/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140203.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, February 3, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 23


ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls 23 Trucks Over Defective Parts
AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court Opens Loophole for State Court Suits
CAPITAL ONE: District Court Dismisses "Castle" Case
CASTLEBROOK BUILDERS: Lower Court Ruling in "Snapp" Suit Upheld
DAVIS LAW: "Franke" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval

DIAMOND FOODS: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval
ERGOTRON INC: Recalls Television Wall Mounts Due to Injury Risk
FEDERAL HOUSING: Court Dismisses Kentucky Clerks' Class Action
FLUSHMATE: Expands Recall of Flushmate III Flushing System
GOOGLE INC: Loses Bid to Appeal Gmail Scanning Suit Ruling

HITACHI LTD: Deadlines in CRT Suit Settlement Order Vacated
JOHNSON HEALTH: Recalls Ascent Trainers and Ellipticals
LAZZARI FUEL: Court Sets Guidelines for Class Settlement Approval
LONG ISLAND POWER: Faces Class Action Over Sandy Power Outages
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: 4th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Corr" Suit

MICHAELS STORES: Faces Class Action Over Possible Data Breach
MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls Baby Rattles Due to Choking Hazard
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Motion to Remand "Greco" Suit Denied
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ordered to Submit Settlement Documentation
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Indiana Senates Passes Concussion Bill

NATIONWIDE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Trident Pool Gate Latches
NORTH BRANCH CORRECTIONAL: Class Cert. Bid in Phillips Suit Denied
NORTHWEST HEALTHCARE: Dist. Ct. Ruling in Workers' Suit Upheld
ONTARIO, CANADA: Up to 30 Victims May Join Abuse Class Action
PHILADELPHIA PARKING: Court Dismisses Parson Suit

PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Recalls Pacifier Holder Clips Over Choking Risk
POTTERY BARN: Recalls Morovian Star Pendant Chandeliers
RAMSEY EXCAVATING: Faces Fine Over Asbestos-Holding Materials
RIDDELL CO: Former NFL Player Sue Over Defective Helmets
SAMMICHAELS INC: Summary Judgment Bid in TCPA Suit Denied

SHOE CARNIVAL: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "Nicaj" Suit
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Recalls Rayovac Flashlights Due to Burn Hazard
SUUNTO OY: Recalls Air Hoses Used with Scuba Gear
TANK'S MEATS: Issues Voluntary Recall of Landjaegers Snack Sticks
THORATEC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Heartmate II Recall

TROJAN HORSE: Court Won't Dismiss 401(k) Plan Holders' Suit
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid to Amend Complaint in Drivers' Suit Tossed
WILLIAM PRYM: Accord in Fasteners Antitrust MDL Has Final OK

* Consumer Product Safety Commission Warns on Space Heater Misuse
* Lung Cancer Cases Rise in Asbestos Litigation


ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls 23 Trucks Over Defective Parts
Starting date:            January 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D., Equipment
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Accessories
Units affected:           23
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014013
TC ID number:             2014013
Manufacturer recall
number:                   CSN 591

On certain truck-mounted digger derricks, fasteners holding the
hydraulic feeder tube bracket to the side of the boom could
loosen, allowing the feeder tube to fall, placing anyone near or
beneath at risk of injury.

Altec will supply vehicle owners with an upgraded fastener kit as
well as installation instructions.

Affected products:

   Maker               Model year(s) affected
   -----               ----------------------
   ALTEC       2011, 2012, 2013, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2011, 2012, 2013
   ALTEC DT80          2011, 2012, 2013

AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court Opens Loophole for State Court Suits
Richard Fenton, Esq., Anthony Eliseuson, Esq., and Steven M. Levy,
Esq., at Dentons report that on January 14, 2014, the United
States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Fifth Circuit and
held that the Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") mass action
provision did not provide for jurisdiction over a parens patriae
suit filed by the attorney general of Mississippi.

This ruling has important consequences for corporations that face
class action litigation because it effectively opens up a loophole
in CAFA that will allow private class action lawyers to file what
are essentially private class actions through state attorneys
general and keep those cases in state courts that are viewed as
plaintiff-friendly.  Indeed, the state attorneys general that most
often use the parens patriae device in this manner represent some
of the same states whose court systems were subject to the class
action abuses that led to CAFA's passage in the first place.
Thus, this recent decision is likely to encourage an increase in
the filings of such lawsuits, which have already experienced an
uptick in recent years particularly in the pharmaceutical and
financial industries as well as in the antitrust context.

The Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp. decision.

The AU Optronics case was filed by the attorney general of
Mississippi following the settlement of a private class action
alleging essentially identical claims based on the defendants'
alleged price fixing conspiracy in the liquid crystal display
(LCD) market.  The defendants removed the case to federal court
arguing that the monetary recovery sought belonged to individual
purchasers, not the state, and therefore the parens patriae suit
was essentially a "mass action" involving the claims of "100 or
more persons" that would be jointly tried.  The district court
rejected that argument and ordered the case remanded to state
court, but the Fifth Circuit reversed. Based on its prior
precedent in Louisiana ex rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 536
F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2008), the Fifth Circuit held that the real
parties in interest were indeed the individual purchasers that the
attorney general sought to represent. Thus, CAFA's "mass action"
provision -- "a civil action . . . involving the monetary claims
of 100 or more persons that is proposed to be tried jointly
. . . ," 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(11)(B)(i) -- applied to the
complaint. Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 701
F.3d 796, 799-800 (5th Cir. 2012). According to the Fifth Circuit,
the claims and damages sought were:

     monetary claims;

     that belonged to more than 100 purchasers; and

     the attorney general sought to have those claims tried
jointly. Id. The Fifth Circuit did not address the alternative
ground of whether the case was also removable as a class action
under CAFA. Id.

In reaffirming its prior precedent, the Fifth Circuit declined to
follow the reasoning of the Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits,
which had rejected the Caldwell rule and adopted a rule known as
the "whole case" approach under which any independent interest of
the state is sufficient to bring the parens patriae action outside
of CAFA's scope even if private individual monetary claims were
also sought within the same complaint. See AU Optronics Corp. v.
South Carolina, 699 F.3d 385, 393-94 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding CAFA
mass action provision did not apply to parens patriae complaint
because the state also had a sovereign interest at stake); Nevada
v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir. 2011) (similar
principle); LG Display Co. v. Madigan, 665 F.3d 768, 772 (7th Cir.
2011) (similar principle).

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the AU
Optronics case in order to consider this circuit split regarding
whether CAFA's mass action provision could apply to parens patriae
actions filed by state attorneys general.  On January 7, 2014, the
Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit in a unanimous ruling
authored by Justice Sotomayor. Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU
Optronics Corp., Case No. 12-1036 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014).  The
Supreme Court's analysis focused on the specific text of the mass
action provision, and in particular the requirement that mass
actions involve the claims of at least "100 or more persons,"
which the Supreme Court equated with "plaintiffs" based on the
context of that language and the similarity of the interchangeable
usage of the terms "plaintiffs" and "persons" in CAFA and in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 which deals with joinder of
parties. Slip Op. at 6-7.  The Supreme Court also concluded that
reading the term "persons" to mean something other than
"plaintiffs" led to incongruities in the statutory text because
one of the requirements of the mass action provision was that the
claims of the 100 or more "persons" must be proposed for joint
trial with the "plaintiffs." Id. at 7.  As the Court put it, "[i]t
is difficult to imagine how the claims of one set of unnamed
individuals could be proposed for joint trial on the ground that
the claims of some completely different group of named plaintiffs
share common questions.  The better understanding is that Congress
meant for the "100 or more persons" and the proposed "plaintiffs"
to be one and the same." Id.

The United States Supreme Court also recognized an inherent
problem with the defendants' reliance on the mass action
provision, which -- unlike the class action provision of CAFA --
only provides for federal jurisdiction over claims that
individually meet the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement.
Id. at 8-9.  As the Supreme Court correctly noted, it is unlikely
that any of the claims in these cases would meet that threshold
and thus would remain in state court anyway, and determining which
claim is which would involve an "administrative nightmare that
Congress could not possibly have intended." Id. at 8.

For all those reasons the United States Supreme Court determined
that the plain reading of the mass action provision meant that the
100 or more persons must be named plaintiffs, not absent parties
or real parties in interest. Id. at 9-10.  The Supreme Court
further reinforced its conclusion based on a discussion of the
statutory context of the mass action provision, which, as noted
above, it determined was intended to play a limited and specific
role "as a backstop to ensure that CAFA's relaxed jurisdictional
rules for class actions cannot be evaded by a suit that names a
host of plaintiffs rather than using the class device." Id. at 10-

Finally, the Court also rejected the Fifth Circuit's decision to
engage in a real party in interest inquiry. Id. at 11.  While the
Supreme Court recognized its prior precedents often look to the
substance of the action and not merely labels in determining if
jurisdiction exists in a variety of contexts, it held that such an
inquiry was improper in this case because it was being misused to
alter and trump the specific statutory text in a way that the
Supreme Court held Congress did not intend. Id. at 11-14.

Potential Arguments to Close the Parens Patriae Loophole in
Specific Cases

Although the Supreme Court's decision soundly rejected any
argument that CAFA jurisdiction exists under the mass action
provision for parens patriae actions, other potential arguments
and strategies may remain to prevent such cases from being
litigated in hostile state courts.  Dentons lawyers have
substantial experience with such complex removal issues and the
defense of these parens patriae actions and stand ready to help
guide your company around the potential traps and pitfalls that
can significantly impact the outcome of such cases.

CAPITAL ONE: District Court Dismisses "Castle" Case
Senior District Judge William M. Nickerson dismissed the case
WMN-13-1830, (D. Md.).

