 62 feet across a driveway.
After crossing the driveway, follow the sidewalk 260 feet to the street corner and follow the sidewalk around the corner to the left.
You will reach a planted area. Follow it around to the left, 10 feet.
Turn right and walk straight 345 feet to a curb cut.
Cross the street in the crosswalk, 40 feet.
At the opposite curb cut turn right. Go 15 feet to a curb cut.
Cross the street in the crosswalk, 30 feet.
Go straight 165 feet to a curb cut.
At the curb cut go straight 15 feet in the crosswalk across a driveway.
After crossing the driveway, follow the sidewalk 170 feet to a curb cut on the right.
Turn right and cross the street in the crosswalk, 65 feet.
Go forward 35 feet, following the sidewalk as it curves to the right and intersect another sidewalk.
At the intersection turn left.
Go 75 feet and turn right.
Go 110 feet and turn right to the bottom of the building 5 entry ramp.
Follow the ramp to the right and around to the left.
The front door to Building 5 is on the right at the top of the ramp.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 31 to the accessible main entrance of Building 6.
Total travel distance is approximately 855 feet.
At the first sidewalk intersection turn left.
Go 26 feet to a curb cut. At the curb cut go straight 36 feet in the crosswalk, across a driveway.
After crossing the driveway, follow the sidewalk 288 feet to the street corner.
Follow the corner around to the right to the first curbcut on the left.
At the curb cut turn right and go 35 feet in the crosswalk, across a driveway.
After crossing the driveway, follow the sidewalk 172eet to the main entry stairs of building 6. The Wheelchair lift is on the right side of the entry stairs.
Call (301)594-6677 for assistance with the wheelchair lift.
Building 7 is not accessible.
If you need to access this building call (301)594-6677.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Buildings 1, 2 and 3 to the accessible main entrance of Building 8.
Total travel distance is approximately 425 feet.
Wait for the shuttle to pull away. Turn around to cross the street at the crosswalk curb cut.
At the fork veer right.
Go 18 feet to a curb cut.
Go 40 feet across a parking lot to a curb cut.
Go 23 feet to the building 8 entrance.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 12, 13 and 50 to the accessible main entrance of Building 9.
Total travel distance is approximately 1,160 feet.
Turn left and follow the ramped sidewalk to the bottom.
At the end of the ramp turn right.
Walk forward 15 feet to a wall.
Turn right and follow the wall to the first door on the left.
The 10 north campus shuttle stop is directly in front of the Building 10 north entrance.
The 10 south campus shuttle stop is directly in front of the Building 10 south entrance.
Total travel distance is approximately 445 feet.
Note: The entrance to Building 11 is locked at all time. Arrange for NIH staff to meet you at the door to gain access.
Exit the NIH Campus Shuttle at the shuttle stop for Building 14.
Turn left. Go 15 feet to a curb cut.
Go straight 130 feet to the next street corner.
Follow the curb to the right to a curb cut.
Turn right 95 degrees and cross the road in the crosswalk, 45 feet.
At the corner turn left and cross the road in the crosswalk, 30 feet.
Turn left and go 35 feet to a curb cut.
Cross the driveway, 35 feet.
Go 20 feet and turn right.
Go forward 5 feet to arrive at the main entrance to Building 11.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 12, 13 and 50 to the accessible main entrance of Building 12.
Total travel distance is approximately 660 feet.
Turn left and follow the sidewalk 350 feet to the third sidewalk of the left.
Turn right and go 10 feet to arrive at the main entrance to Building 12.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 12,13 and 50 to the accessible main entrance of Building 13.
Total travel distance is approximately 935 feet.
Cross Center Drive and turn right.
Follow the sidewalk 195 feet to a curb cut.
Turn left and follow the sidewalk 400 feet to the second curb cut on the right.
Turn right and cross the pedestrian plaza, 35 feet to a curb cut.
Follow the sidewalk straight 18 feet.
Turn left and go 24 feet.
Turn right and go 90 feet to the first sidewalk on the left.
Turn left and follow the sloped sidewalk 100 feet to arrive at the main entrance to Building 13.
There is a push button door operator on a pedestal to the right of the door.
Building 14 is not accessible.
The 15 buildings are not accessible by campus shuttle.
If you need to access these buildings call (301)594-6677.
Building 16 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
If you need access to this buildings call (301)594-6677.
Building 16A is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Building 17 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Building 18 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Building 21 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Building 22 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Building 28 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Directions from the shuttle stop for MLP 8 and Building 29 to the accessible main entrance of Building 29.