Judge Nickerson held that three counts in the Plaintiff's suit
will be dismissed, and all that remains is Plaintiff's first
count, in which she seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
He added that Count I must also be dismissed because that nothing
in the Declaratory Judgment Act or Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 "provide a
basis for an independent claim" where the court does not
"otherwise have a valid cause of action before it".

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed in its
entirety, ruled the Court.

A copy of the District Court's January 15, 2014 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/JiZEgjfrom Leagle.com.

CASTLEBROOK BUILDERS: Lower Court Ruling in "Snapp" Suit Upheld
ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, CASE NO. 17-12-22. 2014-Ohio-163,
Defendants-appellants, is an appeal by Stephen Kappeler and
Castlebrook Builders, Inc., from a judgment rendered on October 5,
2012, by the Court of Common Pleas in Shelby County, Ohio, after a
jury trial.

The case involves construction of home improvements and additions
to a property located in Shelby County, Ohio, belonging to Scott
Snapp.  The construction services were provided by Castlebrook, an
Ohio corporation involved in a construction business in Ohio and
owned by defendant Stephen Kappeler.  In February 2010, Snapp
filed the Complaint alleging that, in connection with the
construction, Defendants Kappeler and Castlebrook violated the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), committed fraud,
breached their contract, and were unjustly enriched. The Complaint
further alleged that Kappeler was individually liable for the acts
of the corporation Castlebrook, on an alter ego theory.  Snapp
demanded damages against both Defendants, jointly and severally.
The matter proceeded to jury trial.  At the end of Plaintiff's
case, the Appellants moved for a directed verdict with respect to
fraud, unjust enrichment, and piercing the corporate veil.  The
trial court found that, looking at the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, the Plaintiff, there was
sufficient evidence presented from which the jury could find that
Kappeler exercised control over Castlebrook to commit fraud.
Accordingly, the trial court denied the Appellants' motion for a
directed verdict and the trial continued with the Appellants
presenting their case-in-chief.

On appeal, the Appellants raised three assignments of error.
First, they argued that Defendant Kappeler was improperly held to
be personally liable for the Co-defendant corporation
Castlebrook's actions.  Second, the Appellants asserted that the
trial court abused its discretion in awarding treble damages and
attorney's fees against them.  Third, the Appellants challenged
the jury verdicts as inconsistent and claim that the damages
awards were against manifest weight of the evidence.

In a January 21, 2014 Opinion available at http://is.gd/ngThqr
from Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District,
Shelby County, found no error prejudicial to the Appellants, in
the particulars assigned and argued.  For this reason, the Ohio
Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas
of Shelby County, Ohio.

For Appellants:

    Jon Paul Rion, Esq.
    Nicole Rutter-Hirth, Esq.
    130 W. Second Street
    Suite 2150 (21st Floor)
    Dayton, OH 45402
    Telephone: (937) 223-9133
    Facsimile: (937) 223-7540

Timothy S. Sell -- tim@shz-law.com -- for Appellee.

DAVIS LAW: "Franke" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
District Judge Victoria Roberts entered final judgment approving a
settlement in the class action lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER
FRANKE, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DAVIS LAW GROUP PC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
12-11035, (E.D. Mich.).

The Court certifies the Settlement Class defined as:

"All persons residing in the United States of America (including
its territories and Puerto Rico) about whom Advantage Direct365
received lists of consumers containing private financial
information including but not limited to FICO scores, Beacon
Scores, Debt Loads, Debt Utilization Rates, and Lien information.
Excluded from the settlement class are counsel of record (and
their respective law firms) for any of the parties and the
presiding judge in the action and her staff, and all members of
their immediate family. This class is limited to persons whose
names appeared on lists which were used by Advantage Direct365
within 24 months of the date of filing of the complaint in this

The Court appointed Christopher Franke as the Class Representative
and Ian Lyngklip and Julie Petrik of Lyngklip & Associates
Consumer Law Center, PLC as Class Counsel to represent the class

The Court granted final approval of the parties' Settlement
Agreement and ordered that the parties complete that Settlement by
submitting the Consent Order for entry by the Court. The Court
directed Defendant Advantage Direct365 to pay Mr. Franke $1,000
for his individual claim and $1,000 for his service to the class.
The Court directed Defendant Advantage Direct365 to pay Class
Counsel $2,500.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, no claims are released by
class members and no claims are precluded other than those
presented by Mr. Franke in his individual capacity. The Court
dismissed Mr. Franke's claims, with prejudice, with no costs,
sanctions or fees to either party, except those set forth in the
Order. The Court dismissed the claims of the class members without

A copy of the District Court's January 14, 2014 Final Judgment is
available at http://is.gd/Y0n9FAfrom Leagle.com.

DIAMOND FOODS: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval
District Judge William Alsup approved a settlement resolving all
NO. 11-CV-05386-WHA, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court held that the settlement set forth in the parties'
stipulation is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to
Lead Plaintiff, the Class and each of the Class Members.

The Court awarded Class Counsel attorneys' fees of $1,444,767.10
and 623,000 shares payable to Class Counsel from the Cash
Settlement Fund and Settlement Shares, and $633,375.35 for
reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. Additionally, Lead
Plaintiff will receive $10,000.00 as reimbursement for the costs
and expenses incurred directly related to its prosecution of the
case on behalf of the Class payable from the Cash Settlement Fund.

The Court dismissed the Action its entirety with prejudice.

A copy of the District Court's January 21, 2014 Judgment is
available at http://is.gd/2BAL05from Leagle.com.

ERGOTRON INC: Recalls Television Wall Mounts Due to Injury Risk
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ergotron Inc., of Eagan, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of
about 195,000 in the United States, 60 in Canada and 21,000 in
Mexico Ergotron Interactive Wall Mounts.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The weld between the "VESA" style mounting plate and the mounting
ring can fail, allowing the monitor or TV to fall.  This poses a
risk of injury to bystanders.

Ergotron has received three reports of the monitor plate
separating from the wall mount system.  Consumers reported
property damage to components of the wall mount unit. No injuries
have been reported.

The adjustable Ergotron interactive wall mount is designed for
flat panel displays and televisions which allows users to
reposition their display angles.  The wall mounts consist of three
parts including a wall mount plate for securing the system to the
wall; an extendible arm that allows the user to adjust the
position of their television in multiple directions and a monitor
plate for securing the arm to the television.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
AAFES, h.h.Gregg, Sam's Club, Walmart and independent retailers
nationwide specializing in electronic supplies and online at
Amazon.com from February 2012 to January 2013 for between $50 and

Consumers should immediately remove the TV/monitor from the mount
and contact Ergotron for a free repair kit.

FEDERAL HOUSING: Court Dismisses Kentucky Clerks' Class Action
District Judge David L. Bunning granted a motion to dismiss the
case captioned GEORGE O. SPOONAMORE, IV, as County Clerk of
Lincoln County, Kentucky, et al. Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL HOUSING
ACTION NOS. 12-220-DLB-CJS, 12-189-DLB-CJS, (E.D. Ky.).

The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal
Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) were chartered by Congress
to purchase residential mortgages and thereby increase the funds
available for mortgage lending. Each charter provides that the
entities will be exempt from "all taxation" except that the
entities are still subject to taxes on "real property."  The tax
exemption in Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's ("the entities")
charters are nearly identical. This "charter exemption" forms the
basis of this dispute.

Plaintiffs are county clerks in the state of Kentucky, charged
under Section142.050 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes with
collecting a real estate transfer tax when property is transferred
in their respective counties. That tax must be paid by the grantor
of real estate to another party.  The entities have granted
numerous pieces of property in Plaintiffs' respective
jurisdictions, but have claimed the charter exemption each time
and refused to pay the tax.  In response, Plaintiffs brought this
lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgment that the charter exemption
did not apply to the transfer tax and asking for class
certification.  They further asked the Court to enjoin the
entities from claiming the exemption and force the entities to pay
back transfer taxes. Plaintiffs also claimed punitive damages.
Though separate county clerks had filed similar suits against the
entities, all of those claims were consolidated into the present
action, and on March 6, 2013, the Court certified this case as a
class action, certifying the Plaintiff class as "all Kentucky
County Clerks."

According to Judge Bunning, the charter exemption is
constitutional, appropriately construed, and exempts the
Defendants from paying the Kentucky transfer tax. For these
reasons, the Court:

(1) denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment;

(2) grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

A copy of the District Court's January 17, 2014 Memorandum Opinion
& Order is available at http://is.gd/ByAFbsfrom Leagle.com.

FLUSHMATE: Expands Recall of Flushmate III Flushing System
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Flushmate, of New Hudson, Mich., a division of Sloan Valve
Company, announced a voluntary recall of about 351,000 in the U.S.
and about 9,400 in Canada (The Series 503 Flushmate III was
previously recalled in June 2012) Flushmate III Pressure-Assist
Flushing System.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The system can burst at or near the vessel weld seam releasing
stored pressure.  This pressure can lift the tank lid and shatter
the tank, posing impact and laceration hazards to consumers and
property damage.

Flushmate has received three reports of the units included in this
recall bursting, resulting in property damage and no reports of

The recall is for Series 503 Flushmate III Pressure Assist
flushing systems installed inside toilet tanks that were
manufactured from March 2008 through June 2009.  The units are
rectangular, black, two-piece vessels made of injection molded
plastic.  Previously recalled systems were manufactured from
October 1997 through February 2008.  Recalled units have a date
code/serial number that is 16 characters long and is located on
the label on the top of the Flushmate III.  The first six numerals
of the serial number are the date code.  The date code range for
units included in this recall in MMDDYY format is 030108 (March 1,
2008) through 063009 (June 30, 2009).  The date code range for
previously recalled systems in MMDDYY format was 101497 (Oct. 14,
1997) through 022908 (Feb. 29, 2008).  Units included in this
recall were sold individually and installed in toilets
manufactured by American Standard, Crane, Ecotech, Eljer, Gerber,
Kohler, Mancesa, Mansfield, Orion, St. Thomas, Universal Rundle,
Vitra, Vitromex and Western Pottery.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Home Depot and Lowe's stores, toilet manufacturers,
distributors and plumbing contractors nationwide from 2008 through
about 2009 for about $108 for the units without toilets.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Flushmate III
system, turn off the water supply to the unit, flush the toilet to
release the internal pressure and contact the firm to request a
free repair kit.

GOOGLE INC: Loses Bid to Appeal Gmail Scanning Suit Ruling
Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Google
Inc. lost its bid for a federal appeals court review of a ruling
that permitted a lawsuit to go forward over claims the company
violated wiretap laws by scanning the contents of private e-mail

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh in San Jose, California, denied
Google's request for the appeal hearing in an order on Jan. 27.
While allowing federal claims in the lawsuit to proceed in a
Sept. 26 ruling, Judge Koh has yet to rule whether the plaintiffs
can represent all Gmail users, as well as people whose messages
were received by a Gmail user.

In her ruling on Jan. 27, Judge Koh wrote the case is a
combination of various suits from different U.S. states with
related claims, the oldest of which was filed more than three
years ago.  Judge Koh said the plaintiffs and Google have fully
argued in court filings whether the case should proceed as a group
lawsuit, and that she will rule on that request "shortly" with a
target trial date in October.

The case was brought by users of Gmail and other e-mail services
from states including Texas, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Florida.
They claim Google exploits the content of messages so that it can
profit from the creation of user profiles and targeted

Google, the operator of the world's largest search engine, had
argued that Judge Koh's Sept. 26 ruling is a "novel
interpretation" of wiretap laws and raised issues that had never
been addressed by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Judge Koh said in her September ruling that the plaintiffs can
proceed with their claims that Mountain View, California-based
Google violated federal wiretap laws, rejecting the company's
argument that Gmail users agreed when they accepted subscription
service terms and privacy policies to let their messages be
scanned.  She threw out state law claims.

Google had to ask Judge Koh for permission to appeal her ruling as
the case is still going on.  The company said it must "obtain
guidance on whether the court's novel interpretation of now-
antiquated statutory provisions in an unanticipated context is

Google argued in a filing that the case should be thrown out
because the scanning processes at issue "are a standard and fully
disclosed part of the Gmail service" and the reading and mining of
e-mail is "completely automated and involves no human review."

The case is In re Google Inc. Gmail Litigation, 13-md-02430, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

HITACHI LTD: Deadlines in CRT Suit Settlement Order Vacated
07-5944 SC, MDL NO. 1917, (N.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order
on January 8, 2014, granting class certification and preliminary
approval of class action settlement with the Hitachi Defendants,
which granted certification of a Direct Purchaser Plaintiff (DPP)
class and preliminary approval of DPPs' settlement with Hitachi,
Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display Inc.), Hitachi
Asia, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices
(USA), Inc.

The Hitachi Preliminary Approval Order set deadlines for, inter
alia, notice of the settlement to the class, objections, and
requests for exclusions.

DPPs have recently reached a settlement with Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.
(f/k/a Samsung Display Devices Co., Ltd.); Samsung SDI America,
Inc.; Samsung SDI Brasil, Ltd.; (4) Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.;
Samsung Shenzhen SDI Co., Ltd.; SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.; and SDI
Mexico S.A. de C.V.

The Settlement Agreement with Hitachi (which has been
preliminarily approved by this Court) states in paragraph 19(b)
that "If Lead Counsel enters into any other settlements on behalf
of the Class before notice of this Agreement is given to the
Class, Lead Counsel shall use its reasonable best efforts to
provide a single notice to prospective Class members of all of the

All parties believe it would further judicial efficiency and would
save the class a significant amount of money to provide notice of
both settlements in a single notice, and proceed on a joint
briefing and hearing schedule;

Accordingly, in a stipulation signed by District Judge Samuel
Conti, the DPPs and Hitachi agreed that:

(1) All deadlines set forth in the Hitachi Preliminary Approval
     Order are vacated; and

(2) DPPs and Samsung SDI will move for preliminary approval of the
     settlement between DPPs and Samsung SDI at the earliest
     practical time, at which time a joint schedule for both the
     Hitachi and Samsung SDI settlements can be set.

A copy of the Stipulation, which was approved by the Judge on
January 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/pO54DGfrom

Saveri & Saveri, Inc.'s Guido Saveri, Esq., R. Alexander Saveri,
Esq., and Cadio Zirpoli, Esq., in San Francisco, California, serve
as Interim Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Class.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP's Eliot A. Adelson, Esq. --
eadelson@kirkland.com -- James Maxwell Cooper, Esq. --
max.cooper@kirkland.com -- in San Francisco; and Kirkland &
Ellis's James H. Mutchnik, P.C. -- jmutchnik@kirkland.com -- and
Kate Wheaton, Esq. -- kate.wheaton@kirkland.com -- in Chicago,
Illinois, argue for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays,
Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display Inc.), Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Hitachi
America, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

JOHNSON HEALTH: Recalls Ascent Trainers and Ellipticals
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. of Cottage Grove, Wis.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 2,800 in the U.S. Ascent
Trainer by Matrix and Matrix Fitness Elliptical.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer

Moisture from user perspiration or cleaning liquids can build up
in the power socket on the unit, causing a short circuit, posing a
fire hazard.

The company reports 44 incidents of sparking, smoking, charring
and/or melting at the power cord and socket.  There was one report
of the power socket and cord catching fire.  No injuries have been

The recall involves all Matrix Fitness Ascent Trainers and
Elliptical trainers installed from November 2011 through December
2012.  All Ascent Trainers and Ellipticals have a swing-arm handle
design, with pedals that rotate in an elliptical path.  Units also
have stationary handlebars.  The Ascent Trainers are similar to
the Elliptical machines, but include an incline function.  Users
operate the machines in a standing position.  The Ellipticals are
black and silver-colored.  The Ascent Trainers are also black and
silver-colored with an orange accent color on the machine's body
and foot pedals.  "Matrix" is printed on the machines body and
handlebars.  When assembled, the machines are about 70" high x 29"
wide and 68" long.  The machines involved in this recall have a
decal at the center/bottom of the units with model numbers
beginning with A3x, A5x, A7x, E3x, E5x or E7x.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Johnson Health Tech North America to dealers, commercial fitness
facilities such as health clubs and military facilities
nationwide, from November 2011 through December 2012, for about
$6,000 to $11,000 depending on console installed.

Exercise facilities should immediately unplug the machines and
contact Johnson Health Tech North America to schedule a free
repair.  Units are self-powered and can be used without being
plugged into an electrical outlet.

LAZZARI FUEL: Court Sets Guidelines for Class Settlement Approval
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
NO. C 13-05197 WHA, (N.D. Cal.), District Judge William Alsup
issued a notice in regarding factors to be evaluated for any
proposed class settlement.

The Court said the factors that will typically be considered in
determining whether to grant preliminary approval to a class
settlement are:


A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Notice is
available at http://is.gd/lXfKGlfrom Leagle.com.

LONG ISLAND POWER: Faces Class Action Over Sandy Power Outages
CBSNewYork reports that a lawsuit on Long Island could make
history as the first class-action suit in the nation against a
public utility for storm-related power outages.  As CBS 2's
Carolyn Gusoff reported, nearly 1 million customers of the old
Long Island Power Authority are suing over losing their power
during and after Superstorm Sandy.  The case was before a judge on
Jan. 28 in Nassau County.

Laura Brennan of Oceanside is among the plaintiffs.  Fifteen
months after Sandy knocked out power on Long Island, she wants
payback.  Ms. Brennan was among the 900,000 customers who could
recoup damages if the class-action lawsuit is allowed to proceed.

LIPA has asked the judge to dismiss the case, on the grounds that
there was no common cause of the outages.

Public outcry against LIPA was intense, with thousands in the dark
and cold for weeks following Sandy.  But the long-awaited legal
response from LIPA, delivered by the attorney, told the judge:
"Storms happen, outages happen, customers get upset and hire
lawyers who create class action suits.  These are individual
disputes that cannot be looked at as one case."

But ratepayers argued that the common thread is negligence.
Plaintiffs' attorney Kenneth Mollins initiated the class action.
Ratepayers claimed trees were not trimmed, poles were not
replaced, technology was outdated, and LIPA did not prepare for
the storm.  Their attorneys said 1 million customers should not
have to file individual lawsuits.

Attorney Alexander Schmidt is representing the plaintiffs.

Damages could be paid through insurance money rather than higher
rates, attorneys said.

Customers could recoup money for spoiled food, frozen pipes, and
hotel expenses.  But before any of that, ratepayers have asked to
unite to form one lawsuit.

The judge in the case did not say how long he would take to rule.

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: 4th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Corr" Suit
John Corr and John Grigsby brought a putative class action
attacking the legality of the toll charged by the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) for use of the Dulles Toll
Road. They contend that this toll is, in reality, an illegal tax.
The district court dismissed their complaint on numerous grounds.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal holding that under the Elizabeth River Crossings
framework, the tolls charged for passage on the Dulles Toll Road
are user fees, not taxes, under Virginia law. Their collection by
the MWAA does not run afoul of the Virginia Constitution and,
accordingly, does not violate the due process rights of motorists.

The case is JOHN B. CORR, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; JOHN W. GRIGSBY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
AMERICA, Amici Supporting Appellee, NO. 13-1076.

A copy of the Appeals Court's January 21, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/KyufBGfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Robert John Cynkar -- rcynkar@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO,
GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants.