Total travel distance is approximately 400 feet.
Exit the NIH Campus Shuttle at the shuttle stop for MLP 8 and Building 29.
Go 25 feet to the first curb cut on your left.
Turn left and cross the street in the crosswalk, 35 feet.
Go straight 135 feet and turn right at the third sidewalk junction.
Go 165 feet. Turn right.
Go 25 feet to the main entry of Building 29.
Directions from the shuttle stop for MLP 8 and Building 29 to the accessible main entrance of Building 29A.
Total travel distance is approximately 610 feet.
Go straight 208 feet. Turn left at the first opportunity.
Follow the sidewalk 165 feet to the second left.
Turn right and go up a ramp 52 feet.
At the top of the ramp turn left and go 5 feet.
Turn left and go up a ramp 56 feet.
Turn right and go 5 feet to the main entry of building 29A.
Directions from the shuttle stop for MLP 8 and Building 29 to the accessible main entrance of Building 29B.
Total travel distance is approximately 555 feet.
Directions from the shuttle stop for MLP 8 and Building 29 to the accessible main entrance of Building 30.
Total travel distance is approximately 515 feet.
Follow the sidewalk 54 feet to a curb cut on the right.
Cross the road in the crosswalk, 35 feet.
Go 124 feet and turn right.
Go 20 feet to the main entrance of building 30.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 31 to the accessible main entrance of Building 31.
The Building 31 campus shuttle stop is directly in front of the Building 31 main entrance.
Building 32 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 31 to the accessible main entrance of Building 33.
Note: The accessible path from the Building 31 shuttle stop to the accessible main entrance of Building 33 go through building 31.
Total travel distance is approximately 875feet.
The Building 31campus shuttle stop is directly in front of the Building 31 main entrance.
Go forward through the automatic main entry doors and vestibule doors into the building 31 lobby. Turn right.
Go 20 feet and turn left.
Follow the corridor 260 feet and turn right.
Follow the corridor 312 feet and turn right.
Turn left, go 20 feet. Find the elevator call button between the elevator doors on the left.
Push the "down" call button.
Take the elevator to the B3 level.
After exiting the elevator turn right.
Go 20 feet and take the first left.
Go 75 feet to the automatic vestibule and exit doors.
Go 110 feet to the automatic entry doors to building 33.
Building 34 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Building 35 is accessible through the B level of building 37. Refer to building 37 directions.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 35, 37, 40 and 49 to the accessible main entrance of Building 37.
Total travel distance is approximately 210 feet.
Exit the NIH Campus Shuttle at the shuttle stop for Building 35, 37, 40 and 49.
Turn left and go to street corner.
Turn right and go 142 feet to where the curb curves to the left. Follow the curb 18 feet.
Go 38 feet. Turn right.
Go 5 feet to the main entrance of building 37.
Directions from the shuttle stop for NLM, Building 38A to the accessible main entrance of Building 38.
Total travel distance is approximately 20 feet.
The NLM, Building 38A campus shuttle stop is directly in front of the Building 38A main entrance.
Directions from the shuttle stop for NLM, Building 38A to the accessible main entrance of Building 38A.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 35, 37, 40 and 49 to the accessible main entrance of Building 40.
Total travel distance is approximately 110 feet.
Turn right. Go 90 feet.
Turn right. Go 15 feet to the main entrance of Building 40.
Directions from the lot 41C shuttle stop to the accessible main entrance of Building 41.
Note: The accessible path from the lot 41C shuttle stop to the accessible main entrance of Building 41 is through a parking lot. NIH recommends that you call (301)594-6677 for assistance.
Directions from the NLM and Building 45 shuttle stop to the accessible main entrance of Building 45.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 35, 37, 40 and 49 to the accessible main entrance of Building 49.
Directions from the shuttle stop for Building 12,13 and 50 to the accessible main entrance of Building 50.
Building 51 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Building 52 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Building 59 and 59A are not accessible from the campus shuttle.
If you need access to these buildings call (301)594-6677.
Building 60 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Building 61 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Building 62 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
If you need access to this buildings call (301)496-5672.
Building 63 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Directions from the NLM and Building 45 shuttle stop to the accessible main entrance of Building 64.
Building 65 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
If you need access to this buildings call (301)496-6500.
Directions from the Medical Center Metro stop to the accessible main entrance of Building 66.
Follow the wall to the left to the automatic entrance doors of Building 66 on your right.
Building 66A is not accessible from the campus shuttle.
Building 67 is not accessible from the campus shuttle.