For Appellee:

    Stuart Alan Raphael, Esq.
    1751 Pinnacle Dr #1700
    McLean, VA 22102
    United States
    Telephone: (703) 714-7463

D.C., for Amicus United States of America.

ON BRIEF: Patrick M. McSweeney, Powhatan, Virginia; Christopher I.
Kachouroff, DOMINION LAW GROUP, Woodbridge, Virginia; Richard B.
Rosenthal -- info@rbrosenthalesq.com -- LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD B.
ROSENTHAL, Miami, Florida, for Appellants.

Philip G. Sunderland, Office of General Counsel, METROPOLITAN
WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
David P. Bobzien, Gail P. Langham, Ann G. Killalea, James V.
McGettrick, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Amicus Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia.

Kathryn B. Thomson, Acting General Counsel, SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Paul M. Geier, Assistant General Counsel for
Litigation, Peter J. Plocki, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for
Litigation, Joy K. Park, Office of the General Counsel, UNITED
Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mark B. Stern, Michael
Washington, D.C.; Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Amicus
United States of America.

MICHAELS STORES: Faces Class Action Over Possible Data Breach
Andrew Harris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Michaels Stores Inc., the world's largest arts-and-crafts
retailer, was sued by a customer for failing to safeguard data
after the company said some payment-card information may have been
used fraudulently.

The Irving, Texas-based company said Jan. 25 that it "recently
learned of possible fraudulent activity on some U.S. payment cards
that had been used at Michaels, suggesting the company may have
experienced a data security attack."

Christina Moyer, an Illinois consumer, sued the company on Jan. 28
in federal court in Chicago, accusing Michaels of breaching an
implied promise to protect that information.  Ms. Moyer claims she
and other customers on whose behalf she filed the complaint must
spend time and money to deal with the consequences.

Ms. Moyer asked the court to recognize a class comprising anyone
who has made a Michaels purchase using a credit or debit card
before Jan. 25, 2014.

The case is Moyer v. Michaels Stores, 14-cv-561, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).

MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls Baby Rattles Due to Choking Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Midwest-CBK LLC, of Cannon Falls, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of 1,900 Baby rattles.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The head on the rattle can detach, posing a choking hazard to
young children.

The firm has received one report of the head on a rattle
detaching.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves donut-shaped polyester knit fabric baby
rattles with heads and arms to resemble a bear, monkey and a lion.
They measure about 7 inches in diameter by 2 inches thick.  Sweet-
ums and Midwest-CBK are printed on a hang tag on the rattles.  A
label sewn into the rattles has Midwest-CBK, the production date
04/2013 and the batch #:00001281 printed on it.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at small
gift stores from July 2013 through December 2013 for about $10.

Consumers should take the recalled rattles away from young
children immediately and contact Midwest-CBK for a full refund.

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Motion to Remand "Greco" Suit Denied
In the case captioned JOSEPH GRECO, JULES BRODSKY, TODD J.
3:13-CV-1005-M., (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs complained that
Defendants denied, relocated, and delayed on February 6, 2011, the
seating of, and/or directed to seats with obstructed views,
thousands of ticket holders to Super Bowl XLV.  The 237 affected
ticketholders filed their lawsuit on February 5, 2013, against
Defendants in state court, stating claims for breach of contract,
fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (DTPA), and negligence.

On March 7, 2013, Defendants removed the state court action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
arguing that this case is properly removable as a "mass action"
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Plaintiffs sought
a remand arguing that (1) Defendants have not established that
each Plaintiff seeks in excess of $75,000, and (2) the action is
exempted from CAFA's definition of "mass action" pursuant to the
"event or occurrence" exception.

"The fact remains that the seating problems alleged in connection
with these game tickets form separate events or occurrences for
which recovery is sought," ruled District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn.
"Accordingly, this exception does not warrant remand," she added.

Judge Lynn, hence, denied the motion to remand and held that the
District Court should retain jurisdiction over this action.

The Court directed the Plaintiffs' counsel to inform the Court
whether Plaintiff Covell will be dismissing her claims in this

A copy of the District Court's January 16, 2014 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/zP674tfrom Leagle.com.

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ordered to Submit Settlement Documentation
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that a federal judge's unexpected rejection of the settlement in
the NFL concussion case earlier in January has drawn praise from
lawyers for some of the former football players who allege they've
been kept in the dark on the details of the deal.

When U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania declined to grant preliminary approval of the $760
million agreement, she made clear that she was troubled by the
lack of empirical support for the figure and that she was unsure
that there would be enough money to cover all of the players with
potential claims.  Judge Brody ordered the NFL and the co-counsel
for the plaintiffs to submit to the court the documentation on
which they based the settlement.

That documentation hasn't been given to the dozens of lawyers
representing players in the case who weren't involved in the
development of the settlement.

The co-lead counsel in the case, Sol Weiss --
sweiss@anapolschwartz.com -- of Anapol Schwartz and Christopher
Seeger -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss, cited to
Judge Brody's July 8 order foreclosing counsel from "publicly
discussing the mediation process" as keeping them from sharing the
data with other plaintiffs attorneys.

They are currently in the process of transferring the requested
data and documentation to the special master, Ms. Weiss said.

On Jan. 29, Weiss and Seeger filed a motion with the court seeking
guidance "regarding disclosure of this data to the PSC and lawyers
who have filed cases in the MDL.  Should the court deem it
advisable to make the information available immediately, then it
shall be so.  Should the court instruct us to maintain
confidentiality, obviously that ruling will similarly be

After a meeting of about 75 plaintiffs lawyers with the co-lead
counsel in New York, lawyers from Corboy & Demetrio in Chicago
filed a motion with the court asking Judge Brody to direct Weiss
and Seeger to share the settlement's underlying data with the
other plaintiffs lawyers.

"Just show me what's under the hood," said Jason Luckasevic, one
of the first lawyers to file claims against the NFL and who is now
representing more than 500 former players.  Until he sees the data
that underlies the settlement agreement, he can't advise his
clients, said Mr. Luckasevic, of Goldberg, Persky & White in
Pittsburgh.  That sentiment has been echoed by other attorneys in
his position.

"I am in a holding pattern above the airport," he said, until he
gets the information.

Judge Brody ordered the documentation from the economists and
actuaries whose work the settlement was based on to be given to
Perry Golkin, the special master that she appointed in December to
help assess the integrity of the settlement.

"She clearly was dissatisfied with the math," said Michael McCann,
director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the
University of New Hampshire School of Law.

Mr. McCann called Judge Brody's unusual decision to deny approval
a "bold step," for which a number of former players are surely

Mr. McCann expects that the league and the players will continue
to negotiate and present a new agreement to the court.  Either the
NFL can come up with more money for the fund or be more persuasive
with the data and empirical support, he said.

The judge made it clear that she has to be convinced that the
settlement is going to be able to cover all of the retired players
who will have claims, Mr. McCann said.  It's hard to tell two
parties who have reached an agreement that it's not good enough,
he said, and highly unusual to reject a settlement that was
recommended by a mediator.

In July, Judge Brody sent the parties to mediation with a retired
federal trial judge from the Tenth Circuit, Layn Phillips.  At the
end of August, they announced that they had reached a settlement
and Phillips called it a "historic agreement" in a release issued
with an outline of the terms at the time.

"The declaration from Judge Phillips refers to 'analyses conducted
by the independent economists or actuaries retained by the
parties' to justify his belief that the $760 million to be paid by
the NFL parties 'is fair and reasonable and will be sufficient to
fund the benefits to which the parties have agreed,'" Judge Brody
said in her Jan. 14 opinion rejecting the deal.  She next said
that the plaintiffs counsel "believe" that there will be enough
money in the settlement fund to cover all of the former players.

"Unfortunately, no such analyses were provided to me in support of
the plaintiffs' motion," she said.

The plaintiffs lawyers have said that they will be able to
convince the judge that the settlement is fair and reasonable,
said Robert Heim of Dechert, who is representing the NFL.  That's
the next step, he said.  He was unsure as to whether the league is
anticipating further negotiation of the deal.

"They want to wait until the season is over, when there are no
eyes on them, for this battle to go down," said Lance Lubel, of
Lubel Voyles in Houston, referring to the NFL and Super Bowl
XLVIII, scheduled for Sunday evening in New Jersey.  Mr. Lubel is
representing more than 80 former players in the case.

Mr. Lubel also said he is troubled by the nondisclosure of the
data underlying the settlement.  "It's unusual for people on the
plaintiffs' side to not give information to the other plaintiffs
lawyers," he said.

Judge Brody hasn't ruled on the motions over the dissemination of
the data to all of the lawyers in the case, but she has signaled
her preference for settling the case.

In a two-page order announcing the accord in August, Judge Brody
said, "From the outset of this litigation, I have expressed my
belief that the interests of all parties would be best served by a
negotiated resolution of this case."

"The settlement holds the prospect of avoiding lengthy, expensive
and uncertain litigation, and of enhancing the game of football,"
she had said.

Although the judge can't actually change the terms of the
settlement herself, she does have significant leverage over it,
Mr. McCann said.  She can't tell the NFL to add more money, but,
he said, "in an indirect way, she can."

"Ultimately," McCann said of the settlement of the case, either
with the current agreement or an amended one, "she will approve

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Indiana Senates Passes Concussion Bill
Summer Ballentine, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the Indiana Senate on Jan. 30 approved a bill that would add
protections for student athletes with concussions and require
additional safety training for some coaches.

The Senate voted 45-1 to keep high school athletes with suspected
concussions off the field for at least 24 hours.  The legislation
also would require high school football coaches and assistant
coaches to receive training in player safety and head injuries.
The bill, which now moves to the House for approval, comes just
days before the Super Bowl and amid increased scrutiny of NFL
players' concussions.

Former Detroit Lions running back Jahvid Best, who says defective
helmets and concussions shortened his career, filed a lawsuit
against the league on Jan. 28.  And earlier last week, national
legislation to fund and implement concussion guidelines in schools
and youth leagues got NFL support.  The 2008 death of a New Jersey
high school football player spurred the national legislation.

The Indiana bill strengthens laws already in place to prevent or
better treat concussions.  High school athletes and their parents
currently must sign a waiver with information about the risk of
injury before playing, and athletes pulled for suspected
concussions cannot return to play without clearance from a health
care provider.

"Football is the most complex sport to play and the most complex
sport to coach," said co-author Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle.  "I
have had more phone calls from head coaches in our high schools
saying this is something that we have to have."

Emergency departments treat about 173,285 sports- and recreation-
related traumatic brain injuries in children each year, according
to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates.  Numbers
are highest in football, with about 55,000 a year, and girls'
soccer, with about 29,167.

Concussions cause headaches, dizziness, loss of memory, and
trouble sleeping and concentrating.  The CDC says that returning
concussed players to the field can lead to a longer recovery and,
in rare cases, brain damage or death.

Regulations similar to those proposed in the bill already are in
place at schools in the Indiana High School Athletic Association,
Bobby Cox, the organization's commissioner said.

"We've been doing that for years," Fort Wayne's Snider High School
Athletic Director Russ Isaacs said.  "It's pretty common
concussion protocol."

But home-school and other teams don't face those requirements,
Mr. Cox said.  Other coaches for contact sports such as hockey and
soccer will face no new training requirements if the legislation
passes.  Some have called for more expansive action.

"The law is really high school; it doesn't apply to middle school
or youth leagues," said Indiana Sports Concussion Network Co-
Director Dr. Hank Feuer, who spent almost four decades as a sports
medical consultant for Indiana University.  "Some states leave
coverage more rigid, covering more than Indiana."

NATIONWIDE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Trident Pool Gate Latches
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nationwide Industries, Inc., of Tampa, Fla., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,500 Nationwide Industries Trident Pool Gate
Latches.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The magnet contained in the striker portion of the latch assembly
can come loose, preventing the latch from securing a gate.

There were no injuries that were reported.

The recalled magnetic gate latches are 10" or 20" models in black
or white.  They are marked with the "Trident" name and image on
the face of the latch body below the key hole.  The latch body,
which is typically attached to a fence post, contains a knob and a
key cylinder on the uppermost portion and a recessed area on the
bottom portion designed to engage and retain the striker.  The
striker, which contains the magnet, is typically attached to the
active gate portion of a fence gate assembly, and moves with the
gate as it is opened and closed.  The Trident Latches are
frequently used to secure gates for pools.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
nationwide from February to October of 2013 to professional fence
contractors, dealers and gate manufacturers for between $50 to

Consumers should contact Nationwide Industries for a replacement
striker kit that can be installed with a Phillips head

NORTH BRANCH CORRECTIONAL: Class Cert. Bid in Phillips Suit Denied
District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow denied a motion for class
action certification in the case captioned ARTHUR PHILLIPS #355-
107 Plaintiff v. J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, COMMISSIONER, et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. DKC-13-823, (D. Md.).

The Clerk received on March 18, 2013, this civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 filed on behalf of Arthur
Phillips, a Maryland Division of Correction ("DOC") prisoner
housed at the North Branch Correctional Institution ("NBCI") in
Cumberland, Maryland. Plaintiff seeks money damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief and alleges serious breathing
problems due to deficiencies in the prison ventilation system.

Judge Chasanow denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action
Certification and granted a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of
Defendants, construed as a motion for summary judgment.

Judge Chasanow pointed out that Maryland provides a three-step
grievance process: request for administrative remedy to the Warden
of the institution (commonly referred to as an ARP); an appeal of
administrative dismissal to the Commissioner of Corrections; and
submission of the grievance to the Inmate Grievance Office (IGO).
The Plaintiff conceded that he did not file grievances concerning
the violations alleged in his Complaint, but argued that he was
not required to do so because the conditions created "imminent

"The fact that he frequently requires lozenges due to a chronic
sore throat (id., Ex. 11) does not provide sufficient reason to
support that argument concerning non-exhaustion and does not
suffice to merit an award of injunctive relief on behalf of
prisoners who may be housed in Unit 1 in the future," ruled the

A copy of the District Court's January 16, 2014 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/orHpsMfrom Leagle.com.

NORTHWEST HEALTHCARE: Dist. Ct. Ruling in Workers' Suit Upheld
Justice Beth Baker of Supreme Court of Montana affirmed a District
Court order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in
the case captioned SHEILA CHIPMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, DEBORAH WALLEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and ELLEN HAMES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
SPORTS MEDICINE, L.L.C., Defendants and Appellees, NO. DA 13-0329.

Plaintiffs Sheila Chipman, Deborah Wallen, and Ellen Hames had
appealed an order of the Eleventh Judicial District Court,
Flathead County, granting Defendants' (Employers) motion for
summary judgment.

The named plaintiffs are employees of Kalispell Regional Medical
Center (KRMC), a subsidiary of Northwest Healthcare Corporation.
Upon hire, new employees sign a probationary employment contract
that reads, "Upon expiration of this Probationary Employment
Contract, if the Employer and Employee elect to continue the
employment relationship, the Employee shall attain regular
employee status, subject to the policies and regulations of the
Employer, as they may exist from time to time." Plaintiffs did not
sign any additional employment contract when they completed their
probationary period.  The Employers, in the 1990s, created a sick-
leave policy as part of its benefits package that allowed
employees to "bank" their sick leave in what Employers termed a
continued illness bank (CIB). The CIB was established to provide
employees "with a source of compensation during long term
illnesses and extended periods of time off from work due to
personal injury, illness or an approved [family medical leave].

On appeal, the Supreme Court determined whether the District Court
erred in the following determinations:

1. That Employers' policies did not constitute a standardized
    group employment contract;

2. That CIB Pay-Out Benefit was not deferred compensation or wages
    under the Montana Wage and Wage Protection Act.

3. That the covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not apply
    to Plaintiffs' claims.

Justice Baker found that the Employers' policies and procedures
are not part of the Plaintiffs' employment contract. Because the
payout of CIB hours was not an accrued right or a term of an
enforceable agreement, Employers' termination of the benefit could
not breach the covenant.

"We conclude that the District Court did not err in determining
that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not apply to
Plaintiffs' claim," ruled the Supreme Court.

A copy of the Supreme Court's January 21, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/IVc0iwfrom Leagle.com.

Amy Eddy -- amyeddy@eddysandler.com -- David Sandler --
davidsandler@eddysandler.com -- Eddy Sandler Trial Attorneys,
PLLP; Kalispell, Montana, for Appellants.

For Appellees:

    Robert C. Lukes, Esq.
    Charles E. Hansberry, Esq.
    Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP
    350 Ryman Street
    Missoula, MT 59802
    Telephone: 406-523-2500
    Facsimile: 406-523-2595

       - and -

    Richard M. Kobdish, Esq.
    Attorney at Law
    2200 Ross Ave # 2800
    Dallas, TX 75201
    Telephone: (214) 855-8000

ONTARIO, CANADA: Up to 30 Victims May Join Abuse Class Action
Kim Nursall, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a proposed
$100-million class-action lawsuit alleges that, for four decades,
Ontario systematically failed to protect the legal rights of
children in its care to seek compensation for the criminal abuse
and neglect they had suffered.

Since Jan. 1, 1966, thousands of children have become Crown wards
when they were taken from their families after suffering physical,
emotional or sexual abuse, making the province their legal

As victims of crimes or tortious acts, these children were
entitled to seek damages and, starting in 1971, apply for
compensation from Ontario's Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
But a statement of claim recently filed in Ontario Superior Court
contends that the province, through "systemic failure and
inaction," did not pursue remedies on behalf of these children,
many of whom are now adults, and consequently caused "their
ability to seek civil damages and compensation . . . (to)

"Limitation periods have expired, evidence has disappeared, and
Crown wards who were victims of criminal and tortious acts have
not received compensation that would otherwise have played a vital
role in their recovery and development," the statement of claim

Claims made in the document have not been tested or proven in

Under Ontario's Child and Family Services Act, the province has
the same rights and responsibilities as a parent when a child is
in its care.

The statement of claim alleges that this includes "the protection
and enforcement of the child's claims for compensation and civil

The provincial government has not yet filed a statement of
defense.  In an emailed statement, government spokesman Brendan
Crawley acknowledged the lawsuit, but said that, "as this matter
is subject to litigation, it would be inappropriate to comment

The class action needs to be certified before the allegations
against the province can be tested in court, a process that can
take years.

Mr. Zaitzeff said there are between 20 and 30 clients currently
seeking to participate in the lawsuit, which was launched by
lawfirms Koskie Minsky LLP and Watkins Law Professional Corp.
Zaitzeff estimated the class action could apply to as many as
150,000 former and current Crown wards.

PHILADELPHIA PARKING: Court Dismisses Parson Suit
et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0955, (E.D. Penn.), the Plaintiff
brings, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
similarly situated, an unjust enrichment claim against defendant
for allegedly collecting street parking payments on various days
when parking was free of charge in Philadelphia.

The Plaintiff alleges that on multiple occasions after 5:00 p.m.
on Wednesdays, and after 11:00 a.m. on Saturdays between November
24 and December 29, 2012, she paid for metered parking at kiosks
in non-rush hour zones in Center City because she did not know
that parking was free of charge since there were no signs
indicating such, and the meter kiosks accepted payment for
parking. Similarly, on multiple occasions plaintiff claims she
paid for metered parking in the City beyond the time required by
the applicable parking regulation signs. The Plaintiff demands
certification of her suit as a class action on behalf of the
proposed class and designating her as class representative,
restitution of any and all payments made by any and all class
members that was allegedly retained by defendants, pre- and post-
judgment interest, costs of litigation and other such relief as
the Court deems appropriate. The Philadelphia Parking Authority
filed a motion to dismiss.

In a January 16, 2014 Memorandum available at http://is.gd/hS6n5M
from Leagle.com, District Judge Thomas N. O'Neill grants the PPA's
motion saying the PPA does not receive, accept or retain benefits
or appreciation of such benefits from plaintiff and other alleged
class members as is required to plead a claim of unjust
enrichment.  Accordingly, "I will grant the PPA's motion to
dismiss and do not need to address the issue of the PPA's
governmental immunity from the instant suit," says Judge O'Neill.

PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Recalls Pacifier Holder Clips Over Choking Risk
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Playtex Products Inc., of Dover, Del., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1.25 million in the U.S. and 150,000 in Canada
Playtex pacifier holder clips.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pacifier holder clips can crack and a small part can break off
which poses a choking hazard to small children.

Playtex has received 99 reports of the holder cracking or
breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the Playtex pacifier holder clips that attach
a pacifier to items like clothing, diaper bags and strollers.  It
is a plastic clip with a figure and a "Playtex" copyright logo
that slides up and down to adjust the clip, a ribbon and a clear
plastic ring that stretches to fit the pacifier.  The pacifier
holder was sold in green with a monkey figure, pink with a flower
and blue with a tow truck.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Walmart, Target, Burlington Coat Factory, other major retailers,
juvenile product, baby and discount stores nationwide and online
at Amazon.com, among others, from July 2010 through October 2013
for about $3.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pacifier holders
away from infants and contact Playtex for instructions on how to
return the product for a full refund.

POTTERY BARN: Recalls Morovian Star Pendant Chandeliers
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pottery Barn, a division of Williams-Sonoma, Inc., of San
Francisco, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of 1,100 Oversized
Morovian Star Pendant Chandeliers.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The joints can fail to support the weight of the pendant causing
it to fall, posing the risk of injury.

Pottery Barn has received three reports of the pendant
chandelier's mirrored glass detaching from the metal fixtures and
falling.  No injuries were reported.

The recall involves the oversized 26-point Morovian Star Pendant
chandeliers made of antiqued mirrored glass and metal.  The
pendants are 19 inches in diameter with a 6 inch chain.  The star-
shaped pendants can be hardwired to a ceiling's outlet and contain
a circular, black ceiling connection cover with a chain to the
pendant.  The pendants come in two styles or SKUs depending on
whether they require a compact florescent bulb or non-compact
florescent bulb.  Both styles look identical.

    SKU Number         Style Name
    ----------         ----------
    2275188    Oversized Antique Mercury Moravian Star Pendant
    2379394    Oversized Antique Mercury Moravian Star Pendant, Non
                  Compact Florescent Bulb

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Pottery Barn stores nationwide, online at
potterybarn.com and through the Pottery Barn Catalog nationwide
from September 2013 through December 2013 from $240 to $300.

Consumers should immediately clear the area under the pendant
chandeliers and have them removed.  Contact the firm for
instructions for returning the pendant chandeliers at no cost and
for receiving a full refund.  Pottery Barn is contacting customers

RAMSEY EXCAVATING: Faces Fine Over Asbestos-Holding Materials
Paul Walsh, writing for The Star Tribune, reports that a
Minneapolis demolition company has paid a fine for sending clouds
of dust into nearby businesses during the razing of a late-1800s
Warehouse District commercial building that the excavators knew
contained asbestos.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on Jan. 28 announced
payment of a $10,000 penalty by Ramsey Excavating for using
improper procedures in the spring of 2013 to remove and contain
the asbestos-holding materials while tearing down the 119-year-old
building at N. 643 5th St., down the street from Target Field.

Al Ramsey, president of the 15-year-old company, pointed out on
Jan. 29 that "it was not confirmed" that the dust actually
contained asbestos.  "The only thing that caused the fine was the
visible emissions," Ramsey added.

During an inspection on April 29 at the three-story site where
Northern Auto Parts had operated until 2009, according to the
MPCA, agency staff saw dust being generated during demolition
coming from one area of the building and blowing into the
adjoining street and neighboring businesses.

Prior to demolition to make way for high-density housing, Ramsey
Excavating told the MPCA that asbestos-containing materials --
such as pipe and boiler insulation -- were in that area of the

Asbestos has long been known to be a carcinogen, in particular
causing mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lung lining.

The contractor was spraying water on to the debris with a single
fire hose, but that was inadequate in preventing the dust from
blowing away from the site, the MPCA said.

Agency staff also saw that a pile of debris that included
asbestos-containing materials was not being processed for disposal
in a timely manner.  That pile had lingered for four days, the
agency said.

In addition to paying the fine, Ramsey Excavating also agreed to
use proper containment practices in the future and to manage
asbestos-containing materials and debris in a timely manner.

Ramsey Excavating counts among its projects assisting with
construction of Target Field, which opened in 2010.

RIDDELL CO: Former NFL Player Sue Over Defective Helmets
The Associated Press reports that former Detroit Lions running
back Jahvid Best is suing the NFL and helmet maker Riddell after
concussion problems helped cut short his career.  The lawsuit was
filed in Wayne County Circuit Court on Jan. 28.  It alleges the
league has been aware of evidence of mild traumatic brain injuries
and the risk for its players for years, but "deliberately ignored
and actively concealed" the information.  It also accuses Riddell
of making defective helmets and failing to inform the players of
the long-term effects of concussions.

"The NFL, like the sport of boxing, was aware of the health risks
associated with repetitive blows producing sub-concussive and
concussive results and the fact that some members of the NFL
players population were at significant risk of developing long-
term brain damage and cognitive decline as a result," the lawsuit

"Despite its knowledge and controlling role in governing player
conduct on and off the field, the NFL turned a blind eye to the
risk and failed to warn and/or impose safety regulations governing
this health and safety problem."

Ms. Best's suit comes just days before the Denver Broncos take on
the Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl on Jan. 26.  It also comes
on the heels of a ruling by a federal judge that calls into
question the viability of a proposed $765 million settlement of
NFL concussion claims.

U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody denied preliminary approval of
the plan because she's worried the money for 20,000 retired
players could run out sooner than expected.  She also raised
concerns two weeks ago that anyone who gets concussion damages
from the NFL would be barred from suing the NCAA or other amateur
football leagues.

Mr. Best was selected by the Lions in the first round of the 2010
draft and accounted for 1,000-plus yards and six touchdowns as a
rookie.  But he was limited to six games during the 2011 season
after what he said was the third concussion of his football
career.  He was cut by Detroit in July.

Mr. Best also had a scary fall when he was a college player at
California that knocked him out and sent him to the hospital with
a concussion and sore back.  Mr. Best is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages from the NFL and Riddell, to go along with
economic and non-economic damages.

"Unfortunately, with these types of injuries, as has been
documented, the long-term effects of the injuries to the brain may
not manifest themselves for a number of years," Bret Schnitzer,
Best's attorney, said in an email to The Associated Press.
"Jahvid obviously had some manifestation of concussion syndrome,
which is well documented in the media.  But in terms of the full
extent of the injury to the brain, as we can see from other
players and from the science, that can't always be determined in a

"He was disabled from playing football due to the concussions.
That's all I'm really going to indicate in terms of his condition
at this time," Mr. Schnitzer said in an email.  "It'll develop
through the litigation."

SAMMICHAELS INC: Summary Judgment Bid in TCPA Suit Denied
District Judge Marianne O. Battani denied a motion for summary
judgment filed by plaintiffs in the case captioned IMHOFF
INVESTMENT, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SAMMICHAELS, INC., Defendant,
CASE NO. 10-10996, (E.D. Mich.).

This class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Plaintiff Imhoff
Investment, LLC arises out of an alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The TCPA prohibits the
use of "any telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device
to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited

According to the Plaintiff, SamMichaels Inc. hired a fax
broadcaster, Business to Business Solutions (B2B), which was
operated by Caroline Abraham, to advertise and promote Defendant's
clothing store and tuxedo rental business.

Judge Battani held that the Plaintiff has not met its burden on
summary judgment because the owners of each fax machine or fax
line in 2006, when the transmissions occurred, have not been

The Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Paragraphs 4, 5
(sentence 2), 7, and 10 of a September 24, 2013 Affidavit of a
certain Maher Shihadeh.  The Defendant's Motion to Strike a
Portion of and an Exhibit to Plaintiff's Reply Brief was granted
in part and denied in part.

A copy of the District Court's January 15, 2014 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/CVUKncfrom Leagle.com.

SHOE CARNIVAL: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "Nicaj" Suit
District Judge Thomas M. Durkin dismissed the case captioned
SULEJMAN NICAJ, Plaintiff, v. SHOE CARNIVAL, INC., Defendant, NO.
13C7793, (N.D. Ill.).

Sulejman Nicaj filed this action against Shoe Carnival, Inc.,
alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act (FACTA)) amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15
U.S.C. Section 1681c(g)(1). R. 1. Shoe Carnival has moved for
judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(c).

Mr. Nicaj used his Visa debit card to make a purchase at Shoe
Carnival's Naperville store on October 29, 2013.  After Shoe
Carnival's employee used Mr. Nicaj's card to complete the
transaction, the employee handed Mr. Nicaj "an electronically
printed receipt at the point of sale that contained the month of
[Nicaj's] Visa card's expiration date."  Mr. Nicaj alleged that
Shoe Carnival's "point of sale terminal at its store in
Naperville, Illinois, was programmed to print the month of credit
and debit card's expiration dates on electronically printed
receipts."  As a result of this transaction, Mr. Nicaj filed suit
against Shoe Carnival on October 31, 2013, contending that Shoe
Carnival violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g)(1), which prohibits a
business from including the expiration date on any electronically
printed receipt that is "provided to the cardholder at the point
of sale or transaction." He brought the suit as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Judge Durkin held that Shoe Carnival is entitled to judgment on
the pleadings because it did not willfully violate the statute --
i.e., printing the expiration month is not prohibited by the
provision which precludes printing the "expiration date" -- and
because the Court does not believe its own interpretation is
"objectively unreasonable," Shoe Carnival's belief that printing
the month was not a violation likewise cannot be considered
"objectively unreasonable."

A copy of the Appeals Court's January 16, 2014 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/Wtq4L7from Leagle.com.

SPECTRUM BRANDS: Recalls Rayovac Flashlights Due to Burn Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
P.T. Topus International, of Indonesia, announced a voluntary
recall of about 225,000 in the United States and 7,000 in Canada
Rayovac flashlights.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The flashlight can cause the batteries to overheat and melt the
flashlight's plastic casing, posing a burn hazard.

Spectrum has received reports of 12 flashlights overheating and
melting during use.  No injuries or property damage have been

The recall involves Rayovac LED Industrial flashlights (model
ILED2AA) with run times of 25 or 50 hours, Rayovac Value Bright
LED plastic flashlights (model BRSELED2AA-BA), and Rayovac Value
Bright flashlights (model BRSELED2AA-BDGDI).  The flashlights use
two AA batteries.  They measure about 6 1/2 inches long and the
flashlight head is about 1 1/3 inches in diameter.  They were sold
in the following colors:  solid red, blue, green or black with
yellow.  Rayovac is printed on the head of the flashlight. The
following date codes are included in the recall:  E/J-C, H/F-C,
I/F-C, L/F-C, M/W-C, O/F-C, R/F-C, R/J-C,    S/J-C, T/F-C, U/F-C
and Y/J-C.  The date code is printed on a white sticker inside the
flashlight's tube.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at
Electronics, grocery, drug, hardware, home improvement and auto
parts stores, farm and ranch product outlets, military surplus
outlets and farm cooperatives and other stores nationwide and
online at http://www.rayovac.comand other websites from February
2012 through December 2013 for about $2.30.

Consumers should stop using the recalled flashlights immediately,
remove the batteries and contact Spectrum for a full refund or
register for the recall at http://www.rovrecall.com.

SUUNTO OY: Recalls Air Hoses Used with Scuba Gear
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Suunto Oy, of Finland, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,300
in the U.S. Scuba high-pressure air hoses.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The high pressure air hose may leak or rupture leading to a loss
of breathing gas posing a drowning hazard.

There were no injuries that were reported.

The recalled black rubber high pressure air hose is used with
submersible pressure gauges and dive computers.  The hose has
silver fittings on both ends and "5000 PSIG PRESSURE TESTED - MADE
IN THE U.S.A," the batch code "1812" and the product code are
printed on it.  The hoses were sold separately and as a component
of the Cobra, Cobra 3, SM-36 model pressure gauge and gauge
combos, and with the Vyper and Zoop model dive computers or analog
pressure gauges when purchased as combos.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in Finland and the U.S.
and sold at authorized Suunto Dive dealers nationwide from
November 2012 to July 2013 for $95 to $195 if sold with Suunto
analog pressure gauge for diving, and from $400 to $900 if sold as
part of a Suunto dive computer system, and $85 if sold separately.

Consumers should stop using these products immediately and bring
the hose or pressure gauge and dive computer to the nearest
authorized Suunto Dive dealer or Suunto Authorized Service Center
for a free replacement hose.  Consumers can also use the Suunto
Online Service Request http://www.suunto.com/service request to
get their product picked up and delivered for the hose change.

TANK'S MEATS: Issues Voluntary Recall of Landjaegers Snack Sticks
Hannah Camille Bealer, writing for The News-Messenger, reports
that Tank's Meats recently issued a voluntary recall of
Landjaegers snack sticks, produced on or two years before Jan. 9,
because they may be contaminated with a toxin-producing bacteria
called bacillus cereus.

The product was sold to numerous retail stores in northwest Ohio,
mostly smaller meat markets and gas stations, said Kurt Amstutz,
one of the owners of Tank's Meats, 3355 Ohio 51.

The label on each clear bag bears the establishment number
"EST. 76" within the Ohio Department of Agriculture's mark of

Consumption of food contaminated with bacillus cereus can cause
diarrhea, abdominal cramps and pain within six to 15 hours after
eating the contaminated product.  Nausea may accompany diarrhea,
but vomiting rarely occurs.  Most recover from illness within 24
hours, the release stated.  Concerned customers are urged to
contact their health care providers.

The Ottawa County Health Department reported five patients
experienced symptoms on Dec. 1, 2, 3 and 19, according to a
statement released from Tank's Meats on Jan. 24.  Their symptoms
may have been related to the snack sticks.  One patient did test
positive for bacillus cereus.

After the reports, the Ohio Department of Agriculture collected
samples of the product and found they tested positive for bacillus

The investigation of the product determined there could be a link
between the Landjaegers snack sticks produced in October and the
illnesses experienced by the patients, the release said, but
nothing is conclusive.

Mr. Amstutz said they have not received any reported illnesses
since December, but are still taking precautions.  He said Tank's
Meats is not currently manufacturing Landjaegers snack sticks. The
company is working on getting back on track and looking at the
manufacturing process it uses for the products.

"We don't want to take any chances until we can pinpoint exactly
what went wrong," he said.

Bacillus cereus is found everywhere in fresh produce, seeds and
nuts, Mr. Amstutz said.  It becomes an issue when the contaminated
product is cooked.  Ottawa County health commissioner Nancy Osborn
could not be reached for comment.

THORATEC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Heartmate II Recall
Brad Perriello, writing for MassDevice, reports that a Thoratec
shareholder seeks a class action lawsuit against the heart pump
maker, accusing it of failing to warn investors about a blood clot
problem with its flagship HeartMate II left ventricular assist
device that allegedly contributed to a Class I recall.
Thoratec shareholder seeks class action over blood clot recall

An owner of Thoratec stock is suing the heart pump maker on behalf
of himself and other shareholders, accusing the medical device
company of failing to warn investors about a blood clot problem
with its HeartMate II implant implicated in a Class I recall.

The FDA in 2012 classed a Thoratec field correction as a Class I
recall, saying an improperly connected component may result in
deformation or tearing of the device's outflow conduit, creating
the risk of serious injury or death.  Last year a study, published
in the New England Journal of Medicine, documented a sharp
increase in the rate of blood clots with the HeartMate II left
ventricular assist device.  Each episode pushed THOR share prices

That's prompted Bradley Cooper to sue on behalf of anyone who
bought the stock between April 29, 2010, and Nov. 27, 2013.
Mr. Cooper alleges that Thoratec misled investors about the risk
of thrombosis, or blood clots, in the HeartMate II device.

TROJAN HORSE: Court Won't Dismiss 401(k) Plan Holders' Suit
District Judge Terrence W. Boyle denied a motion to dismiss, or in
the alternative to stay or transfer, filed by defendants in the
case captioned GARIBALDI LONGO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TROJAN
HORSE LTD., et al., Defendants, NO. 5:13-CV-418-BO, (E.D. N.C.).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action regarding the alleged
failure of defendants to make contributions to a "defined
contributions plan," or 401(k) plan, of which plaintiffs are
beneficiaries. Plaintiffs, participating employees of defendants,
allege that since January 1, 2009, eligible participants have
contributed a portion of their wages to the plan, but that
beginning in May or June 2012 defendants have failed to make
deposits into the plan, notwithstanding that they have continued
to deduct and withhold the regular contributions from plaintiffs'
wages. Defendants Trojan Horse and Glen Burnie Hauling, Inc., are
trucking companies that haul mail for the United States Postal
Service, and plaintiffs are truck-driver employees of defendants.
Plaintiffs filed this action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq.
Plaintiff seek recovery of benefits under 29 U.S.C. section
1132(a)(1)(B) and allege that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2). Plaintiffs further seek
injunctive and other equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. section
1132(a)(3) and attorneys' fees as provided in 29 U.S.C. Sec.

The Court in its discretion declined to transfer the matter to the
District of Maryland saying the Defendants have failed to
demonstrate that the inconvenience of continuing this litigation
in the Eastern District of North Carolina is sufficiently
burdensome or onerous, nor have they sufficiently demonstrated
that the interests of justice weigh in favor of transfer to the
District of Maryland where one similar, but not identical, action
against them is pending.

A copy of the District Court's January 15, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/1TcYRAfrom Leagle.com.

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid to Amend Complaint in Drivers' Suit Tossed
Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom denied plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint in PHILLIP PETRONE,
MANAGEMENT, LLC Defendants, NOS. 8:11CV401, 8:12CV307, (D. Neb.).

Werner is a Nebraska freight company which utilizes Drivers
Management to operate Werner's Student Driver program.  The
plaintiffs are "a class that includes all drivers who have been
employed in Defendants' Student Driver Program during the period
from four years prior to the filing of the Plaintiffs' Complaint
until present."  Plaintiffs contend that drivers were instructed
to log "on duty" and "off duty" time according to definitions of
the Department of Transportation and not in accordance with
statutory wage definitions or contractual compensation agreements.
Therefore, the Defendants allegedly violated wage payment acts at
the federal and state level for failing to pay certain "off duty"

The plaintiffs wished to amend their complaint to incorporate an
additional class of student drivers who did not receive full
remuneration for "on duty" time.

"Undue delay and prejudice to the defendants would result in the
modification of the complaint in this late hour," ruled Judge
Strom.  "This action began more than two years ago. The parties
have less than three months left before the end of discovery. The
Court would have to evaluate whether to certify this new class
before trial and thereby hamstring the progression of this case.
Because the defendants would experience undue delay and prejudice,
the motion to amend the complaint will be denied."

A copy of the District Court's January 16, 2014 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/lr5osxfrom Leagle.com.

WILLIAM PRYM: Accord in Fasteners Antitrust MDL Has Final OK
District Judge R. Barclay Surrick approved, on a final basis,
Plaintiffs' (i) Proposed Settlements with the Prym, YKK and Coats
Defendants and Proposed Plan for Distribution of Settlement Funds

The multi-district litigation is based on allegations that four
groups of corporate defendants engaged in a global "conspiracy to
fix prices and allocate customers and markets in the United States
and worldwide for 'Fasteners,'" in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.  The term "Fasteners" includes
zippers, snap fasteners, buttons, hooks, and other similar
products used primarily in the textile, apparel, footwear, and
luggage industries.

The Plaintiffs' Motion seeks final approval of the proposed
settlements involve three groups of Defendants:

      (1) the "Prym Defendants," which include William Prym
          GmbH & Co. KG, Prym Consumer USA, Inc., Prym Fashion,
          Inc., Prym Inovan GmbH & Co., Prym Consumer GmbH,
          EP Group S.A., Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, Prym Fashion GmbH,
          Prym Consumer Europe GmbH, and William Prym Inc.;

      (2) the "YKK Defendants," which include YKK Corporation,
          YKK Corporation of America, Inc., YKK (U.S.A.) Inc.,
          and YKK Snap Fasteners America, Inc.; and

      (3) the "Coats Defendants," which include Coats Holdings,
          Ltd., Coats Holdings, Inc., Coats American, Inc.,
          d.b.a. Coats North America, Coats North America
          de Republica Dominicana, Inc., and Coats & Clark, Inc.

The Plaintiffs -- Fishman & Tobin, Greco Apparel, Inc., Jolna
Apparel Group LLC, and Norman Shatz Co., U.S.A. -- brought the
consolidated class action on behalf of themselves and others who
purchased fasteners in the United States from Defendants from
January 1, 1991, until September 19, 2007.

Scovill Fasteners, Inc. was originally a named Defendant in the
action.  On April 19, 2011, Scovill filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.  Subsequently, on July 30, 2013, the Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the action against Scovill pursuant to
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).  The Chapter 11 case was converted
July 12, 2011, to a liquidation in Chapter 7 after Scovill
completed the sale of the fasteners manufacturing business in June
that year to Gores Group LLC.

Pursuant to the proposed settlements, the Prym, YKK, and Coats
Defendants will make payments totaling $17.55 million:

           $1.1 million from Prym Defendants,
           $6.6 million from the YKK Defendants, and
           $9.85 million the Coats Defendants

Each Defendant has already made these required payments into an
escrow account that has been accruing interest.

The Court appointed four law firms to serve as Co-Lead Counsel for
the Settlement Class.  These firms are Barrack, Rodos & Bacine,
Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., and Law
Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C.

A fairness hearing was held Jan. 10, 2014.

A copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2014 Memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/rDOxpHfrom Leagle.com.

* Consumer Product Safety Commission Warns on Space Heater Misuse
Lisa Brown, writing for The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
space heaters, small devices designed to heat a small area, are
annually involved in about 1,400 fires in the United States and
40 deaths, according to 2011 data from the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission.

Generally, they're safe to use, said Capt. Garon Mosby, a St.
Louis Fire Department spokesman.  The problem, he said, is they're
often misused.

A space heater should be at least 3 feet away from anything
combustible, which is "pretty much everything," Mr. Mosby said.
He recommended making some sort of island for the device.

What's an island? Patty Davis, a spokeswoman for the CPSC, said
heaters should be placed on a level, hard and nonflammable
surface, such as a tile floor, and away from foot traffic.

Both Mr. Mosby and the CPSC said consumers should avoid using an
extension cord with space heaters.  The devices should be plugged
directly into the wall outlet.

And most importantly, Mr. Mosby said, don't let the heater out of
your sight.  While it may be tempting to leave a space heater on
while sleeping or out of the room, doing so can be hazardous or
even fatal, he said.

Each kind of portable heater presents unique safety requirements.
Kerosene space heaters, for example, should never be filled with
gasoline.  Ms. Davis said even small amounts mixed with kerosene
can increase the risk of fire.  Mr. Mosby encourages users to read
the safety instructions to avoid mistakes like that.

Having an up-to-date space heater can also be helpful.

But Ms. Davis cited newer features that include an unvented gas
heater that shuts off if oxygen levels fall too low, as well as
heaters that turn off if tipped over.  The federal government does
not have mandatory safety standards for space heaters, but the
CPSC has worked for years with manufacturers to develop voluntary
standards, Davis said.  She advised people to purchase a heater
that has been tested to the latest safety standards and certified
by a testing laboratory.

The CPSC has regulatory authority to recall products, including
space heaters, that are dangerous.  In December, the CPSC put out
a reminder to consumers that it recalled several hundred thousand
space heaters in 2013.  Ms. Davis recommended that people check
the commission's website, cpsc.gov, to search for recalled
products and tips for safe usage.

Another concern with the devices is that many families use them as
their primary providers of heat.

* Lung Cancer Cases Rise in Asbestos Litigation
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports
that lung cancer cases are on the rise in asbestos litigation, and
one law professor says the incentive for plaintiffs attorneys is
to obtain money from bankruptcy trusts set up to pay out

Lester Brickman, professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo
School of Law at Yeshiva University, said the 60-plus asbestos
trusts, operating a system of more than $36 billion, will pay
claimants who can get a doctor to prove they have asbestos damage
to the linings of the lungs even if they had or have a smoking

"What's happened is the trusts are paying a claimant, a smoker,
who can show occupational exposure to asbestos and can get a
doctor to say the lungs indicate occupational exposure,"
Mr. Brickman said.

Mr. Brickman said claimants don't just apply to one trust.  They
get money from 15 to 20 trusts, and their attorneys make money in
the process.

"They can get as much as $100,000 dollars in total from these
trusts," Mr. Brickman said.  "Even if you don't bring any
lawsuits, you can get $100,000 for an unimpaired asbestos
exposure," he said.

With asbestos trusts paying out, claimants can also file a tort
claim.  Those lung cancer asbestos cases could always result in
settlements, Mr. Brickman pointed out.

"The number of lung cancer filings in the tort system based upon
asbestos exposure has no relationship to medical science,"
Mr. Brickman said.  "It's entirely a function of the economic
incentive for asbestos lawyers to file suits.

"So the trust payments are providing the seed money for the
lawyers to gain recruitments."

Mr. Brickman said lung cancer asbestos claims originated as part
of litigation screenings during the 1980s and 1990s.  Lawyers
would sponsor these screenings by sending fully equipped medical
vans to factory parking lots where unions would allow members to
receive free x-ray screenings, he says.  He added that most of the
readings attributing lung damage to asbestos from those x-rays
were bogus, though they generated about 500,000 claims of non-
malignant disease. Somewhere between four and 12 percent of the
screenings alleging asbestos-related injuries were true, he says.

"Because the x-rays could show lung cancer," Mr. Brickman said,
"that generated lung cancer cases."

Those lung cancer cases dropped after the screenings ended in the
early 2000s.

However, Mr. Brickman said lung cancer lawsuits have increased
significantly recently.  One such lawsuit is Carolyn McCarthy's.
A nine-term Congresswoman, Ms. McCarthy took a leave of absence
from Congress while she fights her lung cancer.

In her asbestos complaint, filed in October, she claims she was
exposed to asbestos fibers through her father's and brother's work
clothing when she was a child, also known as third-party exposure.
She also claims to have visited the two at their various work
sites over the years.  Both worked as boiler makers.

Third-party asbestos occurs after workers exposed to asbestos
unwittingly wear their work clothing home and embed the toxic
fibers into their cars.  Their families are then exposed to the
fibers through their clothing and their cars.

While this type of exposure has been proven before in previous
cases, Brickman said the basis of Ms. McCarthy's claim is that she
has found a doctor to determine that she has medical evidence to
asbestos exposure through scarring in the lungs.

Mr. Brickman says that while it is possible to develop lung cancer
from asbestos, approximately 90 percent of lung cancer is caused
by smoking.

Ms. McCarthy, represented by the Weitz and Luxenburg law firm,
filed her lawsuit against roughly 75 defendants.

Of those defendants, 25 have answered the lawsuit.

The defendants allege that Ms. McCarthy may have "significant"
pre-existing conditions factoring into her illness, specifically
McCarthy's lung cancer is the result of "other substances,
products, medications, and drugs, including by not limited to any
tobacco products."

The defendants also argued that Ms. McCarthy's injuries, if any,
should be exclusively remedied with the Workers' Compensation laws
in New York, and the lawsuit should not continue without involving
the various bankruptcy trusts.

They claim Ms. McCarthy did not work with the asbestos-containing
products and was therefore not exposed to the hazards to incur

"Plaintiff never purchased, directly or indirectly, any asbestos-
containing product or materials from Viking Pump, nor did
Plaintiff ever receive or rely upon any representation allegedly
made by Viking Pump.," one answer says.

Defendant Edison Company of New York, Inc. moved for summary

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler ordered on Nov. 12 that all claims
and cross-claims against Edison be dismissed with prejudice.

Requests for interviews or statements from Weitz & Luxenburg went


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *