/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140704.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 132 Headlines 1443 YORK GOTHAM: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims ACADIAN AMBULANCE: July 24 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set ALLIANCE ONE: Sued in Pa. Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act AMERICAN SALES: "Cuni" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Damages AMERIGROUP NEW YORK: Faces "Bijoux" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime BOSTON POST: "Checo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BRAKER-PARK: "Soomoro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CAPITAL ONE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fee Class Action CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Has Made Unsolicited Call, "Staveley" Suit Says CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces "Reo" Suit in Ohio Over TCPA Violations CATERPILLAR INC: Sued in Colo. Over Defective Emission Controls CHEVRON FEDERAL: Sued Over Collection of Excessive Overdraft Fees COINTERRA: Seeks Mediation in Breach of Contract Litigation CONRAD ROOFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Klek" Suit Claims COVISINT CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York DAVISON PUBLISHING: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax, Suit Claims FACEBOOK INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Privacy Class Action FIRSTMERIT BANK: Faces "Hess" Suit Over Inaccessible Facilities FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Water Contamination Class Suits Consolidated GENERAL MOTORS: "Favro" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Forbes" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Foster" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Higginbotham" Suit Joined in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "McCarthy" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Nava" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Ross" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Ruff" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Saclo" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Salerno" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Spangler" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Villa" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: Temporary Lead Counsel Appointed in Ignition Suits GENERAL MOTORS: Deaths Linked to Faulty Ignition-Switches Rise GENZYME CORP: Faces Class Action Over Gaucher Disease Drug GLOBAL AIRCRAFT: "Venegas" Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Overtime GRACE CAR WASH: Faces "Nabay" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages HERTZ CORP: Settles Class Action Over Toll Charges for $14 Mil. HERTZ GLOBAL: Seeks Dismissal of Investor Class Action HEWLETT-PACKARD: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Autonomy Deal HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action HIBACHI SUPREME: "Heard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime IC SYSTEM: Faces "Rush" Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations J&J PAVING: Fails to Pay OT, "Espindola" Suit Claims JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settles PAGA Class Action for $2.8 Million K-LINE: Recalls Soul Due to Improperly Applied Adhesive KANGAROO PAK: Faces "Qi" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over Unpaid Overtime KENDALL SPRINKLER: "Wall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime KI MAMA RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LE MAITRE: Recalls St-Hubert Chicken Pies Due to Swollen Packages MAGNUM HUNTER: Judge Dismisses New York Securities Class Action MATTRESS GIANT: Faces "Nuez" Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MEDIN CORP: 401(k) Plan Trustee Sued Over Illegal Use of Funds MODE CHOC: Recalls Baby Sleepers Due to Flammability Hazard MOTOR COACH: Recalls D4000, D4500 & D4505 Buses Due to Defects MOTOR COACH: Recalls 102DL3 & D4505 Buses Due to Steering Control NAT'L FOOTBALL: Parties Revise Settlement in Concussion Litigation NEW YORK TIMES: Faces "Rabin" Suit for Overcharging Subscription NICHOLAS DIPAOLO: Sued Over Breach of Securities Exchange Act NORTH OLMSTED, OH: Residents Urged to Join Flooding Class Action OCWEN FINANCIAL: NC Residents to Receive Settlement Claim Forms OFFICE DEPOT: Recalls Gibson Leather Task Chair PAYTIME HARRISBURG: Accused of Breaching Contract in Pennsylvania PERFORMANCE PLUMBING: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims PISTILLI REALTY: Faces "Tesen" Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages REPUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Billing Practices ROUGE VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Breach SAROMA CORP: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages SEMINOLE WIND: "Kenny" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime SESAMECOL Recalls Al Fakher Tahina Due to Salmonella SHOWROOM CONDITION: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT SIEMENS AG: Recalls Artis Zeego and Artis Zee Systems SIEMENS SHANGHAI: Recalls Somatom Emotion 16-Slice Configuration SPORTS MASKA: Recalls Reebok Goalie Throat Collars STAWNICHY'S MEAT: Recalls Meat Products Due to Undeclared Wheat STAWNICHY'S MEAT: Recalls Soups Due to Undeclared Milk, Wheat, Soy T-BROTHERS FOOD: Recalls Korepab Potato Pizza (Crackers) TAMKO BUILDING: Faces "Disher" Suit Alleging Product Liability TD BANK: Sued in Pa. Over Processing of Debts from Payday Lenders TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: Sued Over Sale of Unregistered Securities TJX CANADA: Recalls Fahrenheit 1600W Hair Dryer UNDER THE NILE: Recalls Side-Tie Kimonos UNITED HEALTH: Fails to Make Benefit Payments, Suit Claims UNO FOODS: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee VENEZIA'S NY STYLE: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Cole" Suit Claims VW CREDIT: Faces "Byrd" Suit in C.D. Cal. Over Unsolicited Calls WAL-MART INC: Averts Equate False Advertising Class Action WYCEN FOODS: Recalls Lot 100 Pudding Due to Undeclared Milk ZOLL MEDICAL: Faces "Laster" Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over Unpaid Wages Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Shows Bankr. Does Not Trump Compensation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal-Mogul Trust Wins $9.3MM Fibro Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs Object to Garlock's Claims Deadlines ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Unit Increases Net Fibro Reserves by $19MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,310 Outstanding Fibro Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Continues to Defend PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Had 311 Pending Fibro Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Had 550 Pending Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Office Depot Unit Has Responsibility Over Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Recon Ruling in "Lipson" Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Air Act Suit v. Colorado Agencies Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Proceed with Civil Rights Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Denies Bid to Remand "McMann" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Court Dismisses Suit v. Soft Drinks Companies ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Refuses to Remand "Osterhout" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insured Awarded $650,000 in Breach of Duty Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Award to Sears, et al., Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Patrico" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Pettinelli" Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Or. Ct. Upholds $800,000 Award in Insurance Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Inmate's Civil Rights Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Edison Dropped as Defendant in Fibro Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms $990,000 Judgment in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Scott" Suit Reversed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Shewmake" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Doctor Affidavit in PI Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Convictions in Clean Air Act Suit Vacated ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retrial Bid in Improper Fibro Removal Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Ward" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Adler" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Auth. Defense Costs in Insurance Suit OK'd ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates Allowed to Amend Civil Rights Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand South Carolina Take-Home Suit OK'd ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Gypsum, Quigley Can Pursue Claims v. G-I ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing Set for Bids to Access Garlock Files ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankr. Court Junks Tax Claim v. Predecessor ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leave to Appeal Ruling in "Suttner" Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tishman Dropped as Defendant in "Houston" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Order Dismissing Fibro Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Stay "Morvant" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Ricks" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alabama Dist. Court Dismisses Inmate's Fibro Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Trust Dropped as Defendant in "Bell" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Reverses Ruling in "Graver" PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Defendants Granted Summary Judgment in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Dismissing Suit v. Law Firm Reversed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton May Rebut Class Suit Presumption ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Re-Open Discovery in PI Suit Denied ********* 1443 YORK GOTHAM: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Adalberto Navarro Flores, Aureliano Tapia And Israel Juarez Luna, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 1443 York Gotham Pizza Inc., (d/b/a Gotham Pizza), 144 Ninth Gotham Pizza, Inc., (d/b/a Gotham Pizza), 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza Inc. (d/b/a Gotham Pizza), 852 Eight Gotham Pizza Inc. (d/b/a Gotham Pizza), Michael Shamailov, Lana Shamailov, Case No. 1:14- cv-04563 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premiums, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Gotham Pizza is comprised of 1443 York Gotham Pizza, Inc., 1667 First Gotham Pizza, Inc., 144 Ninth Gotham Pizza, Inc., 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza Inc. and 852 Eight Gotham Pizza Inc., that act in partnership with one another in the operation and management of a chain of pizzerias in the state of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com ACADIAN AMBULANCE: July 24 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Goff, writing for The Advertiser, reports that there are 440 Louisiana residents who have filed claims that they were overcharged by Acadian Ambulance for services sometime in the last decade. A hearing on a proposed settlement in the $5.9 million class action lawsuit against the Lafayette-based ambulance company was scheduled for June 27 in Avoyelles Parish. The lawsuit, Keisha Desselle, et al., vs. Acadian Ambulance Service, accuses the company of billing and collecting higher fees than the agreed amounts by insurance carriers, attorney Larry Centola said. The suit alleges that Acadian was providing services to insured customers at an insurance approved reduced rate for medical emergencies such as heart attacks. However, if a third party was at fault in a car accident for example, Acadian would bill individual patients in full, not through the insurance company, Mr. Centola said. "What Acadian was doing is that if a person was in a car wreck the company was not talking the health insurance and instead billing the individual for the third party liability car insurance for a higher amount," Mr. Centola said. The class action lawsuit involves people who were billed by or paid for services from Acadian between Jan. 1, 1994, and Dec. 31, 2013. The deadline to file a claim is July 24. Details about the suit can be found at www.acadianclass2.com ALLIANCE ONE: Sued in Pa. Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrey Krylyuk on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc.; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-03845 (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc., is engaged in the business of debt collection within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com AMERICAN SALES: "Cuni" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Cuni and Hector Dominguez, on their own behalf and others similarly situated v. American Sales and Management Organization, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and Livan Acosta, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22349 (S.D. Fla., June 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under Fair Labor Standards Act. American Sales and Management Organization, LLC, a Florida limited liability company that provides cabin cleaning services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. THE SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 South Federal Hwy., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew Ira Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA Lawrence Office Park 168 Franklin Corner Road, Building 2, Suite 220 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone:(305) 726-0060 Facsimile: (305) 726-0046 E-mail: Jaffe.glenn@me.com aglenn@jaffeglenn.com AMERIGROUP NEW YORK: Faces "Bijoux" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Luc A. Bijoux and Juan Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Amerigroup New York, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03891 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for the Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers who have worked for the Defendant in New York as Medicaid Marketing Representatives. Amerigroup New York, LLC, is an insurance company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel M. Bien, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (212) 977-4005 E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com - and - Marijana F. Matura, Esq. Troy L. Kessler, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: mm@shulmankessler.com tk@shulmankessler.com BOSTON POST: "Checo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Checo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Boston Post Road Food Corp. (d/b/a C-Town), and Ramon Vargas, Case No. 1:14-cv-04565 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Boston Post Road Food Corp., is a supermarket owned by Ramon Vargas, located at 4008-4010 Boston Post Road, Bronx, New York 10475. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com BRAKER-PARK: "Soomoro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Nisar Soomro, and all others similarly situated v. Braker-Park LP, Fuel Management GP LLC, Leemak LP, Leemak GP LLC, Montopolis BK LLC, North Dallas Petroleum LP, Northwest Petroleum LP, QMart Stassney LLC, SHF Properties LLC, Travis County Investments LP, Travis County Investments GP LLC, Fazil Malik, and, Ayaz Malik, Case No. 4:14-cv-01748 (S.D. Tex., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Braker-Park LP, Fuel Management GP LLC, Leemak LP, Leemak GP LLC, Montopolis BK LLC, North Dallas Petroleum LP, Northwest Petroleum LP, QMart Stassney LLC, SHF Properties LLC, Travis County Investments LP, Travis County Investments GP LLC, Fazil Malik, and, Ayaz Malik, are Chevron branded gasoline stations and convenience stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. One Arena Place, 7322 Southwest Frwy, Suite 1920 Houston, TX 77074 Telephone: (713) 223-1300 Facsimile: (713) 255-0013 E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com CAPITAL ONE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fee Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal judge on June 23 found for the third time that national banking regulations don't protect Capital One NA from a class action over allegedly illegal overdraft fee practices, saying a recent Ninth Circuit preemption decision does not thwart the account holders' state law claims. U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King distinguished the accusations that Capital One manipulated the sequence on debit card transactions to generate excessive overdraft fees from similar California-based claims against Wells Fargo & Co. that the Ninth Circuit found in December 2012 were preempted by the National Bank Act. Known as Gutierrez, that ruling vacated a $203 million judgment against Wells Fargo and said that the NBA allows banks to dictate the order in which they process transactions and charge fees as "part and parcel" to the process of setting prices for consumer checking accounts. Federal courts grappling with Gutierrez have determined that state law claims surrounding overdraft fees could still survive under the ruling, according to Judge King. The judge followed their lead, ruling that while the plaintiffs were prohibited from challenging Capital One's right to charge overdraft fees, they were free to allege that the bank abused that right or acted in bad faith. The judge therefore concluded that Gutierrez neither controls the analysis of the case nor presented an intervening change in presiding law that that would require him to revisit two previous rulings that denied the bank's preemption arguments. The plaintiffs' attorney Bruce S. Rogow told Law360 that the ruling is only the latest district court decision to distinguish Gutierrez based on the unique California claims at issue there. "The fact that all of these cases are alive and well post- Gutierrez is the proper way to view Gutierrez in light of the allegations made in all of these other cases," he said. "This [case] doesn't affect banks' deposit-taking powers in a way that would take it into the preemption areas. There is an area in which the banks cannot hide behind preemption." The case is one of less than a dozen still kicking around in the once-massive multidistrict litigation comprising overdraft fee suits that popped up all around the country in the late 2000s. The suits all took issue with banks' practice of deducting money from accounts not in chronological order but based on the size of transactions, alleging it was designed to maximize the number of overdraft fees. With Gutierrez the notable exception, the bulk of the suits were clustered in Florida, where they mostly prevailed on class certification. Although some banks were able to compel arbitration based on provisions in their customer agreements, those that were not -- including JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Bank of America NA and TD Bank NA -- have settled for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Judge King first addressed the preemption issue in a March 2010 omnibus order, before the Capital One case joined the MDL, and found that the plaintiffs' attack on the way in which banks operate their overdraft programs "do not more than incidentally affect the bank's exercise of their deposit taking power." Capital One subsequently filed -- and lost -- a separate motion to dismiss on preemption grounds, but after that ruling the Eleventh Circuit decided a preemption case captioned Baptista v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA. The banks in the MDL, Capital One included, then failed to persuade Judge King that Baptista compelled the reversal of the omnibus order. Capital One mounted the preemption case a third time in a October by filing the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings, which Judge King treated as a motion for reconsideration of his earlier decisions. In addition to denying the motion, the judge also barred the bank yet again from seeking immediate review with the appeals court. The Gutierrez plaintiffs, meanwhile, saw their judgment against Wells Fargo reinstated in May 2013 when U.S. District Judge William Alsup found that the penalty could stand under an anti-fraud prong of California's unfair competition law that was left untouched by the Ninth Circuit's decision. The case is now on appeal a second time. The plaintiffs are represented by Bruce S. Rogow of Bruce S. Rogow PA; and Aaron S. Podhurst, Robert C. Josefsberg, Steven C. Marks, Peter Prieto, Stephen F. Rosenthal and John Gravante III of Podhurst Orseck PA. Capital One is represented by James R. McGuire -- jmcguire@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The case is Steen v. Capital One NA et al., case number 1:10-cv- 22058, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The MDL is In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, case number 1:09-md-02036, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Has Made Unsolicited Call, "Staveley" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Staveley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04889 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently or intentionally contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., is a national cruise sales company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces "Reo" Suit in Ohio Over TCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Reo and Bryan Reo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01374 (N.D. Ohio, June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently contacting Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' landline, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., is a national cruise sales company in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART Ste. 101, 2221 Camino Del Rio San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP Ste. D1, 245 Fischer Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 x 5 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ml@kazlg.com CATERPILLAR INC: Sued in Colo. Over Defective Emission Controls --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that Caterpillar Inc. was hit with a putative class action in Colorado federal court on June 24, alleging its heavy-duty on-highway diesel engines, designed to adhere to 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emissions regulations, contain a design defect that requires extensive repairs and replacements. The suit claims Caterpillar's 2007-2010 model C-13 and C-15 engines have defective exhaust emission controls that cause the vehicles to be unreliable for transportation and cannot be fixed despite repeated repair attempts. The engines' exhaust emission control systems regularly detect warning and shutdown readings from the software used to regulate and monitor certain components, causing the vehicle to require authorized exhaust emission control diagnoses that eventually are unable to rectify the problem, the suit says. "This caused plaintiff and class members to incur significant damages in the diminution of the value of their vehicles, but also in the cost of replacing the . . . engines with other EPA 2007 Emission Standard compliant heavy-duty, on-highway, diesel engines," the complaint said. Lead plaintiff K Double D Inc. said it purchased a vehicle featuring the 2007 heavy-duty on-highway diesel engine that suffered engine and regeneration problems, costing it thousands of dollars in damages. The problems began during the warranty period for the engine, with numerous and various faults detected in the emissions exhaust controls, which triggered warning, derating and shutdown, necessitating delivery of the vehicle to an authorized repair facility for emissions warranty work, the suit says. The lead plaintiff said that even though extensive repair work was completed, the engine experienced repeated instances of warning lights illuminating, engine derating and shutdown, regeneration failure and more, as well as other failures that prevented it from working properly. "Despite defendant's numerous attempts to correct the . . . failures, the . . . engine exhaust emission controls do not function as required under all operating conditions, and will not do so for the expected life of the vehicle," the complaint said. The suit alleges the engines were designed to comply with a 2007 EPA regulation that required heavy-duty, on-highway, diesel emission engines to phase in exhaust emissions control technology that lowers emission rates under the Clean Air Act. After the EPA's final rule was released, Caterpillar launched a design project to create an engine-independent, self-regenerating diesel particulate filter, going through various designs before landing on its 2007 through 2010 models. The lead plaintiff asked the judge to certify a class of all vehicle owners and lessees who purchased or leased a vehicle containing the engines. The suit includes claims of breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, unfair and deceptive acts and more. The lead plaintiff is represented by Richard J. Burke and Jamie E. Weiss of Complex Litigation Group LLC and Jonathan Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss LLP and Mitchell Baker. The suit is K Double D Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., case number 1:14- cv-01760, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. CHEVRON FEDERAL: Sued Over Collection of Excessive Overdraft Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo E. Roque, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chevron Federal Credit Union Financial Services, Inc., a New York Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01531 (S.D. Cal., June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for the alleged improper and excessive assessment and collection of overdraft fees. Chevron Federal Credit Union Financial Services, Inc., is a nationwide Credit Union which serves employees of Chevron Corporation and its retirees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Phelps, Esq. THE PHELPS LAW GROUP 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 260-4735 Facsimile: (949) 260-4754 E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com COINTERRA: Seeks Mediation in Breach of Contract Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Cyrus Farivar, writing for Ars Technica, reports that yet another Bitcoin miner manufacturer, CoinTerra, now faces legal action for not fulfilling an order when it originally promised to. CoinTerra is the third Bitcoin-related startup to face litigation for breach of contract and/or fraud in recent months. The CoinTerra lawsuit was filed in late April 2014 by an Oakland, California-based man seeking to be the lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit. Lautaro Cline, the suit alleges, purchased a TerraMiner IV in October 2013 for delivery by January 2014. The company promised, he claims, that this miner would operate at two terahashes per second and would consume 1,200 watts of power. It did neither. However, Mr. Cline's suit also claims that CoinTerra did not deliver the miner until February 2014, and it "operated well below the speed advertised and consumed significantly more power than CoinTerra represented, causing Plaintiff to suffer significant lost profits and opportunities." Neither CoinTerra nor its attorneys responded to Ars' request for comment. Mr. Cline's attorney, Edward Mullins, told Ars that his client and CoinTerra are currently seeking mediation -- an arrangement that takes place privately and outside of the court system where the two sides negotiate a deal. "We hope to have it resolved sometime this summer," Mr. Mullins said. "If it doesn't work out then we will go forward [with the lawsuit.]" CoinTerra formally asked the court for more time so it could arrange mediation. CONRAD ROOFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Klek" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Leszek Klek, on behalf of himself and other Plaintiffs similarly situated v. Conrad Roofing of Illinois, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 04741 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay wages and overtime wages. Conrad Roofing of Illinois, Inc., is a Chicago, Illinois company that provides a variety of roofing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq. Martin K. Denis, Esq. BARLOW KOBATA & DENIS 525 W. Monroe St., #2360 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 648-5570 E-mail: bhilbert@bkd-law.com mdenis@bkd-law.com COVISINT CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on June 25 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Covisint Corporation and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Covisint securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Covisint's September 26, 2013 initial public offering (the "IPO"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. If you are a shareholder who purchased Covisint securities during the Class Period, you have until July 29, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Covisint provides a cloud engagement platform in the United States and internationally. Its platform enables organizations to connect, engage, and collaborate with distributed communities of customers, business partners, and suppliers; and allows organizations with external business relationships to create, streamline, and automate external business processes that involve the secure exchange of and access to critical information from various sources. The Complaint alleges that Covisint's Registration Statement, and the documents referenced and incorporated therein, negligently failed to disclose the following material facts which existed at the time of the IPO: (i) that the Company was experiencing a greater than expected decline in its subscription revenue due to poor sales execution and late-stage pipeline conversion issues; (ii) that the Company was facing increased competition in its services segment as customers were not adding services at a rate consistent with expectations; (iii) that the Company was experiencing a decline in General Motors-related service revenue; (iv) that the Company was losing healthcare customers at an increasing rate and its pipeline of healthcare-related deals was steadily declining and included numerous deals that were not likely to be consummated; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable basis to "expect" revenues for 2014 to increase by 20% from 2013. These known, but undisclosed, facts had a material adverse effect on Covisint's operating results during its fourth quarter and fiscal 2014 full-year. Shares of Covisint have declined $4.72 per share from the IPO price of $10.00 per share, or more than 47%, to close at $5.28 on June 13, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. DAVISON PUBLISHING: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Popular Carpet Distributors, Inc., a New York Corporation, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Davison Publishing Company, LLC and Simmons - Boardman Publishing Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04678 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for sending or having an agent send unsolicited faxed advertisements, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Davison Publishing Company, LLC and Simmons - Boardman Publishing Corporation, are Florida-based publishing corporations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit Dl Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 725, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com FACEBOOK INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Privacy Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Facebook has filed a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit against it for allegedly violating users' privacy by using data from private messages to generate targeted advertisements. Facebook believes the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Wiretap Act, according to Facebook's motion to dismiss, which was file June 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. "Plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claim fails as a matter of law for three separate reasons: (1) Plaintiffs have not alleged (and cannot allege) an actionable 'interception;' (2) they consented to the alleged interceptions; and (3) the challenged conduct does not involve communications acquired 'during transmission,' but instead involves 'stored communications' not governed by the Wiretap Act," the motion states. By creating a free Facebook account -- a necessary prerequisite to sending or receiving a Facebook message -- every user agrees to Facebook's terms of service and further affirms that he or she has reviewed the disclosures in Facebook's Data Use Policy. The Data Use Policy provides "important disclosures about how [a user] can use Facebook to share with others and how [Facebook] collect[s] and can use [user] content and information," according to the motion. Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley, and David Shadpour each admit they established a Facebook account and reviewed and agreed to these policies before electing to use Facebook's free services, the motion states. Because the shortcomings in the class action complaint go to the plaintiffs' theory, and are not mere technical pleading defects, allowing further amendment would be futile, the motion states. The complaint should be dismissed with prejudice, it says. In the complaint, the plaintiff claim contrary to its representation, "private" Facebook messages are systematically intercepted by the company in an effort to learn the contents of the users' communications. The complaint was first filed on Dec. 30. It was consolidated with another similar privacy complaint on April 15. During the course of the last year, independent security researchers discovered that Facebook reviews the contents of its users' private Facebook messages for purposes unrelated to the facilitation of message transmission, according to the complaint. "When a user composes a Facebook message and includes a link to a third part website . . . the company scans the content of the Facebook message, follows the enclosed link and searches for information to profile the message-sender's web activity," the complaint states. This practice is not done to facilitate the transmission of users' communications via Facebook, but, because it enables Facebook to mine user data and profit from those data by sharing them with third parties-namely advertisers, marketers and other data aggregators, according to the suit. The plaintiffs are seeking an order determining that the action may be maintained as a class action; judgment against Facebook for the asserted causes; appropriate declaratory relief against Facebook; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Facebook; and statutory damages. They are represented by Michael W. Sobol, Melissa Gardner, Rachel Geman and Nicholas Diamand of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; and Hank Bates -- hbates@cbplaw.com -- Allen Carney and David Slade of Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC. Facebook is represented by Joshua A. Jessen -- jjessen@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. The case has been assigned to District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number: 4:13-cv-05996 FIRSTMERIT BANK: Faces "Hess" Suit Over Inaccessible Facilities --------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Hess, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Firstmerit Bank, National Association, Case No. 2:14- cv-00817 (W.D. Pa., June 23, 2014), alleges that the Defendant's facilities are not fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs. Firstmerit Bank is headquartered at 106 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Water Contamination Class Suits Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an order to consolidate five class action lawsuits involving the water contamination crisis in West Virginia in January has been filed in federal court. The five class action lawsuits were consolidated because they all involve damages and injuries sustained from the water contamination crisis in which a chemical called MCHM was released from a Freedom Industries facility in to the Elk River on Jan. 9 and affected nine West Virginia counties. The defendants in the lawsuit include American Water Works Company; American Water Works Service Company; Chemstream Inc.; Eastman Chemical Company; J. Clifford Forrest; Freedom Industries LLC; West Virginia American Water Company; Mountaineer Funding LLC; WV Funding LLC; Etowah River Terminal LLC; Gary Southern; and the Dow Chemical Company. The plaintiffs filed a joint motion to consolidate on March 28. "Our court of appeals affords broad discretion to district courts in assessing the desirability of consolidation, recognizing the superiority of the trial court in determining how best to structure similar pieces of litigation," the June 3 order states. It has also provided guidelines for exercising that discretion, according to the order. "Those guidelines essentially balance the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion with the potential for inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues and the burden on available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits. Efficiency from a time and cost perspective are also considered." The risk of inconsistent adjudications, substantial expense to the parties and inefficient use of court resources markedly increases here if the court declines consolidation at least to some extent, according to the order. The court ordered that the five cases be consolidated for all case events up to and including the conclusion of discovery, at which time the court will consider further efforts to coordinate and streamline the litigation, according to the order. "The purpose of consolidation is to best serve the interests of the judicial economy," the plaintiffs' March 28 memorandum in support of the consolidation motion stated. "Rule 42 is designed to give the court broad discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried, to 'promote judicial dispatch and economy and to guarantee substantial justice to the parties.'" The plaintiffs claim the tank storing the MCHM at Freedom's facility was built using rivet construction in the 1930s and on Jan. 9, government officials discovered a licorice smell originating from Freedom's facility, according to complaints filed in January soon after the spill in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Freedom did not self-report the leak of MCHM, although it had an obligation to do so immediately, according to the suits. The plaintiffs claim airborne release of MCHM from the facility caused chemical air pollution, resulting in ambient concentrations well above the odor threshold for the chemical over an area of several square miles and over a period of several days after the Jan. 9 release. West Virginia-American Water reported that only 2,000 to 5,000 gallons of MCHM leaked into the Elk River, however, that number is as yet unknown, with recent estimates of 7,500, according to the suits. Eastman is the exclusive U.S. manufacturer of MCHM and Eastman had a duty to make full disclosure on Material Safety Data Sheets for MCHM under the Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act and to reflect accurately the state of knowledge of the medical and scientific communities about the toxicity of MCHM. Eastman placed MCHM into interstate commerce and issued MSDS sheets and other warning data that were inadequate and not protective. The plaintiffs claimed Southern, Freedom's president, knew or should have known about the conditions at the facility and is acts and omissions in ignoring obvious threats to the environment and failure to take appropriate steps to mitigate them directly contributed to the plaintiff's damages. The chemical spill tainted more than 300,000 WVAWC customers' water in parts of nine counties across the state. The Center for Disease Control advised pregnant women to not drink tap water until the chemical is completely gone from the water. Freedom filed for bankruptcy protection in January. On Jan. 29, Freedom's suggestion of bankruptcy was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston. "The United States Bankruptcy Code, Section 362(a) (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) provide that the filing of a petition operates as a stay of the continuation of any action or proceeding against the debtor, any action or proceeding to recover a claim against the debtor to enforce a judgment obtained that arose before the commencement of the case, to create, perfect or enforce any lien, or to collect or recover a claim that arose before the commencement of the case," the document states. Southern signed a bankruptcy petition, estimating Freedom's debts at $10 million or less, but the cost of the water contamination disaster is likely to run much higher. The plaintiffs are being represented by David R. Barney Jr. and Kevin W. Thompson of Thompson Barney; Van Bunch -- vbunch@bffb.com -- of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint; Sean Cassidy, Stuart H. Smith, Michael G. Stag and Stephen H. Wussow of Smith Stag; and P. Rodney Jackson of the Law Office of P. Rodney Jackson. American Water Works Company, American Water Works Service Company and West Virginia American Water Company are being represented by William C. Ballard -- wcballard@jacksonkelly.com -- of Jackson Kelly. Mountaineer Funding and WV Funding are being represented by Charles J. Kaiser Jr., Jeffery D. Kaiser and Denise Knouse-Snyder -- denisesnyder@pgka.com -- of Phillips Gardill Kaiser & Altmeyer. Chemstream is being represented by Niall A. Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman Thomas & Battle. Freedom is being represented by Stephen L. Thompson -- sthompson@barth-thompson.com -- of Barth & Thompson. Eastman is being represented by Marc E. Williams -- marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com -- of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number: 2:14-cv-01374 GENERAL MOTORS: "Favro" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Hilarie Favro v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00690, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04752-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Behram V. Parekh, Esq. Michael L. Kelly, Esq. Heather Marie Baker, Esq. KIRTLAND AND PACKARD LLP 2041 Rosecreans Avenue, Suite 300 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 536-1000 Facsimile: (310) 536-1001 E-mail: bvp@kirtlandpackard.com mlk@kirtlandpackard.com hmb@kirtlandpackard.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Forbes" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Forbes v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02018, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04798-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq. Joanne E. Matusko, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com dgallucci@nastlaw.com jmatusko@nastlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Francis J. Grey, Esq. RICCI TYRRELL JOHNSON & GREY Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-3260 Facsimile: (215) 320-3261 E-mail: fgrey@rtjglaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Foster" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Foster v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00844, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04775-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew T. Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN 1360 West Ninth Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com jack@lgmlegal.com - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Todd A. Walburg, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN - SAN FRANCISCO 3000 Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com twalburg@lchb.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Sudarsana Srinivasan, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com dsrinivasan@lchb.com - and - Roger L. Mandel, Esq. LACKEY HERSHMAN LLP 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 560-2232 Facsimile: (214) 560-2203 E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net - and - W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM 6810 FM 1960 W Houston, TX 77069 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 E-mail: ere@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Eugene R. Egdorf, Esq. LANIER LAW FIRM PC 6810 FM 1960 West Houston, TX 77069 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 E-mail: ere@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. Eric B. Snyder, Esq. BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com esnyder@baileyglasser.com - and - James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. Robin Greenwald, Esq. WEITZ AND LUXENBERG PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5856 Facsimile: (212) 344-5461 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com rgreenwald@weitzlux.com - and - John W. Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP PA 404 Court Square North PO Box 987 Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2376 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - W. Daniel Miles, III BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES 272 Commerce Street P.O. Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com Defendants General Motors L.L.C. and General Motors Holding, LLC are represented by: Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq. Leonid Feller, Esq. Robert B. Ellis, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2482 Facsimile: (312) 862-2200 E-mail: andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com lfeller@kirkland.com robert.ellis@kirkland.com - and - Johanna Fabrizio Parker, Esq. Stanley Weiner, Esq. JONES DAY - CLEVELAND 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-7263 Facsimile: (216) 579-0212 E-mail: jfparker@jonesday.com sweiner@jonesday.com Defendant Delphi Automotive PLC is represented by: Eugene A. Schoon, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: eschoon@sidley.com - and - Joyce D. Edelman, Esq. PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR 41 South High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 227-2083 Facsimile: (614) 227-2100 E-mail: jedelman@porterwright.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Higginbotham" Suit Joined in Ignition Switch MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Higginbotham v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00306, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04759-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Slade, Esq. James Allen Carney, Jr., Esq. Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq. Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72212 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: dslade@cbplaw.com acarney@cbplaw.com hbates@cbplaw.com rpulliam@carneywilliams.com GENERAL MOTORS: "McCarthy" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled McCarthy v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00895, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04758-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dawn M. Barrios, Esq. Bruce S. Kingsdorf, Esq. Zachary Logan Wool, Esq. BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP One Shell Square 701 Poydras St., Suite 3650 New Orleans, LA 70139-3650 Telephone: (504) 524-3300 E-mail: barrios@bkc-law.com kingsdorf@bkc-law.com zwool@bkc-law.com - and - Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq. Morris Bart, III, Esq. MORRIS BART, LLC (NEW ORLEANS) 909 Poydras St., Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70112-4000 Telephone: (504) 599-3385 Facsimile: (504) 599-3380 E-mail: malvarez@morrisbart.com Defendant General Motors L.L.C. is represented by: Thomas A. Casey, Jr., Esq. JONES WALKER LLP 201 St Charles Ave., 49th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 582-8000 Facsimile: (504) 589-8294 E-mail: tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Nava" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Sonia Nava v. General Motors, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00755, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04754-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq. Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM PC 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: adrianne@desai-law.com aashish@desai-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Ross" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Ross, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02148, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04756-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robin Greenwald, Esq. James Jackson Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5802 E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. Brian K. Herrington, Esq. Sterling Starns, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square North Po Box 927 Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-9168 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Todd A. Walburg, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P. 275 Battery Street Embarcadero Center W. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com twalburg@lchb.com - and - Wilson D. Miles, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com Defendants General Motors L.L.C. and General Motors Holding, LLC are represented by: Lisa Verna LeCointe-Cephas, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4721 Facsimile: (212) 446-6460 E-mail: lisa.lecointe-cephas@kirkland.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Ruff" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Ruff, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02375, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04764-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John McNeill Broaddus, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 755-1115 E-mail: jbroaddus@weitzlux.com Defendants General Motors LLC and General Motors Holding, LLC are represented by: Stephen F. Payerle, Esq. MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP (NJ) Three Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street, 17th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (201) 622-7711 E-mail: spayerle@mdmc-law.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Saclo" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ken Saclo, et al. v. General Motors, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00604, was transferred from the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04751-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com - and - Lance Cooper, Esq. THE COOPER FIRM 531 Roselane Street, Suite 200 Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 427-5588 Facsimile: (770) 427-0010 - and - Scott B. Cooper, Esq. THE COOPER LAW FIRM PC 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 724-9200 Facsimile: (949) 724-9255 E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com - and - Michael I. Miller, Esq. Roland K. Tellis, Esq. Mark P. Pifko, Esq. BARON AND BUDD PC 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 E-mail: imiller@baronbudd.com rtellis@baronbudd.com MPifko@baronbudd.com Defendant General Motors, LLC is represented by: Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Salerno" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Salerno v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02132, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04799-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net ssavett@bm.net Defendants General Motors L.L.C. and General Motors Holdings LLC are represented by: Francis J. Grey, Esq. RICCI TYRRELL JOHNSON & GREY Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-3260 Facsimile: (215) 320-3261 E-mail: fgrey@rtjglaw.com Defendant Delphi Automotive PLC is represented by: Eugene A. Schoon, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: eschoon@sidley.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Spangler" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Randi Spangler v. General Motors Corporation LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00816, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04755-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Buccola, Esq. Steven M. Campora, Esq. Jason J. Sigel, Esq. DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA LLP 20 Bicentennial Circle Sacramento, CA 95826 Telephone: (916) 379-3500 Facsimile: (916) 379-3599 E-mail: scampora@dbbwlaw.com jsigel@dbbwlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Villa" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Villa, et al. v. General Motors, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02548, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04801-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeanne A. Markey, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL 3 Logan Square 1717 Arch St., Suite 3610 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 207-3477 E-mail: jmarkey@cohenmilstein.com Defendants General Motors L.L.C. and General Motors Corporation are represented by: Francis J. Grey, Esq. RICCI TYRRELL JOHNSON & GREY Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-3260 Facsimile: (215) 320-3261 E-mail: fgrey@rtjglaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Temporary Lead Counsel Appointed in Ignition Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a judge in New York has appointed temporary lead counsel in the ignition switch lawsuits filed against General Motors Co. but is considering delaying those claims until key questions in the automaker's bankruptcy are resolved. In the first order he has entered in the litigation, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman on June 24 scheduled an initial status conference for Aug. 11. He asked both sides to collaborate on whether discovery in the cases before him, now stayed, should track parallel proceedings in GM's bankruptcy. Judge Furman also asked whether he should wait for the bankruptcy court's rulings before making his own decisions in the cases. He ordered GM, represented by Andrew Bloomer, a partner at Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis, to file a letter outlining GM's views by July 28. GM has moved in bankruptcy court to toss out lawsuits filed over the defects, which prompted recalls of 2.6 million vehicles this year. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber is expected to decide on July 2 the "threshold issues" in GM's motion. The automaker claims that certain cases, including class actions filed by consumers, are barred under a provision of its 2009 bankruptcy. Plaintiffs lawyers disagree. Meanwhile, Judge Furman, of the Southern District of New York, asked plaintiffs lawyers to file a letter by July 7 regarding whether he should hold off appointing lead counsel in the litigation until Judge Gerber, also in that district, decides the bankruptcy issues. He gave GM until July 14 to respond to the plaintiffs. Judge Furman appointed three lawyers as temporary lead counsel for the plaintiffs: Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; Mark Robinson, senior partner at Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach, Calif.; and Elizabeth Cabraser, a partner at San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. All three served in lead roles in litigation against Toyota Motor Corp. over sudden acceleration defects. Berman focused primarily on consumer class actions, while Mr. Robinson and Ms. Cabraser handled personal-injury and wrongful-death cases. Most of the cases transferred to Judge Furman's courtroom are consumer class actions. "Hagens Berman is incredibly pleased that the court has placed its confidence in us to fight for this class of consumers, at least on an interim basis," Mr. Berman said in an emailed statement. "We are committed to pursuing the best possible outcome for vehicle owners and will tenaciously fight to make consumers whole." The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, citing the bankruptcy proceedings, on June 9 transferred the ignition-switch lawsuits to Judge Furman for pretrial purposes. Since then, the MDL panel has transferred some personal-injury and wrongful-death cases to Furman's courtroom. Plaintiffs lawyers in some of those cases opposed the transfers. GENERAL MOTORS: Deaths Linked to Faulty Ignition-Switches Rise -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Cowan, writing for Reuters, reports that General Motors Co.'s ongoing safety crisis over deadly ignition switches deepened on June 30 with the recall of 8.23 million mostly older cars linked by the U.S. automaker to three deaths. The latest recalls boosted the number of deaths acknowledged by GM to at least 16. The automaker said it now knows of 61 crashes tied to faulty ignition switches, although U.S. lawmakers and safety regulators have said they expect the death toll to climb. A Reuters investigation in early June found that at least 74 people had died in GM cars in accidents with similarities to those that GM earlier had linked to 13 deaths involving defective ignition switches. The report on June 30 of additional fatalities and recalls "confirms our fears that GM's safety failures were much more widespread than initially reported," said U.S. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, whose committee twice has interviewed GM Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra. GM said the latest victims will not be included in a compensation fund set up to provide at least $1 million to victims of crashes tied to defective switches in older compact cars, including the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion. Details of that fund, which is being administered by attorney Kenneth Feinberg, were announced earlier on June 30. The latest victims were killed in two separate high-speed crashes, one involving a 2003 Chevrolet Impala, the other a 2004 Impala, according to GM spokesman Jim Cain. The air bags failed to deploy in both crashes, Mr. Cain said, but GM cannot conclusively link the nondeployment to the ignition switches. The latest recalls, covering compact and midsize cars, sedans and crossovers from model years 1997-2014, swell the total number of vehicles recalled by GM this year to 29 million. GM last year sold 2.8 million vehicles in the United States and 9.7 million globally. So far this year, GM has recalled more cars than the entire U.S. industry did in 2013. The automaker also said on June 30 it would increase by $500 million a second-quarter charge to cover the cost of the recalls. So far this year, the writedowns are expected to total $2.5 billion. GM earlier this year recalled nearly 2.6 million Cobalts, Ions and other small cars with defective switches that it linked to 54 crashes and at least 13 deaths. Earlier this month, it recalled more than 500,000 Chevrolet Camaro sports cars and another 3.4 million midsize and fullsize sedans, including Chevrolet Impalas and Cadillac DeVilles. Legal Problems On June 30, GM issued two separate recalls, both related to ignition switches which it said could be turned off because of "inadvertent key rotation." In turn, that could shut off the engine and cut power to steering, brakes and air bags -- issues similar to those that triggered the earlier recalls. Affected are 7.61 million older sedans and coupes dating back to model year 1997, including 2000-2005 Chevrolet Impalas and 1997-2005 Chevrolet Malibus. Also recalled were 616,179 Cadillacs from model years 2003-2014, including the CTS coupe and sedan and the SRX crossover. The 2004-2006 Cadillac SRX used a switch part similar to that on the 2003 Saturn Ion, Reuters reported in April. GM engineers told the switch supplier, Delphi Automotive, about accidentally turning off ignition switches in a Cadillac SRX with their knees more than eight years ago, according to documents provided to U.S. safety regulators. The original SRX ignition-switch part also was used in the 2003-2007 Cadillac CTS, according to online GM parts catalogs reviewed by Reuters. Delphi supplied the switches for the 2003- 2007 CTS and the 2004-2009 SRX, it told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. GM did not recall the SRX and the CTS for switch-related issues, however, until June 30. As it has done previously, GM urged owners to remove all items from key rings, including the fob, leaving only the ignition key. It said it would provide dealers with an insert to change the key-head design from a slot to a hole to reduce the chance of the key ring and fob turning off the switch. In early June, GM released a 325-page report on the 11-year process of identifying defects in the Cobalt and Ion that eventually led to the recall of those cars earlier this year. The report was prepared by Anton Valukas, chairman of GM's outside law firm Jenner & Block, and largely exonerated top executives. But GM faces legal problems on a number of fronts. A county district attorney in California on June 30 announced a lawsuit accusing GM of being a threat to public safety by concealing at least 35 safety defects that have prompted the recall of millions of vehicles. GM previously has acknowledged that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating how it handled the recall of the Cobalt and Ion. GENZYME CORP: Faces Class Action Over Gaucher Disease Drug ---------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Genzyme Corporation after a Colorado man claims it distributed and sold impure and untested drugs. Sometime prior to 2009, Genzyme experienced a contamination of the drug Cerezyme, which the plaintiff was prescribed for Gaucher Disease, the complaint says. The Cerezyme Stakeholders Working Group and Express Scripts Inc. were also named as defendants in the suit. "Cerezyme was a miracle drug for Gaucher patients, but Genzyme [allegedly] contaminated it with a dangerous virus, and cut doses to less than a third for many Gaucher patients in response to a shortage Genzyme itself created," said Rachel Goldfarb, managing attorney of the Bell Law Firm's Colorado office. "Genzyme [allegedly] knew the diluted medication was experimental and dangerous but still decided to give it to certain Gaucher patients, including our client. Our client was deprived of FDA- approved doses and instead injected with a live pathogenic virus, without his informed consent. As a result, he now suffers from an incurable cancer." Goldfarb said Congress enacted the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the states passed their own pure food and drug laws more than 70 years ago to protect against this type of conduct. "We are hopeful that a jury will hold Genzyme and its partners responsible for their actions in endangering and forever altering the lives of thousands of patients, including our client's," she said. Gregory Reich and Lynn Reich claim between July 2009 and September 2011, the defendants forcibly substituted Gregory Reich's intravenous injections of Cerezyme for experimental doses of an untested drug that was intentionally mislabeled, diluted below FDA-approved levels, adulterated with glass, rubber and steel particles and contaminated with a viral pathogen known to be dangerous to humans, according to a complaint filed June 17 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Once placed on treatment for Gaucher Disease, patients are advised to never go off enzyme replacement therapy because the disease is progressive. Gregory Reich was diagnosed more than 21 years ago and has had bi-weekly injections of Cerezyme to help with his disease, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim the experimental drug is a medicinal product that has not received approval from governmental regulatory authorities for routine use in human or veterinary medicine. Sometime prior to July 2009, Genzyme contaminated its bioreactors with vesivirus, which caused reduced output, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim due to the viral contamination, Genzyme could not meet customer demand, so it implemented a plan that it designed to ration a drug that was, in the first place, illegal to sell or market because the drug was experimental, mislabeled, impure, filth-contaminated, ineffective, diluted and illegally substituted but marketed as if it were a beneficial treatment for Gaucher Disease, despite never having been previously tested in animals or gravely ill human beings. Genzyme stated that due to the shortage, Cerezyme patients could go without one or two treatments, according to the suit. It also alleged that the missed doses would not cause significant health problems because most patients' bodies have been cleansed of the fatty substances, and it takes more than a few skipped treatments for them to return. The defendants sold the plaintiffs an impure and ineffective drug substitute for which his insurance company paid the defendants on multiple occasions, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim on June 19, 2012, Gregory Reich was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. The plaintiffs claim the defendants violated the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. The defendants' motive in creating and operating the fraudulent scheme and RICO enterprises was to fraudulently obtain revenues from marketing illegally substituted, impure and effective medication while representing to the public that the substitute medications were an effective and safe alternate to treat Gaucher Disease and the prevention of sequela, according to the suit. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The case has been assigned to District Judge Raymond P. Moore. U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado case number: 1:14-cv-01684 GLOBAL AIRCRAFT: "Venegas" Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Venegas, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Global Aircraft Service, Inc., 4500 Claire Chennault St., Addison, TX 75001, and Lufthansa Technik North America Holding Corp., 5100 E. Skelly Drive, Ste. 570, Tulsa, OK 74135, Case No. 2:14-cv-00249 (D. Me., June 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under Fair Labor Standards Act. Global Aircraft Service, Inc., a Texas for-profit corporation, conducts business and provides services at the Auburn-Lewiston Municipal Airport. Lufthansa Technik North America Holding Corp., is the world's leading independent provider of maintenance, repair and overhaul services for civil commercial aircraft. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison G. Gray, Esq. Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq. JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP 160 Capitol Street, PO Box 79 Augusta, ME 04332 Telephone: (207) 623-5110 E-mail: agray@johnsonwebbert.com jyoung@johnsonwebbert.com GRACE CAR WASH: Faces "Nabay" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abubakarr Nabay, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Grace Car Wash, Inc.; Hong Ko a/k/a John Ko; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-03844 (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Grace Car Wash, Inc., operates a car wash facility, located at 7539 Haverford Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19151. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com HERTZ CORP: Settles Class Action Over Toll Charges for $14 Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that car rental giant Hertz Corporation has agreed to an $11 million settlement of a class action by customers hit with unauthorized charges for using the company's electronic toll payment system. The agreement, given final approval by a federal judge in Camden, N.J., on June 25, also provides for $3 million in fees to class counsel. The suit alleged that Hertz, of Park Ridge, N.J., failed to tell customers in advance that a $2.50 daily administrative fee would be tacked on to their bills when they used its PlatePass service to pay tolls electronically, on top of the amount of the tolls themselves. Hertz did not honor a promise to cap such charges at $10 per week, the suit said. The complaint included claims of violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, conversion, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. The class consists of all persons in the U.S. who rented a car from Hertz between July 1, 2006, and March 31, 2010, used PlatePass and paid for it. U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman said approval of the settlement was warranted because only 51 of the 1.6 million class members opted out of the settlement and only two members objected. Judge Hillman found resolution as a class action appropriate because the members' average losses of roughly $10 made it unlikely that they would have their day in court otherwise. Class members will receive a refund of 67 percent of all PlatePass charges for their first rental transactions and a 38 percent refund for subsequent transactions. The difference was attributed to the likelihood that additional knowledge of the PlatePass terms can be imputed to repeat renters, the plaintiffs said. The defendants must set aside a common fund of $11 million for satisfaction of claims, as well as $3 million in legal fees and $100,000 in expenses. They also agree to pay $5,000 each to the two class representatives, Susan Doherty and Dwight Simonson. Hillman said the $3 million in legal fees is reasonable considering that it comes to 20 percent of the aggregate class recovery, meaning the common fund, legal fees, costs, service awards to class representatives and costs of administering the settlement. Although Judge Hillman previously expressed concern that the legal fees were unreasonable when compared to the amount actually realized by class members, he reconsidered based on the defendants' consent to the fee award. "We're happy the judge understood the case and saw it was a good case for the consumers of this country," said Steven Jaffe of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who represented the class along with Christopher Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Red Bank. Hertz was represented by Michael Vassalotti of Brown & Connery in Westmont, and John Ward -- jward@jenner.com -- and Ross Bricker -- rbricker@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block in Chicago. Mr. Ward referred a reporter's questions to Hertz. Corporate spokesman Richard Broome said only that "we are satisfied with the settlement in this matter." The parties reached the settlement after a series of mediation sessions in 2011, 2012 and 2013 with former U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Rosen, now of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads in Cherry Hill. Also bound by the settlement is American Traffic Solutions of Tempe, Ariz., which provides the PlatePass service through a subsidiary. Mr. Jaffe said Hertz and ATS did not disclose how much of the settlement funds each of them contributed. ATS's lawyers, Robert Friedman and Benjamin Caldwell of Burns & Levinson in Boston, did not return a reporter's calls seeking comment. HERTZ GLOBAL: Seeks Dismissal of Investor Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Tom Zanki, writing for Law360, reports that Hertz Global Holdings Inc. on June 24 asked a New Jersey federal judge to toss a putative class action accusing it of misleading investors, arguing that the suit wrongly holds the company liable for optimistic opinions that contain no actionable misstatements. The car rental giant claims the suit filed in November by plaintiff Pedro Ramirez on behalf of shareholders represents a "kitchen sink" pleading "filled with a broad range of legally flawed criticisms." The class action alleges Hertz knowingly issued false statements regarding its financial projections and the spinoff of its Advantage Rent A Car unit, resulting in inflated stock prices that later sank after the company restated its guidance. "Plaintiffs criticize defendants for expressing anything but pessimism with regard to future performance and business prospects," Hertz's motion states. The motion adds that the class action "improperly attempts to hold the company liable for not continuously and instantaneously updating investors on every event in its business" during the six-month class period between March and September 2013. Hertz said it confronted several challenges during that period, including integrating its $2.3 billion purchase of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Inc., adding 113,000 vehicles to its fleet, which in turn prompted the company to sell its Advantage Rent A Car unit to avoid antitrust concerns. The company said that adjustment happened on top of spending cuts mandated by the federal sequester -- hurting Hertz's government business -- and normal seasonal and geographic fluctuations in the car rental industry. "Nonetheless, plaintiffs fault Hertz for not immediately issuing updates how these events might impact its business," Hertz's motion argues. The class action claims that Hertz's stock price rose throughout 2013, supported by optimistic projections by key executives, but dove about 16 percent -- from $25.78 to $21.63 per share -- on Sept. 26 after Hertz restated its 2013 guidance to account for losing sales in the "all-important" U.S. airport rental market. Hertz argues that optimism concerning financial growth -- often termed "puffery' -- is not actionable under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and other securities laws unless it can be demonstrated that the opinions were objectively false and that the person who made them knew so, which the company argues Mr. Ramirez failed to demonstrate. The class action also claims that Hertz covered up problems with its Advantage divestiture, including a disagreement with the new owner about the value of the company's fleet, but failed to timely record an impairment charge. Hertz, which sold Advantage's owner Simply Wheelz LLC to Franchise Services of North America inc., said it was not aware that FSNA was selling Advantage vehicles at a loss. Hertz is represented by Kevin H. Marino -- kmarino@khmarino.com -- and John D. Tortorella -- jtortorella@khmarino.com -- of Chatham N.J. law firm Marino Tortorella & Boyle, PC. Mr. Ramirez is represented by Peter S. Pearlman -- psp@njlawfirm.com -- of Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP, Samuel H. Rudman and Mary K. Blasy of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Jeffrey Abraham -- jabraham@aftlaw.com -- of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP. The class action also lists Hertz CEO Mark Frissora and Chief Financial Officer Elyse Douglas as defendants. The case is Ramirez et al. v. Hertz Global Holdings Inc. et al., case number 2:13-cv-07050, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Autonomy Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Abhirup Roy, writing for Reuters, reports that Hewlett-Packard Co. and attorneys representing shareholders confirmed on June 30 they had agreed to settle litigation over the $11.1 billion acquisition of British software company Autonomy Corp. Reuters exclusively reported news of the settlement on June 27. Under the terms of the settlement, all claims against HP's current and former directors, officers and advisers, other than legacy Autonomy officials and advisers, will be dropped, the company said in a statement. Plaintiffs and their counsel at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP will help HP bring claims against former Autonomy CEO Michael Lynch, Shushovan Hussain, its former finance chief and potentially others, HP added. HP took an $8.8 billion impairment charge in November 2012 for its purchase of Autonomy only just over a year earlier, with more than $5 billion of that linked to what HP said at the time were "serious accounting improprieties, misrepresentation and disclosure failures." HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge tossed a securities class action on June 26 that slammed Hewlett- Packard Co. for touting its code of conduct even as its former CEO became embroiled in an ethics scandal. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar granted HP's motion to dismiss a putative class action that reached back to the fall of former HP CEO Mark Hurd, who resigned in 2010 after a contractor claimed Mr. Hurd made inappropriate sexual advances toward her. Plaintiffs alleged that HP misled investors by adopting a new ethics code without disclosing Mr. Hurd's missteps. But Judge Tigar ruled in a 14-page order that plaintiffs had failed to show the "standards of business of conduct" HP issued in 2008 contained false statements that investors might have relied on. He also rejected plaintiffs' argument that Hurd's adoption of the code suggested that he abided by it. "These representations . . . established only that HP aspired to comply with its own policies," Judge Tigar wrote. Judge Tigar dismissed plaintiffs' claims against HP and Mr. Hurd without leave to amend, noting they had already been given a chance to improve their case. Plaintiffs claimed Mr. Hurd was keenly aware that HP would have to live up to a high ethical standard after revelations of an improper investigation into leaks rocked its board. By allegedly falsifying expense reports to cover up his improper relationship with a contractor, Mr. Hurd risked losing his title and sinking HP's stock price, plaintiffs alleged. But Judge Tigar found Mr. Hurd's silence was not enough to support securities fraud allegations. "Plaintiff's theory of liability appears to be that a corporation or senior executive is liable whenever that executive is involved in conduct that might lead to his or her resignation or termination, regardless of the nature of that misconduct, unless the misconduct is disclosed," Judge Tigar wrote. "But that is not the law." HP was defended by a Morgan, Lewis & Bockius team led by Philadelphia-based partner Marc Sonnenfeld -- msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com Ira Press of New York's Kirby McInerney and Lionel Glancy of Los Angeles's Glancy Binkow & Goldberg represented the plaintiffs in Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. HP, 12- 4115. Mr. Hurd, now president of Oracle Corp., tapped Lawrence Lewis, an Orange County-based partner at Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, to defend him. HIBACHI SUPREME: "Heard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Heard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hibachi Supreme Dining, Inc. d/b/a Teppanyaki Grill & Supreme Buffet, Teppanyaki Grill & Supreme Buffet, and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-03846 (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Hibachi Supreme Dining, Inc., is a restaurant in Pennsylvania operating under the trade name Teppanyaki Grill & Supreme Buffet. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com IC SYSTEM: Faces "Rush" Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Renee Berliner Rush, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. IC System, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:14-cv-04542 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for sending debt collection letters and notices which are in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. IC System is a debt collector with its principal place of business located at 444 Highway 96 East, PO Box 64378, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55164-0378. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq. Joseph Karl Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 555 Fifth Avenue 17th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com jkj@legaljones.com J&J PAVING: Fails to Pay OT, "Espindola" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------- Manuel Espindola, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v. J&J Paving & Sealcoating Corp. and Joseph Matarazzo, Case No. 2:14-cv-03857 (D.N.J., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. J&J Paving & Seal coating Corp. is a paving and seal coating business, located at 681 Franklin Avenue, Second Floor, Nutley, NJ 07011. Joseph Matarazzo is the Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of Defendant, J&J Paving & Sealcoating Corp. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Louis Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settles PAGA Class Action for $2.8 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Brandon Lowrey and Benjamin Horney, writing for Law360, report that auto parts giant Johnson Controls Inc. will pay $2.8 million to settle a putative class action and Private Attorneys General Act suit with 1,441 current and former California employees who allege the company withheld vacation wages and committed other labor violations, according to a settlement motion filed on June 23. The settlement, if approved, would bring to a close a year-long case with a complaint that sought at least $10 million. Under the terms of the deal, a maximum of more than $2 million would be distributed among class members. The 1,441 members of the vacation class would each receive about $280, while each of the 1,160 members of the waiting time class would receive about $1,400, according to court documents. Class representative Linda Delatorre would receive $5,000, class counsel would receive $700,000, and the claims administrator would receive $30,000. Under the PAGA claims, Johnson would pay $7,500 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, according to a memorandum supporting an unopposed settlement motion. Linda Delatorre sued Johnson in state court in April 2013, alleging a series of wage and hour violations including not being paid for some 80 hours of vacation and floating holiday time. The case was removed to federal court in July 2013. Johnson has maintained that it had paid out all necessary vacation wages and is not liable. The parties announced a tentative agreement following mediation in February and filed a settlement motion on June 23. Johnson Controls is a global company with 170,000 employees that has sales in more than 150 countries, according to its website. The firm focuses on lead-acid automotive batteries and batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles, along with automobile interior systems, according to the website. In addition, the company provides equipment, controls and services for buildings' heating, air conditioning, refrigeration and security systems, among other services. In May, Johnson announced a joint venture with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. that would create the largest automotive interiors company in the world. Ms. Delatorre is represented by Graham S.P. Hollis and Vilmarie Cordero of GrahamHollis APC. Johnson Controls is represented by Lynne C. Hermle -- lchermle@orrick.com -- Jessica R. Perry -- jperry@orrick.com -- and Lindsey Connor Hulse -- lhulse@orrick.com -- of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. The case is Linda Delatorre v. Johnson Controls Inc., case number 5:13-cv-03214, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. K-LINE: Recalls Soul Due to Improperly Applied Adhesive ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 994 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014237 TC ID number: 2014237 Manufacturer recall number: RC090 On certain vehicles, insufficient thread-locking adhesive may have been applied to the steering gear pinion plug at time of assembly. This could allow the plug to loosen and potentially separate from the steering gear assembly, causing a loss of steering which could result in a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will install a new pinion plug with properly applied thread-locking adhesive. Affected products: 2014 KIA Soul KANGAROO PAK: Faces "Qi" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Liuhui Qi, Xinyan Huang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Kangaroo Pak Inc., Eric Tang, John Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-03898 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work for which the Plaintiff did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law, and liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kangaroo Pak Inc. is a plastic and paper bag manufacturing company, located at 180 Morgan Ave, Brooklyn, New York, 11237. Eric Tang is an owner, officer, shareholder, and manager of Kangaroo Pak Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (918) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com KENDALL SPRINKLER: "Wall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Wall, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Kendall Sprinkler Service, Inc., Dale Ormes, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22316 (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kendall Sprinkler Service, Inc., is engaged in the business of commercial irrigation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com KI MAMA RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Zamora-Herrera, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Ki Mama Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Souen, Miso Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Souen, Masaaki Yamaguchi, and Hirokazu Yoda, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-04501 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation, spread-of-hours wages, and such other relief available by law. Ki Mama Restaurant Inc., is a full-service restaurant doing business as Souen, Miso Restaurant Inc., Souen, Masaaki Yamaguchi or Hirokazu Yoda and located at 326 East 6th Street and 210 Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A.Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, N.Y. 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com LE MAITRE: Recalls St-Hubert Chicken Pies Due to Swollen Packages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 17, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Le Maitre Saladier Inc. Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8922 Affected products: 715 g. St-Hubert Chicken Pie with only product shipped to and sold by DMB Distribution Alimentaire MAGNUM HUNTER: Judge Dismisses New York Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation on June 24 disclosed that the consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company last year has now been dismissed in its entirety by the judge overseeing the case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. With the dismissal of this consolidated securities class action lawsuit on June 23, 2014, the Company has been successful in securing dismissals of a total of five separate securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in four different judicial courts without any monies paid to any plaintiffs or their respective legal counsel. Three of the lawsuits were dismissed on motions by the defendants, while the other two were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The Company is currently working to obtain dismissal of the last remaining shareholder derivative lawsuit. The plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit can appeal the June 23 dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A Form 8-K, including a copy of the opinion and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing the consolidated securities class action lawsuit, is being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Magnum Hunter Management Comments Mr. Paul M. Johnston, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, commented, "It is very gratifying that we have been successful in securing the dismissal of such a large number of lawsuits against our Company and certain directors and officers. Fortunately, courts throughout the country are taking a much tougher stance on these types of complaints against companies and their directors and officers. We would like to also express our appreciation to the litigation team at Norton Rose Fulbright in Houston who led our efforts in all of these dismissals." About Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation and subsidiaries are a Houston, Texas-based independent exploration and production company engaged in the acquisition, development and production of crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids, primarily in the States of West Virginia, Ohio, and North Dakota. The Company is presently active in three of the most prolific unconventional shale resource plays in North America, namely the Marcellus Shale, Utica Shale, and Williston Basin/Bakken Shale. MATTRESS GIANT: Faces "Nuez" Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Nuez, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Mattress Giant Corporation, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Mattress Firm, Inc. a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:14- cv-22337 (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mattress Giant Corporation is a mattress retail corporation and owns the Mattress Firm, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com pmh@rgpattorneys.com MEDIN CORP: 401(k) Plan Trustee Sued Over Illegal Use of Funds -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Librot v. Jay D. Schainholz, as a Trustee of the Medin Corporation 401(k) Plan and Medin Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-03882 (E.D.N.Y. Jun 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for the alleged conversion of the Plaintiffs funds which were Elective Deferrals of income which were required to be paid to the 401(k) Plan, but were instead converted and used by the Defendant, without the consent of the Plaintiff Jay D. Schainholz has authority or control over the 401(k) Plan's management and authority or control over management or disposition of the 401(k) Plan assets. Medin Corporation is the sponsor and administrator of 401(k) Plan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Rosen, Esq. GARY ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 322 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 437-3400 Facsimile: (516) 706-4981 E-mail: grosen@garyrosen.com MODE CHOC: Recalls Baby Sleepers Due to Flammability Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 18, 2014 Posting date: June 18, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Flammability Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40083 Affected products: Baby Sleepers The recall involves the "Deux petits canards" brand, 100% cotton sleeper, model number 3F-07, sizes 6/9 months and larger. The long-leg sleeper features a striped design of several pastel colors, a front opening and snap buttons. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that this products does not meet the flammability requirements for children's sleepwear under Canadian law. Loose-fitting children's sleepwear can contact ignition sources such as stove elements, candles, and matches more readily than tight-fitting sleepwear, and once ignited will burn rapidly, potentially resulting in severe burns to large areas of the child's body. For this reason, cotton is not permitted in loose- fitting sleepwear. Neither Mode Choc nor Health Canada has received reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. A total of 642 units were sold at Mode Choc stores in Canada. The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold between Oct. 10, 2013, and May 26, 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Quanzhou Xietai Textile Products Ltd. China Distributor Mode Choc Alma Quebec Canada Consumers should immediately stop using this sleeper and return it to the place of purchase for a refund. MOTOR COACH: Recalls D4000, D4500 & D4505 Buses Due to Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 85 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014236 TC ID number: 2014236 Certain coaches previously repaired as part of recall 2012173 may require additional modifications. The power draw from the LED interior lights may exceed the design limits of the fuse block terminal and power splice connector installed as part of the previous recall. As a result, these components could overheat, potentially resulting in a vehicle fire causing property damage and/or personal injury. MCI authorized facilities will install a revised fuse holder for the LED interior lights. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- MCI D4500 2009, 2010, 2011 MCI D4000 2009, 2010, 2011 MCI D4505 2009, 2010, 2011 MOTOR COACH: Recalls 102DL3 & D4505 Buses Due to Steering Control ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Powertrain Units affected: 11 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014238 TC ID number: 2014238 On certain vehicles equipped with a driveshaft with a compressed length of 30 inches or less, with a steerable trailing axle that changes the axle caster when the vehicle is in reverse caster, and that lack electronic stability control, the driveshaft could decouple from the transmission due to a universal joint failure. If hard braking is applied, resulting in the drive axle brakes locking up, the potential exists for the driveshaft to escape its containment. This could result in a loss of steering control and ultimately result in a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Dealers will add a secondary drive shaft hoop. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- MCI 102DL3 1993, 1994, 1995 MCI D4505 2006, 2008 NAT'L FOOTBALL: Parties Revise Settlement in Concussion Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the National Football League and a group of retired players have agreed to a revised settlement in the concussion injury litigation that would not place any cap on the damages available to players, the parties jointly announced on June 25. The revised settlement comes after the parties' initial $765 million proposed accord was denied preliminary approval by U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over her concerns that all of the former players who would qualify for settlement money due to various types of brain injuries sustained while they played in the NFL would not actually be able to collect from the fund. Judge Brody appointed Perry Golkin as special master to help the parties reach a settlement that better protected the interests of all the potential class members. In the joint statement, counsel for both sides said the new settlement was a result of working with Mr. Golkin and Judge Brody. "While actuarial estimates from both parties supported the $765 million settlement that was announced in August, this new agreement will ensure funds are available to any eligible retired player who develops a compensable injury," the parties said. The NFL will also set aside $75 million for the baseline assessment program that would offer players a one-time exam to test for neurocognitive impairment, as well as $10 million for education on concussion prevention. The league will also pay the costs for notice to the class and administration of the settlement. The revised settlement also removed a previously included bar on the proposed class members suing the National Collegiate Athletic Association or other entities over the same injuries. The proposed settlement will now go back before Judge Brody for her preliminary approval. Under the initial settlement, $675 million of the total was designated for a pool from which eligible former players could draw. That figure is now unlimited and will be available for eligible retired players who have suffered cognitive impairment such as dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease or ALS. "The settling parties became so confident in the prior actuarial assumptions and projections that an agreement to uncap the amount of the Monetary Award Fund was reached in order to address the court's concern that all eligible class members over the 65-year lifespan of the deal would be compensated at the significant award levels for which the deal provided," the parties said in their memorandum of law in support of preliminary approval. "Staying true to the initial deal, the plaintiffs insisted upon maintaining the same significant award levels and maintaining the NFL parties' obligation to pay for the costs and expenses of claims administration." Co-lead plaintiffs counsel Christopher Seeger -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss, who led the plaintiffs team along with Sol Weiss -- sweiss@anapolschwartz.com -- of Anapol Schwartz, held a press conference on June 25 to detail the revised plan. The settlement, as it was before, is available to any player who retired before the date of the preliminary approval of the settlement, Mr. Seeger said. The settlement fund will be available for 65 years to the proposed class, which was estimated to be about 20,000 retired players or, if the player had died after 2006, their families. Under the monetary fund construction, players will be eligible for up to $5 million in damages depending on their age and years in the league, Mr. Seeger said. Mr. Seeger described the fund as a "pay as you go" fund in which the fund will have to maintain a certain number of millions of dollars at any one time, but will largely be funded monthly by the NFL as claims arise. "We have some real security in this case," Mr. Seeger added, noting that under the terms of the accord, after 10 years, actuaries will provide an estimate on what the fund will require between year 10 and year 65 and the NFL will be obligated to pledge that amount as collateral. Mr. Seeger said the attorney fees remain the same under the revised settlement at $112.5 million. He said he wouldn't ask the judge for approval of those fees until after the settlement is approved and payments are being made. Mr. Seeger cautioned potential class members from opting out of the suit, saying the NFL has a number of defenses it would use in fighting individual suits, including statute of limitations, assumption of risk, causation and federal preemption. Mr. Seeger said there were no causation requirements for those participating in the settlement. When asked what the settlement meant for current players who may later develop brain injuries, Mr. Seeger said he isn't representing any current players, but, as a lawyer, he would think they would have to file individual claims. "[The] agreement reaffirms the NFL's commitment to provide help to those retired players and their families who are in need, and to do so without the delay, expense and emotional cost associated with protracted litigation. We are eager to move forward with the process of court approval and implementation of the settlement," said NFL Senior Vice President Anastasia Danias in the parties' joint statement. Robert C. Heim of Dechert, who is local counsel for the NFL, said the main goal of the revised settlement was to remove any uncertainty about the players' ability to recover under the terms of the settlement. Calls to some of the players' counsel who were previously skeptical of how the initial settlement figures were reached were not immediately returned. NEW YORK TIMES: Faces "Rabin" Suit for Overcharging Subscription ---------------------------------------------------------------- I. Stephen Rabin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The New York Times Company, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., and Forbes, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04498 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014), alleges conspiracy with Circulation Billing Services or permitted Circulation Billing Services to defraud the Plaintiffs and class members specifically by overcharging the subscriptions and new orders, permitting the sender of the notices to remit to the Defendants the amount necessary for new orders or continuation of subscriptions and retaining excess amounts which they charged the Plaintiff, falsely indicating that subscriptions were about to lapse, falsely indicating to the Plaintiff that he had subscriptions to certain magazines, falsely indicating that the rates for subscriptions were low, when, in fact, they were exorbitant and substituting one magazine subscription for another without the consent of the subscribers. The New York Times Company is the publisher of the New York Times. Dow Jones & Company is the publisher of Barron's and the Wall Street Journal. Forbes, Inc., is the publisher of Forbes Magazine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond A. Bragar, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212)486-0462 E-mail: eagel@bespc.com kuehn@bespc.com NICHOLAS DIPAOLO: Sued Over Breach of Securities Exchange Act ------------------------------------------------------------- LR Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Nicholas Dipaolo, David P. Lauer, David L. Nichols, Janice E. Page, Greg A. Tunney, Thomas M. Von Lehman, and Harvey A. Weinberg, Case No. 2:14-cv-00612 (S.D. Ohio, June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants and the members of the Board of Directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act, specifically out of the Board's agreement to sell the RG Barry Company to Mill Road Capital II, L.P. through its wholly owned subsidiaries, MRGB Hold Co. and MRVK Hold Co. Nicholas Dipaolo, David P. Lauer, David L. Nichols, Janice E. Page, Greg A. Tunney, Thomas M. Von Lehman, and Harvey A. Weinberg, are board of directors of RG Barry, an Ohio corporation, that creates and markets accessories brands and fashionable, solution-oriented products. The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Camillus, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C CAMILLUS, LLC PO Box 141410, Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 558-7254 Facsimile: (614) 559-6731 E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com NORTH OLMSTED, OH: Residents Urged to Join Flooding Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Geiselman, writing for Cleveland.com, reports that residents whose homes flooded when 4 inches of rain dropped on North Olmsted May 12 have been invited to join a two-year-old class-action lawsuit against North Olmsted and Cuyahoga County, arguing the governments didn't properly maintain sewers. "The sewage speaks for itself," said the residents' attorney, David Dubin. "This is a horrific incident no one should have to live with, and some people have had to live with it on three separate occasions." Attorneys for Nurenberg, Paris, Heller and McCarthy, of Cleveland, and Macuga, Liddle and Dubin, of Detroit, have sent letters to North Olmsted homeowners, hoping to expand an existing class- action lawsuit filed on behalf of North Olmsted and Olmsted Township residents who suffered flooding three years ago. The initial lawsuit, filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in 2012, seeks money for residents whose homes were damaged when sanitary sewers backed up into basements and first floors in February and July 2011. Why expand the lawsuit? On May 12, hundreds of homes flooded in North Olmsted when heavy rain overwhelmed the sanitary sewers and sent sewage burbling into basements. Several hundred people crowded into North Olmsted High School May 16 to demand answers from city officials. Many people who flooded in 2011 also flooded this May, prompting the attorneys to seek to expand the lawsuit to include this year's flood damage, Mr. Dubin said. However, attorneys also are finding some people who were not flooded in 2011 who had flooding this year. About 260 households have contacted his law firm concerning May flooding complaints, Mr. Dubin said. What does the lawsuit claim? The lawsuit claims poor maintenance of storm and sanitary sewers led to water entering the sanitary sewer system and backing up into basements. "The water and sewage which physically invaded Plaintiffs' property contained feces, dirt, debris, noxious odors, and other unknown materials," according to the lawsuit. "The water and sewage which entered and settled on the Plaintiffs' property originated from the sewers owned and controlled by Defendants." North Olmsted and Olmsted Township have separate sanitary and storm sewers that should prevent large volumes of storm water from entering the sanitary system if both systems are properly maintained, Mr. Dubin said. "Holes in the system and cracks allow water to enter," he said. Cuyahoga County is named as a defendant because it maintains sewers in Olmsted Township, he said. Part of the township's sewers tie into the North Olmsted sewage treatment plant. What does the lawsuit seek? The lawsuit asks for more than $25,000 in compensatory damages. It also seeks an order requiring the defendants to repair damages to residents' property, award "just compensation for unconstitutional taking of Plaintiff's property," damages for residents having to clean their homes of sewage, and damages for mental anguish, suffering, anxiety, humiliation and distress. "We are asking to have people compensated for their losses," Mr. Dubin said. "The average flood victim isn't trying to hit a home run or retire. They want enough money to put their lives back together." What do the defendants say? North Olmsted Law Director Michael Gareau said the city's insurance company has hired an attorney to defend the city. However, Mr. Gareau said North Olmsted has not been negligent in maintaining its sewer systems. "The plaintiffs case turns on the argument we were negligent in maintaining our system, and we feel we were not negligent," Mr. Gareau said. The city, during public forums in May and a second one in June, outlined steps it has taken to address flooding issues. Steps include building underground holding areas for the sanitary sewer system that can hold more than 2 million gallons of water during heavy rainfalls to take pressure off the sewer system. City officials outlined more than $10.5 million in improvements they have made to the sewer system in recent years. Mr. Gareau predicted the case would be lengthy. "We have been engaged in the discovery process for quite some time," he said. "It will be around a while before we see movement. These cases are measured in years, not months. OCWEN FINANCIAL: NC Residents to Receive Settlement Claim Forms --------------------------------------------------------------- Deon Roberts, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that more than 3,400 North Carolinians who might be eligible for payments from a national mortgage settlement with Ocwen Financial Corp. should start receiving claim forms this week, Attorney General Roy Cooper's office said on July 1. As part of the settlement reached with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and attorneys general from 49 states and the District of Columbia, Ocwen has agreed to pay $125 million to refund approximately 184,000 U.S. borrowers. According to Mr. Cooper's office, affected borrowers will likely receive refunds of $679 to $1,235 apiece. Payment amounts will depend on how many people submit claims by a deadline of Sept. 15, the office said. Payment checks are expected to be mailed to borrowers in late 2014 or early 2015. "Foreclosures can be devastating to individual families, their neighborhoods and communities," Mr. Cooper said in a statement. "With this settlement, people who lost their homes to foreclosures done wrong can get some money back." Claims packages will be sent to North Carolina borrowers who lost their home to foreclosure between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012, and whose loans were serviced by Ocwen, Litton Loan Servicing and Homeward Residential Holdings, formerly known as American Home Mortgage Servicing, Cooper's office said. Approximately $2 billion of the national settlement is expected to be used to help borrowers avoid losing their homes to foreclosure by reducing the principal on their loans. North Carolina is receiving $26 million of the settlement for that purpose. In addition to the Ocwen deal, North Carolina has participated in other settlements over mortgage practices. OFFICE DEPOT: Recalls Gibson Leather Task Chair ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 17, 2014 Posting date: June 17, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40029 Affected products: Office Depot Gibson Leather Task Chair The black, armless, adjustable chairs have a black base with five wheels. The affected chairs have the SKU number 105479 and the registration numbers PA 27248 (CN), PA 25498 (CN), PA 25276 (HK) or CA 35181 (RC) that can be found next to the words "Made in China," printed on a label located on the underside of the seats. The mounting plate weld can break and separate the seat from the base of the chair, posing a fall hazard to consumers. Office Depot has received an unknown number of reports of mechanical failures in Canada. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Approximately 52,011 units of this product were sold in Canada at various Office Depot locations (now closed) and online. The recalled product was manufactured in Taiwan and China and sold in Canada prior to 2010. Companies: Importer Office Depot Boca Raton Florida United States Consumers should immediately stop using the chair and contact Office Depot to receive a merchandise card of $55 US, which can be used to purchase Office Depot products online (upon sufficient proof of purchase by the consumer). PAYTIME HARRISBURG: Accused of Breaching Contract in Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Holt and Linda Redding, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paytime Harrisburg, Inc. d/b/a Paytime, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03964-LDD (E.D. Pa., June 27, 2014) arises from alleged breach of contract. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel C. Meredith, Esq. MEREDITH & NARINE 100 S. Broad St., Suite 905 Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 564-5182 E-mail: jmeredith@mcgslaw.com PERFORMANCE PLUMBING: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Cerritos, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, Larry Langley, individually, and Randal Langley, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-00342 (M.D. Fla., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc., is a plumbing company located in Naples, Collier County, Florida. Larry Langley and Randal Langley, own, manage, and operate Performance Plumbing Of Southwest Florida, Inc., and regularly exercised the authority to hire and fire employees, determine the work schedules of employees, set the rate pay of employees, and control the finances and operations of Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA Suite 404, 1515 S. Federal Hwy Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com PISTILLI REALTY: Faces "Tesen" Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Humberto Tesen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pistilli Realty Group, Sky View Towers Holding, LLC, Lidia Management Corp., Joseph Pistilli, and Michael Pistilli, Case No. 1:14-cv-03921 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under Fair Labor Standards Act. Pistilli Realty Group, Sky View Towers Holding, LLC, Lidia Management Corp., are companies that own, manage, maintain, repair, supervise, and operate building in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Emiliano Perez, Esq. LAW OFFICE EMILIANO PEREZ 3732 75th St. Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (718) 440-9214 Facsimile: (718) 440-9178 E-mail: eperezlaw@hotmail.com REPUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Billing Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Hyde, writing for San Angelo LIVE, reports that plaintiffs are seeking at least $27 million in refunds and damages over Republic Service's billing practices for commercial customers. The plaintiffs are also seeking all court fees and attorney fees, along with interest. The lawsuit, a draft of which was reviewed by LIVE!, was set to be filed against Republic Services last week for the alleged overbilling of commercial customers in San Angelo. Petitioners will argue that Republic Services harmed commercial trash-pickup customers within the City of San Angelo by charging fees not authorized by City ordinance. Specifically, the plaintiffs said, commercial trash customers' bills show a single line for "Total Fuel/Environmental Recovery Fee" that is alleged to be equal to 32 to 34 percent of the roll- off trash service charges. A City franchise fee, four percent, was charged against these customers' inflated amount on a separate line on customer invoices. The plaintiffs will argue that commercial trash customers with trash service in containers that are commonly referred to as "dumpsters" were affected. The lawsuit alleges Republic Services of: -- Breach of contract: By invoicing and cashing checks of customers for service, plaintiffs allege that Republic was in a legal contract with all of them. And because the invoicing amount is alleged to not be legal, Republic was in breach of contract with the plaintiffs. -- Unjust enrichment: If this allegation is proven, the plaintiffs are seeking treble damages (or three times the judgment amount). -- Discriminatory Treatment by a Public Utility: Residential customers were only charged 5 percent fuel surcharges, and customers with carts were charged only 6.4 percent. Meanwhile commercial dumpster customers were charged 33 to 34 percent in surcharges. This was discrimination, the plaintiffs alleged. -- Deceptive Trade Practices. The plaintiffs will ask the court to certify the plaintiffs as a class since there are common issues and calculations of the amount of the harm. The lawsuit will seek approximately $9 million, which is the approximate calculated amount of the alleged illegal surcharges over 14 years, plus all legal fees, court costs, and interest. The San Angelo attorney representing the plaintiffs is Paul Stipanovic of the San Angelo law firm Gossett, Harrison, Millican & Stipanovic, PC. The plaintiffs have yet to be named, but the organization of the class action lawsuit is being conducted by Texas Disposal Systems, or TDS. TDS CEO Bob Gregory made the allegation of Republic's overcharging of commercial customers in his cover letter in the TDS bid for the City of San Angelo trash pickup and landfill management requests for proposals on April 1. ROUGE VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Breach ---------------------------------------------------- Joel Eastwood, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a C$412-million class action lawsuit has been brought against a Scarborough hospital on behalf of thousands of patients whose personal information was leaked by two former employees. The hospital revealed earlier in June that the contact information of as many as 8,300 patients at Rouge Valley Centenary, mainly mothers who gave birth between 2009 and 2013, had allegedly been handed over to private companies which marketed RESP investments to the new parents. The hospital subsequently contacted the Toronto Police Service. The Ontario Securities Commission is also conducting an investigation. "You're vulnerable," said Scarborough resident Meagan Ware, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who gave birth to her son James at the hospital in 2010, said in an interview on June 24. "The vulnerability that you feel when you don't really know where your information -- my information, as well as my child's information -- has ended up," she said. The lawsuit names as defendants Rouge Valley, the two unnamed former hospital employees, the unnamed RESP company which received the personal information, and an unnamed employee of the RESP company. Michael Crystal, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the action, said the claim would be amended once the names of the former hospital staffers and the company are released. "One of the first things we will be doing is bringing a motion to have the names released to us," Mr. Crystal said. "Certainly, the hospital knows who the employees were, and we have not been able to get those." Rouge Valley spokesman David Brazeau said in an email the hospital is no longer conducting interviews on the matter. According to the statement of claim, the defendants are liable for "damages for breach of contract, breach of warranty, breach of confidence, intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, and conspiracy," totaling C$332 million. The claim also asks for punitive damages of C$80 million, plus undetermined expenses relating to costs incurred to prevent identity theft, as well as mental distress, frustration and anxiety. Mr. Crystal said the damages, which work out to roughly C$49,000 per patient, are justified because the private RESP companies allegedly paid for the private information. "What I think makes this considerably more specious is the fact that this was then sold," Mr. Crystal said. "It was disseminated for commercial purposes." Ms. Ware said she wanted to find out exactly who was responsible for distributing her personal information. "I don't feel like the hospital should be hiding the identity of either one of the people. Considering they have all our information, it would be nice to know who they are," Ms. Ware said. John Broutzas, the husband of plaintiff Elia Broutzas, said he was unhappy with how the hospital handled the situation when he first called to complain after receiving a letter about the alleged breach in December 2013. "In my opinion, if no one does anything, people will keep doing it and they'll get away with it," he said. Mr. Broutzas said the lawsuit wasn't about the money. "If there's anything, that's great, we'll put it in my son's account and leave it for him," he said. Ontario's Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is also investigating the breach, with commissioner Ann Cavoukian vowing to "get to the bottom of this" amid similar reports from patients at other Ontario hospitals. SAROMA CORP: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amilcar Ramirez, Domingo Ramirez and Margarita Pareja, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Saroma Corp. (d/b/a Palacio Azteca), Ranferi Escamilla, Lidia Escamilla and Juana Caballero, Case No. 1:14-cv-04564 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for the unpaid minimum wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Saroma Corp., is a Mexican restaurant located at 1374 York Avenue, New York, New York 10021 under the name Palacio Azteca. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020, New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com SEMINOLE WIND: "Kenny" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ William Kenny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Seminole Wind Restaurant of Bainbridge, LLC, Seminole Wind Restaurant of Thomasville, LLC, Seminole Wind Restaurant Of Cairo, LLC, and Thomas Bryant, Case No. 7:14-cv-00097 (M.D. Ga., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Seminole Wind Restaurant of Bainbridge, LLC, is a restaurant located at 14815 U.S. Highway 19 South, Suite 100, Thomasville, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Clark Davis, Esq. 623 Beard St Tallahassee, Fl 32303 Telephone: (850) 222-4770 E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net SESAMECOL Recalls Al Fakher Tahina Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 18, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Sesameco Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Consumer CFIA reference number: 8963 Sesameco is warning the public not to consume and retailers, restaurants and institutions not to sell or use the product described below due to possible Salmonella contamination. Check to see if you have the product. If so, do not consume, sell or use it. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. Affected products: 18 kg. Al Fakher Tahina sold by the manufacturer, Sesameco, situated at 4638 boulevard Thimens, St- Laurent, Quebec SHOWROOM CONDITION: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jesus Rivera, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. Showroom Condition Detailing, Inc. and Joseph Caiozzo, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-03925 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under Fair Labor Standards Act. Showroom Condition Detailing, Inc., provides car washing and detailing services, located at 3491 Clifton Boulevard, Wantagh, New York 11 793. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cherice Patrice Vanderhall, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: cpv@employmentlawyernewyork.com SIEMENS AG: Recalls Artis Zeego and Artis Zee Systems ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 12, 2014 Posting date: June 24, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-40185 Siemens is informing all users of Artis Zee and Artis Zeego systems that under certain circumstances, the release of radiation can become blocked unnecessarily. This situation comes about after the system has booted up, and after an error with the large display occurs that causes the system to block the release of radiation. After this, the system remains in a state where radiation cannot be released, even if the error that triggered this state was only a temporary one, and the error condition itself goes away after a few seconds (such as a brief communication error). Affected products: A. Artis Zeego with Lot/Serial number 160810 and 160846; Model or catalog number: 10280959 Companies: Manufacturer Siemens AG Wittelsbacherplatz 2 Muenchen 80333 Germany SIEMENS SHANGHAI: Recalls Somatom Emotion 16-Slice Configuration ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 17, 2014 Posting date: June 24, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-40191 Recalled Products: Somatom Emotion 16-slice Configuration Siemens has recently detected a rubber component with unfavorable ageing properties on the Somatom Emotion 16-slice Configuration. The mechanical function of this rubber damper, which is situated within the mounting assembly of the rotation motor, may potentially degrade over time and may impact stability. Companies: Manufacturer Siemens Shanghai Medical Equipment Ltd. 278 Zhouzhu Road, Shanghai 201318 China SPORTS MASKA: Recalls Reebok Goalie Throat Collars -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2014 Posting date: June 19, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40145 Affected products: Reebok TCPRE Senior (SR) and Junior (JR) Goalie Throat and Clavicle Protectors The recall involves Reebok TCPRE Senior (SR) and Junior (JR) goalie throat and clavicle protectors. These models are included in this recall: Model/Size UPC ---------- ---- K101JR TCPRE 884899896964 K101SR TCPRE 884899896957 The Neck Protectors are made from nylon and polyester. The model numbers or product codes are located (i) on the outside of the polybag header card in which the product may be sold at retail and (ii) on the inside label of each neck protector. Also visible on the outer surface of the product are the wordmark/logo "Reebok" embroidered in white. The BNQ certification mark/logo, the mention "BALLISTIC NYLON BALLISTIQUE", the model identification "TCPRE SR" or "TCPRE JR", the sizing information in lettered reference, and metric and imperial measurements are also screen printed in white. The products are further identified by the following identifier code: 99X-YYK-TCPRE-BLK, where 9 can represent any number and X can represent any letter. This code is located on the inside label of each neck protector. The throat protectors have been decertified by Bureau de normalisation du Quebec (BNQ) for non-conformance to certification requirements. This could pose a risk of throat laceration should a skate come in contact with the throat protector. Neither Health Canada nor Sports Maska Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this throat protector. Approximately 8,100 units were sold in Canada and approximately 3,300 units were distributed in the United States. The recalled units were manufactured in China and sold from April 2012 to May 2014 in Canada and the United States. Companies: Manufacturer Sports Maska, Inc. Montreal Quebec Canada Consumers should stop using the recalled products immediately and return them to the retailer for a refund or replacement or to Sports Maska Inc. for a replacement product. STAWNICHY'S MEAT: Recalls Meat Products Due to Undeclared Wheat --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 13, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Stawnichy's Meat Processing Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8959 STAWNICHY'S MEAT: Recalls Soups Due to Undeclared Milk, Wheat, Soy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: June 13, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Stawnichy's Meat Processing Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail, Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 8958 The food recall warning issued on June 12, 2014 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Stawnichy's Meat Processing is recalling soup products from the marketplace because they contain milk, wheat and soy which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk, wheat, or soy should not consume the recalled products described below. If you have an allergy to milk, wheat or soy, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported allergic reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. T-BROTHERS FOOD: Recalls Korepab Potato Pizza (Crackers) -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: T-Brothers Food And Trading Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8969 Affected products: 42 g. Korepab - Potato Pizza with all codes where milk does not appear on the label TAMKO BUILDING: Faces "Disher" Suit Alleging Product Liability -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Disher, Eric Kline, John O'Malley and Dimitri Mishurov, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., and Tamko Roofing Products, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00740-NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill., June 27, 2014), arises from product liability claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John J. Driscoll, Esq. DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C. 211 N. Broadway, Suite 2440 St. Louis, IL 63102 Telephone: (314) 932-3232 Facsimile: (314) 932-3233 E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com TD BANK: Sued in Pa. Over Processing of Debts from Payday Lenders ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Andrichyn and Gladstone Williams individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:14-cv-03863 (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2014), arises from the Defendant's processing of debts on its customers' bank accounts from payday lenders it knew were making unlawful payday loans. TD Bank is a national banking association located in Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent W. Landau, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1604 Locust St., 2nd Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-3270 E-mail: blandau@hausfeldllp.com TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: Sued Over Sale of Unregistered Securities ------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Cook, Individually and behalf of others similarly situated, v. Telexelectric, LLLP, Telex Mobile Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00134 (N.D. Ga., June 24, 2014), arises from the Defendants' conduct in carrying out, or aiding in carrying out, an unlawful Ponzi pyramid scheme that included, fraudulent unregistered offer and sale of securities in the form of unregistered investment contracts constituting securities. Telexelectric, LLLP, is a marketer of telecommunications and advertising primarily targeting the hard-working Brazilian- American and Dominican-American communities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Tate, Esq. TATE LAW GROUP, LLC 2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600 P. O. Box 9060 Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 234-3030 Facsimile: (912) 234-9700 E-mail: tlgservice@tatelawgroup.com TJX CANADA: Recalls Fahrenheit 1600W Hair Dryer ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2014 Posting date: June 19, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Suspected quality concern Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40147 Affected products: Fahrenheit 1600W Hair Dryer The recall involves the Fahrenheit 1600W hair dryer. The recalled hair dryer comes in a variety of colors and are identified by the following model numbers: Fahrenheit 1600W hair dryers subject to the recall: Model Number Color ------------ ------ FHT-FDWR2 White FHT-FDRR2 Red FHT-SEZ Zebra FHT-SEGF Giraffe The hair dryer has shown some quality concerns during normal use, posing a burn or fire hazard. TJX Canada has received two incident reports of the hair dryer malfunctioning. One report claimed that the hair dryer started smoking and the other report involved the dryer discharging debris. No injuries resulted from these incidents. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer injuries related to the use of these products in Canada. Approximately 4,821 units of the recalled product have been sold at Winners and Marshalls locations across Canada. The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold from July 2013 to January 2014. Companies: Importer Winners Merchants International L.P. Mississauga Ontario Canada Telephone: +1 (800) 646-9466 Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the affected hair dryer and return it to the closest Winners or Marshalls Canada location for a refund. UNDER THE NILE: Recalls Side-Tie Kimonos ---------------------------------------- Starting date: June 16, 2014 Posting date: June 16, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Flammability Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40017 Affected products: Side-tie kimonos The recall involves Under the Nile side-tie kimonos, size 3 to 6 months that are made of 100% cotton and identified by UPC numbers 874259025493, 874259025516, 874259027435, 874259027459, 874259021860 and 874259021846. The kimonos come in blush, ice blue, star print blue/coral, star print lavender/kiwi, off white and sage/yellow animal print. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that these products do not meet the flammability requirements for children's sleepwear under Canadian law. Loose-fitting children's sleepwear can contact ignition sources such as stove elements, candles, and matches more readily than tight-fitting sleepwear, and once ignited will burn rapidly, potentially resulting in severe burns to large areas of the child's body. For this reason, cotton is not permitted in loose- fitting sleepwear. Neither Under the Nile nor Health Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Approximately 105 of size 3-6 months of the recalled products were sold in Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in Egypt and sold from June 2013 to June 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Naturetex Textiles, Sekem Company Cairo Egypt Distributor Under the Nile San Jose California United States Consumers should stop using the recalled products immediately and return them to where they were purchased for a refund. UNITED HEALTH: Fails to Make Benefit Payments, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Louis J. Peterson, D.C., and Lutz Surgical Partners, PLLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Health Group Inc., United Healthcare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, and United Healthcare Service LLC, Case No. 0:14-cv-02101 (D. Minn., June 23, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendants' repeated violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act resulting from United's systematic failure to make benefit payments that are due and owing under United Plans. United Health Group Inc., is a fully integrated company that is in the business of insuring and administering health insurance plans. United Healthcare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, and United Healthcare Service LLC, are wholly-owned and controlled subsidiaries of UnitedHealth Group Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Richard A. Lockridge, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave, S Ste 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com ralockridge@locklaw.com riebekh@locklaw.com UNO FOODS: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: UNO Foods Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8964 VENEZIA'S NY STYLE: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Cole" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Cole v. Venezia's NY Style Pizzeria, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Venezia's New York Style Pizza-Mesa, No. 1, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; Venezia's NY Style Pizza-Mesa, No. 2, LLC., an Arizona Corporation; Frank Montanile and Clara Montanile, husband and wife, Domenick Montanile and Jamie Montanile, husband and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv-01430 (D. Ariz., June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Venezia's NY Style Pizzeria, Inc., Venezia's New York Style Pizza- Mesa, No. 1, Inc., Venezia's NY Style Pizza-Mesa, No. 2, LLC., are restaurants with common ownership, directors, and members. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Lester Collins, Esq. Sean Christopher Davis, Esq. Trey A. R. Dayes, III, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC 3101 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 258-8900 Facsimile: (602) 288-1664 E-mail: johnc@phillipsdayeslaw.com SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com VW CREDIT: Faces "Byrd" Suit in C.D. Cal. Over Unsolicited Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Damon Byrd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VW Credit, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04852 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently and intentionally contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. VW Credit, Inc., is engaged in lease and loan financing for new and used vehicles and was a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino del Rio, South Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3609 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail ak@kazlg.com - and - Assal Hashemi Assassi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: assal@kazlg.com WAL-MART INC: Averts Equate False Advertising Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that Wal-Mart Inc. on June 23 evaded a false advertising class action targeting allegedly misleadingly labels on its Equate brand heart health supplements when a California federal judge found no enforceable standard against which to measure the product's marketing claims. Though granting leave to amend, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant tossed plaintiff Thamar Sanstisteban Cortina's suit over advertising statements the retailer made touting the ability of the coenzyme Q10 supplement product Equate CoQ10 to achieve "high absorption" and "three times better absorption" than its competitors. Judge Bashant bought Wal-Mart's argument that the supplement can't be held to U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention standards regarding dissolution rates because those standards are voluntary and the product is not UPC-certified. Neither could the plaintiff rely on the absorption claims surrounding a competing product, Qunol Ultra CoQ-10, to establish the falsity of Wal-Mart's advertising, according to the order. "Although plaintiff identifies the specific challenged label in her complaint, including attaching images, and although she alleges a monetary loss in purchasing the product, her assertion that defendant's representations are false or misleading is not supported by the facts in the complaint," the judge said. Judge Bashant also found the complaint devoid of any allegations that would establish what a reasonable consumer might expect when presented with Wal-Mart's claims, which the judge said was a necessary element of Cortina's fraud-based allegations. "It is conclusory to state simply that consumers reasonably expect a certain degree of benefit, and that Equate CoQ-10 fails to meet these expectations without some support for that inference," the judge said. "Therefore these conclusions as currently formulated fail to meet the pleading standard." Coenzyme Q10 is a naturally occurring antioxidant compound found throughout the body, especially in the heart, liver, kidney and pancreas. It depletes over time with aging, heart disease and medications, and according to the National Institutes of Health it is often supplemented orally for a wide range of ailments, though its effectiveness is inconclusive at best. Cortina alleged in her September complaint that Wal-Mart's representations amounted to affirmative misstatements because independent, USP-compliant laboratory testing confirmed that Equate CoQ10 does not adequately dissolve in the stomach, preventing the active ingredient from being absorbed. The suit sought damages for warranty breaches as well as violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and California subclass. Regarding the Arkansas claims, Judge Bashant found that because the alleged injuries occurred in California and California's interest in protecting customers from illegal conduct in the state outweighs that of Arkansas, California law applied. Those claims therefore could not stand, according to the order. Turning to the California claims, the judge concluded that they failed to give Wal-Mart notice of the nature of the alleged fraud or how it misleads given that the plaintiff cannot force Wal-Mart to comply with the USP-sanctioned CoQ10 monograph or manufacture a cause of action out of the claims made by a competing product. The suit's state level warranty claims also fail, the judge said, because they fail to elucidate minimum standards of merchantability or fitness that Wal-Mart allegedly breached. "Plaintiff asserts defendant's product 'does not provide the minimum amount of CoQ10 required and fails to adequately dissolve' and is 'defective,'" the judge said. "To meet the pleading standard, plaintiff must allege facts establishing a minimum standard for supplements. Other than voluntary USP standards, no minimum levels are established in the complaint. Without specifically alleging a standard, the claims are too vague to support either implied or express warranties." Finally, the judge found no violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which defines warranties as written affirmations of fact promising that a product is defect-free or will achieve a specified level of performance over a period of time, according to the order. Although Cortina alleged that advertising surrounding the product's "clinical strength," "high absorption" and "three times better absorption" are verifiably false and therefore create such a warranty, the judge said that without an adequate benchmark "these claims of relative strength and efficacy are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. "Unless plaintiff can establish some yardstick on which these statements could plausibly be verifiably false, such as the invited comparison between Equate CoQ-10 and Qunol Ultra CoQ-10, the provisions are unenforceable under the MMWA," the judge said. The judge gave Cortina 21 days to bring an amended complaint. The plaintiff is represented by Jack Fitzgerald of The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald PC and Ronald A. Marron, Syke Resendes and Alexis M. Wood of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC. Wal-Mart is represented by David Allen, Kevin Rising, Sarah Johnston and Jade Jurdi of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. The case is Cortina v. Wal-Mart Inc., case number 3:13-cv-02054, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. WYCEN FOODS: Recalls Lot 100 Pudding Due to Undeclared Milk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 17, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Wycen Foods (Canada) Inc. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8916 ZOLL MEDICAL: Faces "Laster" Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Laster, individually and on behalf of All Others similarly situated v. Zoll Medical Corporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04482 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, and damages for Defendant's failure to provide proper wage statements or wage. Zoll Medical Corportion develops and markets medical devices and software solutions that help advance emergency care and save lives, while increasing clinical and operational efficiencies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Gayle Lobban, Esq. Brent Edward Pelton, Esq. Taylor Bell Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10000 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: lobban@peltonlaw.com pelton@peltonlaw.com graham@peltonlaw.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Shows Bankr. Does Not Trump Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, Lawyers and Settlements reported that with the extended incubation period of asbestosis, together with the prevalence of asbestos as a major component of the industrial and manufacturing industry before society finally identified its carcinogenic properties, many an asbestosis lawsuit has been filed in spite of a defendant declaring bankruptcy under the weight of litigation. But all is not lost, as the inner workings of one asbestosis compensation file reveals (In re: Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Case No 3:10-bk-31607, in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina). In fact, in spite of the bankruptcy filing of the defendant, the parent company of the bankrupt enterprise is reported to have provided funding above and beyond its legal liability, or so it claims in its own interpretation of the matter, in order to settle most of the asbestosis compensation claims without going to trial. According to court records, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (GST) had already paid out in excess of $1.8 billion to settle various lawsuits, judgments and legal expenses when it withered under the crush of claims and filed for bankruptcy in 2010. Prior to invoking Chapter 11 protection, GST had manufactured gasket- sealing products, which it claimed contained asbestos fibers that were nonfriable and encapsulated within its products. However, that didn't stop some 900,000 claims of asbestosis disease over the course of 35 years - and those are just the claims that were resolved, according to court records. In 2010, GST threw up its hands in bankruptcy. But all is not lost for claimants suffering from disease with an asbestosis lawyer in tow. In May, GST filed an amended reorganization plan in North Carolina federal court that included a $245 million fund provided by GST parent company EnPro Industries Inc. and another subsidiary. The fund is designed, according to EnPro, to settle all current and future asbestosis disease claims against GST. The fund breaks down this way: $215 million in cash will come from the reorganized GST, with $30 million coming from Coltec Industries, a sister subsidiary of EnPro. As part of the plan, the company must substantiate its claim that $245 million is sufficient to answer the call for all current and future asbestosis compensation claims. "GST's amended plan of reorganization provides fair compensation to claimants and permanent resolution to all asbestos claims against GST," said EnPro President and CEO Steve Macadam in a statement. "By providing funding greater than GST's legal liability, the plan will facilitate the resolution of the vast majority of claims by settlement rather than litigation, saving litigation costs and ensuring that claimants are paid in full." Macadam stated further that the plan is based on the Bankruptcy Code and precedent in non-asbestos-related bankruptcy cases. It will remain to be seen if the company can satisfy plaintiff and judicial communities that $245 million is, indeed, sufficient. At the end of the day however, any plaintiff dealing with alleged asbestosis exposure and suffering from asbestosis lung disease can take heart in knowing that just because a company goes bankrupt, doesn't always mean that hope is lost. Sometimes legal liability trumps bankruptcy - especially if the bankrupt entity is affiliated with a larger organization with deep pockets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal-Mogul Trust Wins $9.3MM Fibro Verdict -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reported that the asbestos trust created by auto parts maker Federal-Mogul Corp.'s reorganization won a $9.3 million wrongful death verdict against defunct spray insulation manufacturer and Federal-Mogul subsidiary T&N Ltd., bringing the trust closer to tapping a wealth of prebankruptcy insurance. Following a two-week trial, a Massachusetts federal jury found T&N liable for the 2010 mesothelioma death of John T. Lydon Jr., a pipefitters' union manager who allegedly breathed its Limpet-brand asbestos insulation during the construction of Boston's Prudential Tower skyscraper in the early 1960s. Lydon's injury claims are assigned to the trust that was set up through Federal-Mogul's Chapter 11 plan to compensate asbestos victims after thousands of personal injury suits forced the company and its subsidiaries into bankruptcy in 2001. The jury awarded $3.1 million in compensatory damages and a $6.2 million punitive award. By itself, the verdict does little to help the trust. But by establishing a liability claim against T&N, it erodes the $517 million self-insured retention layer of an insurance policy the company bought from Curzon Insurance Co. in 1996. Once the retained limit is exhausted, the policy provides nearly $300 million more in additional coverage, with any recovery potentially furnishing the trust with fresh insurance proceeds to pay claimants, according to court records. The case stems from a suit Lydon and his wife launched in May 2010 against 90 defendants that allegedly had a hand in his asbestos exposure. T&N was not originally named, but the trust decided to pursue the case in their stead. Friday's verdict was made possible because the week before, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor rejected T&N's attempt to declare punitive damages off-limits. As the company argued, punitive damages aren't allowed when an award would not deter future conduct, and that as a nonoperating entity, there was no conduct to deter. "There would be no deterrent effect of any kind if punitive damages were awarded in favor of anyone, much less the trust, which is the real party in interest in this case," the company said. T&N also argued that it should be allowed to tell the jury about the "identity, purpose and operation" of the trust in order to make clear that any recovery would not go to the Lydon family itself. "Plaintiffs' counsel would have the court allow the jury to believe that whatever award they might give would compensate the Lydons . . . and 'punish and deter' the defendants -- which simply are not doing business any more," the company said. "The most charitable description of that is fiction, and the court should permit the defendants to explain to the jury what the trust is, how it works, and what it does." The trust countered that the motion was a transparent attempt to obfuscate the company's willful decision to sell carcinogenic products and that courts have been sanctioning awards of punitive damages against nonoperating asbestos purveyors for years. Further, the trust said, if the company can enter "an advisory opinion on the admissibility of the trusts' involvement in this claim," it should at least be allowed to show that the goal of the litigation is to boost recoveries for thousands of other claimants. The judge denied T&N's motion in its entirety without a written order, allowing the jury to find that T&N was grossly negligent in marketing Limpet. Counsel for T&N and the trust were not immediately available for comment. The plaintiff is represented by John D. Hurst and John E. Herrick of Motley Rice LLC and Andrea Marino Landry of Thornton & Naumes LLP. T&N is represented by Edward W. Murphy of Morrison Mahoney LLP. The case is Katherine Lydon et al. v. T&N Ltd. et al., case number 1:12-cv-10013, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs Object to Garlock's Claims Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reported that asbestos victims suing bankrupt Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC objected to the company's proposal to set a date by which all settled claims must be filed for review, saying that the plan is unfair to the claimants. In a March motion, GST asked the court to establish August 1 as the bar date by which all creditors asserting a settled GST asbestos claim must file proofs of claim in the chapter 11 cases, after which they will be reviewed for their allowability. The official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants said that although they are not opposed in principle to a bar date, GST's plan gives the company too much power. "The submission of those claims will allow all parties in interest to see the number and amount of the claims allegedly settled and enable the debtors to formulate their claim objections and report their intentions to the court and the estate parties," the committee said. That would allow a clearer assessment of the scope of the disputes, what sort of litigation process would be needed to resolve them, and whether it would be best to initiate litigation during the cases or instead after confirmation of a reorganization plan. "That is an assessment that should be made carefully before the court actually permits the onset of allowance proceedings and the diversion of effort and resources they would entail," the committee said. According to the committee, the court should maintain control over the timing of any allowance proceedings so as to prevent unnecessary delays in the adjudication of plan confirmation issues. GST said a bar date for settled claims is necessary to begin the allowance process. But the committee contends that an early resolution of disputed settled claims is not necessary for moving the confirmation process forward in the cases. Rather, it argued there is a real risk that uncontrolled allowance proceedings would impede the "fundamental bankruptcy goal" of speedy and efficient reorganization. The committee also said that some of the defined terms in GST's proposal create uncertainty and should be modified, and that additional terms should be defined. Specifically, it said the definition for a "GST asbestos claim" is vague and overbroad -- encompassing worker's compensation claims and claims that are not even related to asbestos and Garlock's asbestos-containing products. "Moreover, because the definition of GST asbestos claim encompasses claims against nondebtor entities that are not derivative of claims against Garlock and do not affect Garlock's estate, it is improper as beyond the scope of the bankruptcy jurisdiction set out by Congress," the committee said. The committee said it isn't even necessary to define "GST asbestos claim" for the purposes of setting a settled GST asbestos claims bar date. It said a clear definition of "settled GST asbestos claim" will be sufficient. The objection said that GST's proposal doesn't give settled claim holders a reasonable time to file proofs of claim. In its bar date motion, GST said a time period of approximately 60 days after service of the bar date package would be an appropriate deadline. But the committee said that because some plaintiffs law firms represent many settled GST asbestos claims, a response period of at least 90 days would be fairer and more appropriate. Garlock faced 35 years of litigation from attorneys seeking to represent people who said they ended up with mesothelioma after working with Garlock's products, which contained asbestos. Garlock filed for bankruptcy in 2010, when its insurance had been exhausted and it could no longer afford to settle the suits. Garlock is represented by Garland S. Cassada, D. Blaine Sanders, Jonathan C. Krisko and Richard C. Worf Jr.of Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson PA. The committee of claimants is represented by Trevor W. Swett III, Jeffrey A. Liesemer, Elihu Inselbuch and Andrew J. Sackett of Caplin & Drysdale Chtd. and Travis W. Moon of Moon Wright & Houston PLLC. The case is In re: Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, case number 3:10-bk-31607, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "We (including our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of our products many years ago. Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most of the costs. However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which occurred on January 31, 2007. We are also responsible for half of the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC's) divested measurement and flow control business. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our products or products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. We defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants. We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley subsidiary. Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We believe that this arrangement will continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of the asbestos liability. The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations." Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Rockwell Automation) is a provider of industrial automation power, control and information solutions that help manufacturers achieve a competitive advantage for their businesses. The Company operates in two segments: Architecture & Software and controls Products & Solutions. In the United States, Canada and certain other countries, the Company sells primarily through the independent distributors in conjunction with its direct sales force. In the remaining countries, the Company sells through a combination of its direct sales force. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Unit Increases Net Fibro Reserves by $19MM --------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc.'s subsidiary increased its net asbestos reserves by $19 million in the first quarter of 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The estimation of loss reserves relating to asbestos and environmental claims on insurance policies written many years ago is subject to greater uncertainty than other types of claims due to inconsistent court decisions as well as judicial interpretations and legislative actions that in some cases have tended to broaden coverage beyond the original intent of such policies and in others have expanded theories of liability. AIG Property Casualty's reserves relating to asbestos and environmental claims reflect comprehensive ground-up and top-down analyses performed periodically. In the first quarter of 2014, AIG Property Casualty increased its gross asbestos reserves by $9 million and the net asbestos reserves by $19 million primarily to reflect anticipated uncollectible reinsurance (affecting net reserves only), and accretion of discount. There was no additional incurred loss for environmental claims this quarter. In addition to the U.S. asbestos and environmental reserve amounts shown in the tables below, AIG Property Casualty also has asbestos reserves relating to foreign risks written by non-U.S. entities of $134 million gross and $107 million net as of March 31, 2014. The asbestos reserves relating to non-U.S. risks written by non-U.S. entities were $134 million gross and $108 million net as of December 31, 2013. American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance company. The Company provides a range of property casualty insurance, life insurance, retirement products, mortgage insurance and other financial services to customers in more than 130 countries. It diverse offerings include products and services that help businesses and individuals protect their assets, manage risks and provide for retirement security. It earns revenues primarily from insurance premiums, policy fees from universal life insurance and investment products, and income from investments. Its segments include AIG Property Casualty and AIG Life and Retirement. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Chartis segment was renamed AIG Property Casualty and the SunAmerica segment was renamed AIG Life and Retirement. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,310 Outstanding Fibro Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 2,130 asbestos-related cases outstanding against Standard Motor Products, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof. At March 31, 2014, approximately 2,310 cases were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2014, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $15.2 million. We acquired limited insurance coverage up to a fixed amount for defense and indemnity costs associated with certain asbestos-related claims and have exhausted all insurance coverage. In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions. As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement values. The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31, 2013. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $24.4 million to $37.4 million for the period through 2058. The change from the prior year study was a $2.7 million decrease for the low end of the range and a $4.1 million decrease for the high end of the range. The decrease in the estimated undiscounted liability from the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range reflects our actual experience over the prior twelve months. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required. Based upon the results of the August 31, 2013 actuarial study, no adjustment to the asbestos liability was recorded in our consolidated financial statements as the difference between our recorded liability and the liability in the actuarial report at the low end of the range was not material. Legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to the updated study, to range from $27.4 million to $48.1 million for the period through 2058. We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the future and other factors outside our control, we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial position." Standard Motor Products, Inc. (Standard Motor Products) is an independent manufacturer and distributor of replacement parts for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with a focus on the original equipment service market. The Company operates in two segments: Engine Management Segment and Temperature Control Segment. The Engine Management Segment manufactures ignition and emission parts, ignition wires, battery cables and fuel system parts. The Temperature Control Segment manufactures and remanufactures air conditioning compressors, air conditioning and heating parts, engine cooling system parts, power window accessories, and windshield washer system parts. In January 2014, the Company acquired the assets of Pensacola Fuel Injection, a privately-held company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenneco Inc. continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are subject to lawsuits initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. In the early 2000's we were named in nearly 20,000 complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court and the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to asbestos from our product categories. Most of these claims have been dismissed and our current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide. A small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of our subsidiaries. The substantial majority of the remaining claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in our automotive products. Only a small percentage of the claimants allege that they were automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim against us. We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it is unlikely that mechanics were exposed to asbestos by our former products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages. As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an increased number of these claims. We vigorously defend ourselves against these claims as part of our ordinary course of business. In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us. As of March 31, 2014, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly, we presently believe that these asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity." Tenneco Inc. (Tenneco) is a producer of emission control and ride control products and systems for light, commercial and specialty vehicle applications. The Company serves both original equipment vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) and the repair and replacement markets, or aftermarket, worldwide. The vehicle parts industry is generally separated into two categories: original equipment (OE) in which parts are sold directly for use by OEMs and commercial vehicle engine manufacturers; and aftermarket in which replacement parts are sold in varying quantities to wholesalers, retailers and installers. In the OE category, parts suppliers are generally divided into tiers Tier 1 suppliers that provide their products directly to OEMs, and Tier 2 or Tier 3 suppliers that sell their products principally to other suppliers for combination into the other suppliers' own product offerings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Continues to Defend PI Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply Company, which distributes industrial supplies, currently is named as a defendant in approximately 6,900 asbestos-related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Illinois. Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont. In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products, the availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos cases. Based on over 15 years of experience with this litigation, we have established an accrual to cover our estimated liability for these cases. This accrual is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and was included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material." CONSOL Energy Inc. (CONSOL Energy) is a producer of coal and natural gas for global energy and raw material markets, which include the electric power generation industry and the steelmaking industry. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company produced 62.6 million tons of high-British thermal unit (Btu) bituminous coal from 12 mining complexes in the United States. In addition, it provides energy services, including river and dock services, terminal services, industrial supply services, coal waste disposal services and land resource management services. The Company operates in two segments: Coal and Gas. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the sale of Consolidation Coal Company (CCC) subsidiary, which includes all five of its longwall coal mines in West Virginia, to a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Had 311 Pending Fibro Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Midwest Generation, LLC, had 311 asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. Midwest Generation entered into a supplemental agreement with Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC, or Exelon Generation, on February 20, 2003, to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of Midwest Generation's reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the environmental indemnities set forth in the March 1999 asset sale agreement. Under this supplemental agreement, Midwest Generation agreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50% of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs and agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with future asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement. The obligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximum liability. The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms (subject to the right of either party to terminate). There were approximately 311 cases for which Midwest Generation was potentially liable that had not been settled and dismissed at March 31, 2014. Midwest Generation had $53 million recorded in LSTC at March 31, 2014, related to this contractual indemnity. Midwest Generation, LLC sells wholesale electricity to markets in the Midwest. The independent power producer has a generating capacity of almost 5,480 MW, primarily from its six coal-fired power plants in Illinois (5,172 MW); it also oversees the operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site generating plants which have 305 MW of capacity. Affiliate Edison Mission Marketing and Trading acts as a conduit for Midwest Generation's wholesale energy activities. Midwest Generation is a subsidiary of Edison International unit Edison Mission Midwest Holdings Co. In 2010 regional transmission organization PJM Interconnection accounted for 79% of the company's revenues. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Had 550 Pending Fibro Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- MeadWestvaco Corporation is involved in 550 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. As with numerous other large industrial companies, the company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant. As of March 31, 2014, there were about 550 lawsuits. Management believes that the company has substantial indemnification protection and insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims. The company has valid defenses to these claims and intends to continue to defend them vigorously. Additionally, based on its historical experience in asbestos cases and an analysis of the current cases, the company believes that it has adequate amounts accrued for potential settlements and judgments in asbestos-related litigation. At March 31, 2014, the company had recorded litigation liabilities of approximately $27 million, a significant portion of which relates to asbestos. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that the company could incur significant costs resolving these cases. After consulting with legal counsel and after considering established liabilities, it is our judgment that the resolution of pending litigation and proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material effect on the results of operations. MeadWestvaco Corporation (MWV) is a global packaging company providing solutions to the healthcare, beauty and personal care, food, beverage, home and garden, tobacco, and agricultural industries. The company also produces specialty chemicals for the automotive, energy, and infrastructure industries and maximizes the value of its land holdings through forestry operations, property development and land sales. MWV's reporting segments are Food & Beverage; Home, Health & Beauty; Industrial; Specialty Chemicals, and Community Development and Land Management. On May 1, 2012, the Company completed the spin-off of its Consumer & Office Products business and subsequent merger of that business with ACCO Brands Corporation. On November 30, 2012, MWV acquired Ruby Macons Limited (Ruby Macons). On December 11, 2012, MWV acquired the remaining 50% interest in Resitec Industria Quimica, Ltda. In December 2013, Meadwestvaco Corp completed the sale of U.S. forestlands to Plum Creek Timber Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Office Depot Unit Has Responsibility Over Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Depot, Inc.'s subsidiary retains responsibility for lawsuits alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets of OfficeMax, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2014. OfficeMax is named a defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility. Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings and future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the sale. The Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company's business. Office Depot, Inc. (Office Depot) is a global supplier of office products and services. The Company operates in three business segments: North American Retail Division, North American Business Solutions Division and International Division. The Company's North American Retail Division sells a range of merchandise through its chain of office supply stores throughout the United States. Its North American Business Solutions Division sells nationally branded and its own brand office supplies, technology products, furniture and services. The Company operates a network of distribution centers (DCs), crossdock, and combination facilities across the United States. The Company operates wholly owned entities, majority owned entities or participates in other ventures covering 41 countries and has alliances in an additional 19 countries. In November 2013, Office Depot, Inc., merged with OfficeMax Incorporated. The combined company will use the name Office Depot, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Recon Ruling in "Lipson" Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the asbestos case captioned JOANNE K. LIPSON, Plaintiff, v. ON MARINE SERVICES CO. LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. C13-1747 (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued a May 19, 2014 order denying the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's prior ruling excluding expert testimony based on an industry study by C. Washbourne titled "Silicosis and Abestos Hazards Associated with the Manufacture and Use of Profax," after determining that the Plaintiff has not established that the prior ruling was "manifest error." A full-text copy of Judge Robart's Decision is available at http://is.gd/1a5IUufrom Leagle.com. Joanne K Lipson, individually and on behalf of the Estate of James B. Turner, Plaintiff, represented by Brian F Ladenburg, BERGMAN DRAPER & FROCKT, Glenn S Draper, BERGMAN DRAPER & FROCKT, Matthew Phineas Bergman, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Randall Iola, STANLEY IOLA, LLP, Thomas H Hart, III, LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS H HART, III, William A Galerston, STANLEY IOLA, LLP, Chandler H Udo, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Jackson Schmidt, PEPPLE CANTU SCHMIDT PLLC & Jeffrey M Odom, PEPPLE CANTU SCHMIDT PLLC. ON Marine Services Company, LLC, Ferro Engineering Division, a wholly owned subsidiary of Oglebay Norton Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Rodney L Umberger, Jr, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS, Katherine M. Steele, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS & Zackary A Paal, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Air Act Suit v. Colorado Agencies Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, in an order dated May 21, 2014, dismissed without prejudice the case captioned SAMUEL MASIAS, Plaintiff, v. COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES (CSU), JERRY A. FORTE, CEO of Colorado Springs Utilities, MERV BENNETT, Chairman of the Board, CSU, ANDRES PICO, Vice-Chairman of the Board, CSU, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, and GARRY KAUFMAN, Deputy Director, Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-01403-PAB (D. Colo.), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff in the case alleged that a fire broke out at the Martin Drake power plant, which fire resulted to the release of "toxic fumes that included asbestos fibers into nearby neighborhoods." A full-text copy of Judge Brimmer's Decision is available at http://is.gd/lnFYn5from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Proceed with Civil Rights Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Philip P. Simon of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, issued an opinion and order dated May 1, 2014, granting an inmate leave to proceed against the superintendent, assistant superintendent, complex director and case worker at the Indiana State Prison in their individual capacities for monetary damages for housing him under substandard conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The inmate alleges, among other things, that he was exposed to excessive amounts of "black mold, mildew, and asbestos," which caused him breathing difficulties. The case is MICHAEL MAXIE, Plaintiff, v. MARK LEVENHAGEN, et al., Defendants, CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-1280 PS (N.D. Ind.). A full-text copy of Judge Simon's Decision is available at http://is.gd/PnauoH from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Denies Bid to Remand "McMann" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an order dated May 6, 2014, denying a motion to remand filed in the asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit styled DALE McMANN and JANICE MCMANN, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-00281-RSM (W.D. Wash.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/y6LxMG from Leagle.com. Dale McMann and Janice McMann, Plaintiffs, represented by Barrett B Naman, Esq., and Christopher B Norris, Esq., at THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM; and: Benjamin Robert Couture, Esq. Brian Weinstein, Esq. WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC 1001 Fourth Ave, Suite 4400 Seattle, Washington 98154 Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, Esq., and Brian D Zeringer, Esq., at SEDGWICK LLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Marks, Esq., and Eliot M Harris, Esq., at SEDGWICK LLP. Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw, Esq., at K&L GATES LLPC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Marks, Esq., and Eliot M Harris, Esq., at SEDGWICK LLP. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Ronald C Gardner, Esq. -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- at GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC. Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, represented by Christine E Dinsdale, Esq. -- dinsdale@sohalang.com -- and Michael Ryan O'Clair, Esq. -- oclair@sohalang.com -- at SOHA & LANG PS. IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne, Esq. -- jhorne@gth-law.com -- and Michael Edward Ricketts, Esq. -- mricketts@gth-law.com -- at GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J Craig, Esq., and Mark B Tuvim, Esq., at GORDON & REES. Jerguson Gage & Valve Co., Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, Esq., at SEDGWICK LLP. John Crane Inc, Defendant, represented by Thomas Allan Heller, Esq. -- tomh@hellerwiegenstein.com -- and Brian C Schiewe, Esq. -- brians@hellerwiegenstein.com -- at HELLER WIEGENSTEIN PLLC. M Slayen and Associates Inc, Defendant, represented by Ronald C Gardner, Esq., at GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC. Saberhagen Holdings Inc, Defendant, represented by Timothy Kost Thorson, Esq. -- thorson@carneylaw.com -- at CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN. SB Decking Inc, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly, Esq. -- mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- at RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut, Esq. -- aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Jason H Daywitt, Esq. -- jdaywitt@rizzopc.com -- and John Michael Mattingly, Esq., at RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Court Dismisses Suit v. Soft Drinks Companies ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Michael F. Urbanski of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, issued a May 2, 2014, memorandum opinion dismissing without prejudice the lawsuit styled VICKIE G. MILLS, Plaintiff, v. PEPSI, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:14-CV-00203 (W.D. Va.), for failure to state a claim. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleges that she "[b]ecame sick from bug killer asbestos" in soft drinks manufactured by defendants..." A full-text copy of Judge Urbanski's Decision is available at http://is.gd/mIejr0from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Refuses to Remand "Osterhout" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Mae D'Agostino of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York refused to remand the asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit captioned ROBERT OSTERHOUT and PEARL OSTERHOUT, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; CAMERON INTERNATIONAL; CARRIER CORPORATION, individually and as successor- in-interest to Bryant Heating and Cooling Systems, Inc.; CBS CORPORATION, formerly known as Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation; CRANE CO.; CRANE PUMPS & SYSTEMS, INC.; FMC CORP., on behalf of its former Peerless Pump and Northern business; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; G.H. MINER CO., INC.; GOULDS PUMPS, INC.; HOMELITE CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC.; IMO INDUSTRIES INC.; INGERSOLL- RAND COMPANY; JOHN CRANE, INC.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; RUGGLES- KLINGLEMAN MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.; STIHL INCORPORATED; SYRACUSE SUPPLY CO.; TATE ANDALE, INC.; THE NASH ENGINEERING COMPANY; TODD SHIPYARDS CORP.; TRANE US, INC., individually and as successor in interest to American Standard, Inc.; TROY BELTING AND SUPPLY CO.; WARREN PUMPS LLC; WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to Attwood & Morrill Co., Inc., Defendants, NO. 5:14-CV-208 (MAD/DEP)(N.D.N.Y.), after determining that the removing defendants have satisfied their burden for removal jurisdiction. A full-text copy of Judge D'Agostino's May 30, 2014, memorandum- decision and order is available at http://is.gd/5jXA6Jfrom Leagle.com. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Jerome H. Block, Esq. Keith W. Binder, Esq. LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP 800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor New York, New York 10022 Telephone: 212.605.6200 Kenneth A. Krajewski, Esq. -- kkrajewski@brownkelly.com -- at BROWN & KELLY, LLP, in Buffalo, New York, Attorneys for Defendant- Cross-Defendant Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Claimant, and Cross-Defendant, Cameron International: Steven E. Garry, Esq. COSTELLO SHEA & GAFFNEY, LLP 44 Wall St New York, NY 10005 Tel: 646-736-5783 Julie R. Evans, Esq., and Erik C. Dimarco, Esq., at WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, in New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Cross Defendants Carrier Corporation, G.H. Miner Co., Inc., Homelite Consumer Products, Inc., and Todd Shipyards Corp. Michael A. Tanenbaum, Esq., Dennis V. Vega, Esq., Matthew Straus, Esq., at SEDGWICK, LLP, in Newark, New Jersey, Attorneys for Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Cross-Claimants CBS Corporation, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, and General Electric Company. Angela Digiglio, Esq., Eric R.I. Cottle, Esq., and Nicole M. Kozin, Esq., at K & L GATES LLP, in New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants-Cross-Claimaints-Cross-Defendants Crane Co., Crane Pumps & Systems, Inc., and Ruggles-Klingeman Manufacturing Co., Inc. Christopher P. Hannan, Esq., KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINNELLI HANNA & REBER, LLP, in New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant- Cross-Claimaint-Cross-Defendant FMC Corp. Susan E. Van Gelder, Esq. Lisa Marie Robinson, Esq. Andrew J. Scholz, Esq., at GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP, in Buffalo, New York, Attorneys for Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Cross-Claimants Goulds Pumps, Inc. and, Stihl Incorporated. Amy Zumsteg, Esq., at LEADER & BERKON, LLP, in New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Cross-Claimants Imo Industries Inc. and, Warren Pumps LLC. James S. Nowak, Esq. -- jsnowak@kslnlaw.com -- at KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK, LLP, in Buffalo, New York, Attorneys for Defendants- Cross-Defendants-Cross Claimants Ingersoll-Rand Company and Trane US, Inc. William A. Cooney, Esq., at BARRY, MCTIERNAN & MOORE, in New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Cross Claimant John Crane, Inc. Jason Riemer, Esq., at HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, in New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. David P. Schaffer, Esq., at MALABY & BRADLEY, LLC, in New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Cross-Claimant Sears, Roebuck & Co. David E. Richman, Esq., at RIVKIN RADLER LLP, in Uniondale, New York, Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Defendant Syracuse Supply Co. Eric M. Gernant, Esq., at MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, PC, in Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Cross-Claimants Tate Andale, Inc., The Nash Engineering Company, and Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc. Frank A. Cecere, Esq. -- frank.cecere@admlaw.com -- at AHMUTY, DEMERS & MCMANUS, in Albertson, New York, Attorneys for Defendant- Cross-Claimant-Cross-Defendant Troy Belting and Supply Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insured Awarded $650,000 in Breach of Duty Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dana L. Christensen of the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Butte Division, issued an order on May 23, 2014, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff in an insurance coverage suit after determining that the insurer breached its duty to defend. In the case, Pacific Hide & Fur Depot leased a property that was part of what later became known as the CMC Bozeman Asbestos Site. Pacific purchased numerous liability policies from Great American. In 2003, Pacific was identified as a potential liable party and that an investigated revealed that asbestos was present at the Site at levels that posed an imminent threat. Accordingly, Judge Christensen ruled that Pacific Hide is entitled to entry of judgment in the amount of the consent judgment it paid to the City of Bozeman, $650,000, plus its attorney's fees incurred during the Montana's Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act proceedings, as well as post-judgment interest of 10% per annum pursuant to Montana Code Annotated Section 25-9-205 and Section 27-1-211. Pacific is also entitled to attorney's fees for the breach of contract and declaratory judgment action. The case is PACIFIC HIDE & FUR DEPOT, a Montana corporation, n/k/a Pacific Steel & Recyling, Plaintiff, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and RESOLUTE MANAGEMENT INC., and NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants, NO. CV 12-36-BU-DLC (D. Mont.). A full-text copy of Judge Christensen's Decision is available at http://is.gd/sm4qkifrom Leagle.com. Pacific Hide & Fur Depot, Plaintiff, represented by Kyle A. Gray, Esq. -- kgray@hollandhart.com -- and Michelle Millhollin Sullivan, Esq. -- mmsullivan@hollandhart.com -- at HOLLAND & HART. Great American Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael P. Hooks, Esq. -- mhooks@forsberg-umlauf.com -- at FORSBERG & UMLAUF, PS; and Robert M. Carlson, Esq., at CORETTE BLACK CARLSON & MICKELSON. Resolute Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark A. Rabinowitz, Esq., and Daniel R. Johnson, Esq., at COZEN O'CONNOR; and: Allan H. Baris, Esq. MOORE, O'CONNELL & REFLING, PC. 601 Haggerty Ln. Suite 10 Bozeman, Montana 59715 Phone: (888) 927-5620 National Indemnity Company, a Nebraska Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allan H. Baris, Esq., at MOORE, O'CONNELL & REFLING, PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Award to Sears, et al., Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Superior Court of Pennsylvania on May 27, 2014, affirmed a trial court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc., American Biltrite, Inc., and Certainteed Corporation, in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned SARA PAINTER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HOWARD PAINTER, DECEASED, Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., INC., AMERICAN BILTRITE, INC., AND CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Appellees, NO. 655 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super.). A full- text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/rI31Pyfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Patrico" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a May 27, 2014, memorandum and order denying the motion to remand filed in the asbestos-related wrongful death action styled JOHN PATRICO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al., Defendants, NO. 4:14CV00338 AGF (E.D. Mo.), after determining that defendant Mallinckrodt US Holdings, LLC, timely removed the action. A full-text copy of Judge Fleissig's Decision is available at http://is.gd/YbYzBVfrom Leagle.com. John Patrico, Deceased, and Joseph Patrico, Deceased, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., Ted Nicholas Gianaris, Esq., and Trent B. Miracle, Esq., at SIMMONS, BROWDER, GIANARIS, ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC, Allied Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas J. Kernell, Esq., at KERNELL LAW FIRM, PC. Cooper Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Amy K. Shasserre, Esq., and Michael R. Dauphin, Esq., at FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.. Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, Esq., at HEPLER BROOM. Mallinckrodt US LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Ryan T. Brown, Esq., at GORDON AND REES, LLP; and William C. Mills, IV, Esq. -- wmills@wglaw.com -- at WEBER GALLAGHER. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq., at JOLEY AND NUSSBAUMER, P.C. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Pettinelli" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the asbestos personal injury and wrongful death action styled MICHAEL PETTINELLI and DAVID PETTINELLI, as Co-Administrators for the Estate of ROMEO A. PETTINELLI, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. A. C. and S. INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 118400/98, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.), defendants the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Goodyear Canada Inc. move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiffs have not shown that plaintiffs' decedent Romeo Pettinelli was exposed to asbestos fibers released from a Goodyear product. In a decision and order dated May 8, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion in their entirety. A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/6KW2Pffrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Or. Ct. Upholds $800,000 Award in Insurance Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Oregon, in an opinion dated May 21, 2014, affirmed a trial court's order denying defendant Ebasco Services, Inc.'s motion to set aside a judgment awarding plaintiff General Electric Company $800,000 in monetary damages and $25,165 in attorney fees. The Plaintiff sued certain insurers for coverage of the settlement it paid to an asbestos-related personal injury action brought by a former employee. The case is PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EBASCO SERVICES, INC., fka Esicorp, Inc.; et al, Defendants, and LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant and EECI, INC., a Nevada corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York Corporation; et al., Third-Party Defendants, NO. A143752 (Or. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/h1tOwRfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Inmate's Civil Rights Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a May 15, 2014, order dismissing for failure to state a claim the civil rights lawsuit styled Steven Wade Ray, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County Durango Jail, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-0979-PHX-DGC (SPL)(D. Ariz.). In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleges, among other things, the presence of asbestos in the walls and ceiling at the Maricopa County Durango Jail. A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision is available at http://is.gd/wujxeIfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Edison Dropped as Defendant in Fibro Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Prior to his death, James M. Reera filed an asbestos suit against a number of defendants, including Boston Edison Company. Reera's son and executor of his estate, David M. Reera now continues the lawsuit. The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and for Entry of Final Judgment, to which the Plaintiff objects. In a decision dated May 23, 2014, the Superior Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, granted the Defendant's motion on the grounds that there are no issues of material fact because, as a matter of law, the Plaintiff is unable to establish the causation element of his prima facie case against Defendant. The case is DAVID M. REERA, EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. REERA v. A.O. SMITH CORP., et al., C.A. NO. PC 12-0379 (R.I. Super.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/nQzkb1from Leagle.com. Vincent L. Greene, Esq., W. Mark Lanier, Esq., for Plaintiff. James P. Marusak, Esq., for Defendant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms $990,000 Judgment in PI Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, on May 19, 2014, issued an opinion affirming the judgment entered by a trial court awarding a mesothelioma plaintiff $844,800 in damages and his wife $150,000 for loss of consortium. The Superior Court concluded that none of the issues raised by either party merit relief on appeal. The case is RICHARD ROST & JOYCE ROST, Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant, and RICHARD ROST & JOYCE ROST, Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee, NOS. 404 EDA 2012, 642 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/6NSyoRfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Scott" Suit Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard A. Scott, executor of the estate of Albert L. Scott, deceased, and Laverne Scott, in her own right appeal from the trial court Order granting summary judgment in favor of Duquesne Light Company. Albert L. Scott, decedent, worked as an employee for Duquesne Light from 1941-43 and 1945-85 in various capacities and locations around Pittsburgh. The Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma on September 17, 2007, and died on March 26, 2008. In a memorandum dated May 12, 2014, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed and remanded the lawsuit after concluding that the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act is inapplicable in the case and the Scotts may file a common law tort claim against Duquesne Light. Thus, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Duquesne Light, the Superior Court said. The case is HOWARD A. SCOTT, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ALBERT L. SCOTT, DECEASED AND LAVERNE SCOTT, IN HER OWN RIGHT, Appellant, v. DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, Appellee, NO. 2139 WDA 2009 (Pa. Super.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/499Cukfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Shewmake" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, in an order dated May 30, 2014, denied a bid to remand the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled HELEN PEARL SHEWMAKE, individually and as special administrator for the Estate of ELIC DAVID SHEWMAKE Plaintiff, v. AERCO INT'L INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13- CV-01223-SCW-PMF (S.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's decision is available at http://is.gd/H9zEQcfrom Leagle.com. Helen Pearl Shewmake, Individually and as Special Administrator for the Estate of Elic David Shewmake, Plaintiff and Counter Defendant, represented by Allyson Michelle Romani, Esq., at Shrader & Associates LLP. A.O. Smith Corporation, Defendant, represented by Curtis R. Picou, Esq., at Crivello Carlson Picou & Andrekanic LLC. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor-by-merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al. Ajax Magnethermic Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al. All Acquisitions, LLC, formerly known as All Acquisitions Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. API Heat Transfer, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Stephanie F. Jones, Esq., at Gordon & Rees LLP. Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Carla C. Storm, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dayna L. Johnson, Greensfelder, Hemker et al. Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. AWC 1997 Corporation, formerly known as Alpha Wire Corporation, Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy- Edwardsville. Baltimore Aircoil Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Beazer East, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Bechtel Construction Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Bechtel Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Bird Incorporated, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al.. Bonney Forge Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., as successor-by-merger Borg Warner Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented byDonald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Brand Insulations, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Esq., Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Esq., and Mary D. Rychnovsky, Esq., at Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Buffalo Air Handling, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al. Buffalo Air Handling, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al. Burnham, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Carboline Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Carlisle Industrial Brake and Friction, Inc, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Carrier Corporation, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented byCorp, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD.-Chicago & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Clark Equipment Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Cleaver-Brooks, f/k/a Cleaver-Brooks, a division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Meredith S Hudgens, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. Clow Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Columbia Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Compudyne Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. Conwed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Copes-Vulcan, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson - Chicago. Crane Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith, Jr., HeplerBroom LLC. Cummins, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. Curtiss Wright Corporation, Defendant, represented by Reed W. Sugg, Sandberg, Phoenix et al. - St. Louis & Steven Thomas Walsh, Sandberg, Phoenix et al. - St. Louis. Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. &William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong et al. Dewitt Products Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Edward E. Johnston, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Dezurik, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Brown & James. Dravo Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. Eaton Aeroquip, LLC, successoe-by-merger to Eaton Aeroquip, Inc., f/k/a Aeroquip Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. & Derek Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. & Derek Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. Ferro Engineering, a division of Oglebay Norton Company, Cross Defendant, represented by A. J. Bronsky, Brown & James. Flowserve Corporation, as successor-in-interest to Durametallic Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. Flowserve U.S., Inc, as successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Co., and Edward Valve Co., and Nordstrom Valve, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al. Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong et al. Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong et al. Fluor Daniel Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong et al. Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong et al. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by David W. Ybarra, Greensfelder, Hemker et al. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP,Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Goodrich Corporation, formerly known as The B.F. Goodrich Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Greene Tweed & Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. Grimes Aerospace Corporation, formerly known as Surface Combustion Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Derek Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. & William S. Thomas, Pitzer Snodgrass PC. Henkel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP,Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Stephanie F. Jones, Esq., at Gordon & Rees LLP. Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Homasote Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP,Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Honeywell, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Howden North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Hyster Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. & Derek Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., individually and as successor-in- interest to Devcon Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. Industrial Holdings Corporation, formerly known as Carborundum Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented byMichael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Invensys Systems, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al. ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP - Chicago, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP - Chicago, IL. J.A. Sexauer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al. Johnston Boiler Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Joy Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. KCG, Inc., successor by merger to KC Wall Products, Inc., and Ruco Drywall Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy-Edwardsville. Kvaerner U.S., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Lattner Boiler Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC &Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Lennox Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Lindberg, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Ryan T. Barke, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC - Swansea. McMaster-Carr Supply Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael Patrick McGinley, Lashly & Baer PC. Metallo Gasket Co., Defendant, represented by Karen E Bettcher, Wilson, Elser et al. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Milwaukee Valve Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Mueller Steam Specialty Company, a division of Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy-Edwardsville. MW Custom Papers, LLC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Navistar International, formerly known as International Harvester Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC & Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC. Oakfabco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Tracy J. Cowan, Hawkins, Parnell et al.. Parker Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Pecora Corporation, Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy-Edwardsville. Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Research-Cottrell, Inc., now known as AWT Air Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy- Edwardsville. Rheem Manufacturing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Tracy J. Cowan, Hawkins, Parnell et al. & Earl B. Thames, Jr., Hawkins, Parnell et al. - St. Louis. RIC-WIL, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Riley Stoker Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., formerly known as Squared Sepco Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented byDennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Seco Warwick Corporation, as successor-in-interest to Sunbeam Furnaces, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented byKeith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Simpson Timber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson - Chicago. SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Marley Cooling Tower, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Stewart Warner Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Superior Boiler Works, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al.. The Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. The Fairbanks Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. The Sherwin Williams Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John A. Bruegger, Hawkins, Parnell et al.. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., individually and for its subsidiary Loftus Furnace Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Celia K. Douglas, Dentons US LLP - St. Louis, Michael D. Hultquist, Dentons US LLP - Chicago & Roger K. Heidenreich, Dentons US LLP - St. Louis. Thermwell Products Co., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas B Bunnell, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Trane US, Inc., formerly known as American Standard, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Universal Refractories, Inc., Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Watson McDaniel Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John P. Cunningham, Brown & James PC &Tucker Blaser, Brown & James PC. Weil McLain, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., formerly known as Atwood & Morrill, Defendant, and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP. Whiting Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. XEF, Inc., formerly known as Electric Furnace Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Young Group, LTD, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Zy-Tech Global Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lise A. Newton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Doctor Affidavit in PI Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order on May 12, 2014, in the lawsuit styled JAMES TEMPLETON, DAVID COWDEN, ROBERT GALLOB, FRANK POWELL, DAVID ALLEN, ROBERT C. ROWE, SHANNON SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. PETER ANDERSON, BRIAN BRADEN, JEFF SMITH, JAMES CHANEY, DOCTOR TIMOTHY CREANY, JAN SYLVIA, STEVEN GALLEGOS, LANCE JOHNSON, CARL WOJCIECHOWSKI, CHERI DRENNON, STEPHEN ENGLE, THOMAS MARTIN, UNKNOWN JANE/JON DOES 1-10, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV- 01276-RBJ-BNB (D. Colo.), denying the motion in limine to "bar" the October 23, 2012 affidavit of Dr. Timothy Creany, a physician employed by the Colorado Department of Corrections, on grounds that it violates the plaintiffs' HIPPA rights. Judge Jackson said the Plaintiffs have put their physical condition in issue in this case, specifically, the consequences of their exposure to asbestos, and the affidavit addresses that issue. There is no basis to "bar" the affidavit, Judge Jackson ruled. A full-text copy of Judge Jackson's Decision is available at http://is.gd/v4vgFVfrom Leagle.com. James Templeton, David Allen, David Cowden, Robert Gallob, Plaintiffs, Pro Se. Peter Anderson, Jeff Smith, James Chaney, Timothy Creany, Doctor, Jan Sylvia, Steven Gallegos, Cheri Drennon, Stephen Engle, and Thomas Martin, Defendant, represented by Christopher Wayne Alber, Colorado Attorney General's Office. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Convictions in Clean Air Act Suit Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------- Certified Environmental Services, Inc.; Nicole Copeland, former CES Technical Services Manager; and Elisa Dunn, former CES air monitor and field supervisor, appeal from their convictions of conspiracy, aiding and abetting violations of the Clean Air Act, mail fraud, and making false statements to federal officials. Seeking a new trial, these defendants contend that the district court improperly excluded evidence that they acted under a good- faith belief that they were complying with state law and that, in any event, their convictions and sentences were irreparably tainted by prosecutorial misconduct. The Government cross-appeals the sentences given to CES, Copeland, and Dunn, and appeals from the sentences given to Sandy Allen, a CES air monitor, and Frank Onoff, a supervisor at a contractor that performed improper asbestos abatement work. The Government argues that the district court erred in determining restitution, erred in calculating loss, misapplied the advisory sentencing guidelines, and imposed sentences that were substantively unreasonable. Certain technical state and federal regulations governing the removal of asbestos underlie the charges in the case. Asbestos is severely toxic, and "medical science has not established any minimum level of exposure to asbestos fibers which is considered to be safe." Its complete removal is required by both federal and state regulations. In an opinion dated May 28, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the convictions of CES, Copeland, and Dunn, and remanded for a new trial. The Second Circuit also vacated the sentences of Allen and Onoff and remanded for resentencing. The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., NICOLE COPELAND, ELISA DUNN, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, BARBARA DUCHENE, THOMAS JULIANO, Defendants, SANDY ALLEN, FRANK ONOFF, Defendants- Appellees, DOCKET NOS. 11-4872(LEAD), 11-4875(CON), 11-4877(CON), 11-4974(CON), 11-4976(CON), 11-4968(XAP), 11-4969(XAP), 11- 4972(XAP)(2d Cir.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/z3BEmyfrom Leagle.com. GABRIEL M. NUGENT (Daniel J. French, on the brief) Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Syracuse, NY, for Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee Certified Environmental Services, Inc. Brian J. Fischer, Esq. -- bfischer@jenner.com -- Matthew D. Cipolla, Esq. -- mcipolla@jenner.com -- Carl N. Wedoff, Esq. -- cwedoff@jenner.com -- at Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY; and Donald T. Kinsella, Esq., at Stockli, Greene, Slevin & Peters LLP, Albany, New York, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant-Cross- Appellee Nicole Copeland. Dennis B. Schlenker, Esq., Albany, NY, for Defendant-Appellant- Cross-Appellee Elisa Dunn. Craig A. Benedict, Assistant United States Attorney (Rajit S. Dosanjh, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY, for Appellee-Cross-Appellant the United States of America. James R. McGraw, Esq., Syracuse, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Sandy Allen. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retrial Bid in Improper Fibro Removal Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ On June 9, 2010, Defendants Michael Pinski, Duane O'Malley, and James Mikrut were charged by indictment with: (1) failing to notify the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency at least ten working days prior to the removal of regulated asbestos-containing material; (2) knowingly allowing asbestos to be stripped, removed and otherwise handled and disturbed when there was not at least one on-site representative present who was trained in the provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency asbestos regulations and the means of complying with them; (3) knowingly failing to adequately wet regulated asbestos-containing material while it was being stripped from a facility component; (4) knowingly failing to mark vehicles used to transport asbestos-containing waste material during the loading and unloading of waste with the proper signage; and (5) knowingly failing to deposit all asbestos-containing waste material as soon as is practical at a waste disposal site operated in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency regulations. In addition, Defendants Mikrut and Pinski were charged with making false statements regarding the insulation or asbestos removal. On August 19, 2011, Defendant Pinski entered into a plea agreement with the Government. On August 24, 2011, Defendant Mikrut entered into a plea agreement with the Government. A jury trial was held with the last remaining defendant, Defendant O'Malley, between September 21, 2011 and September 26, 2011, with the jury reaching a verdict of guilty on Counts 1-5. Defendant O'Malley filed a Motion for New Trial. The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division, has reviewed the Defendant's filings and the Government's Response. Following the review, the District Court, through Judge Michael P. McCuskey, denied the motion. The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DUANE O'MALLEY, Defendant, CASE NO. 10-CR-20042 (C.D. Ill.). A full- text copy of Judge McCuskey's opinion dated May 28, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Nl7wh3from Leagle.com. USA, Plaintiff, represented by Eugene L Miller, US ATTY, Gail Linn Noll, US ATTY & James Jinhan Cha, US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Ward" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 17, 2012, Patricia Ward filed a complaint against multiple corporate defendants alleging she suffered from mesothelioma as a result of work-related exposure to asbestos- containing products they manufactured or distributed. Ward had worked in a laundry where pads "associated with the ironing boards and presses were made from asbestos." Among the named defendants was Goss-Jewett Co. of Northern California. The trial court denied the Defendant's motion for relief from default and default judgment, rejecting the Defendant's claim that its failure to file a responsive pleading was due to surprise and excusable neglect. The Defendant appeals upon contentions that the default judgment is void for failure to provide sufficient notice of the Plaintiff's statement of damages and a request for entry of judgment. The Defendant also contends the court abused its discretion in denying relief. As a final claim, the Defendant asserts that the judgment, if upheld, must be modified to conform to the amount of damages specified in the statement of damages. In an opinion dated May 6, 2014, the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three, affirmed the judgment and order denying relief but modified the judgment to reduce the damages award to the amounts specified in the statement of damages. The case is JOHN T. WARD et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. GOSS-JEWETT CO. OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant, NO. A139306 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/hAdacVfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Adler" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the personal injury action styled JOHN W. ADLER and ELAINE ADLER, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190392/12, MOTION SEQ. 031 (N.Y. Sup.), defendant Gardner Denver, Inc., moves for an order dismissing the complaint and all cross- claims asserted against it on the ground that there is no evidence to show that plaintiff John Adler was exposed to asbestos from a Gardner Denver product. In a decision and order dated June 4, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Gardner Denver's motion after finding that there is a triable issue of fact whether Mr. Adler was exposed to asbestos from Gardner Denver air compressors. A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/17w8QFfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Auth. Defense Costs in Insurance Suit OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eileen Bransten of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motion filed by Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's for attorney's fees based on a court declaration that Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant American Home Assurance Company is obliged to pay defense costs in full for asbestos personal injury lawsuits falling under Port Authority's insurance policy. The case is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, ALCOA, INC., MARIO & DIBONO PLASTERING CO., INC., TISHMAN REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., TISHMAN LIQUIDATING CORPORATION, TEECO PROPERTIES L.P., TMLC CORP., f/k/a TISHMAN MANAGEMENT & LEASING CORP., TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES L.P., TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES, INC., TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, EQUITY HOLDINGS I CORP., f/k/a TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, f/k/a TISHMAN REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., f/k/a TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION & RESEARCH CO., INC., TISHMAN REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., TTV REALTY HOLDINGS, INC., f/k/a TISHMAN REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., f/k/a TIONA REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF MANHATTAN, f/k/a TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION & RESEARCH CORPORATION, AND TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 651096/2012, MOTION SEQ. NO. 007 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Bransten's Decision is available at http://is.gd/F8rGU9from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates Allowed to Amend Civil Rights Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed for failure to state claims three civil rights suit filed by plaintiffs who were confined in the Maricopa County Durango Jail. In the complaints, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, the presence of asbestos in the jail's ceilings. The first case is Jose Manuel Arias, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-0852-PHX-DGC (MEA)(D. Ariz.). A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's order dated June 10, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/fEVu4Nfrom Leagle.com. The second case is Pedro Guillot, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-0456-PHX-RCB (DKD)(D. Ariz.). A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's order dated June 16, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/MUwOqgfrom Leagle.com. The third case is Clarence Tull, Plaintiff, v. Joseph Arpaio, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 13-2594-PHX-DGC (BSB)(D. Ariz.). A full- text copy of Judge Campbell's order dated June 10, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/9xztLJfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand South Carolina Take-Home Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, in an order dated June 13, 2014, granted the motion filed by Plaintiff Michael W. Bradley to remand his take-home asbestos exposure case captioned Michael W. Bradley, Plaintiff, v. Richland County Landfill, Inc.; Waste Management of South Carolina, Inc.; and Waste Management, Inc., Defendants, C/A NO. 3:14-CV-00779-JFA (D.S.C.), after determining that the Defendants were not entitled to remove the action. A full-text copy of Judge Anderson's Decision is available at http://is.gd/47x5iNfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Gypsum, Quigley Can Pursue Claims v. G-I -------------------------------------------------------------- Due to the rising number of asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits filed in the 1980s, a group of producers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products joined together and formed the Center for Claims Resolution to administer asbestos personal injury claims on behalf of the Members. The Members negotiated and signed the Producer Agreement Concerning Center for Claims Resolution, which established and set forth the mechanics of the Center and the obligations of the Members. Appellants United States Gypsum Company and Quigley Company, Inc., and the predecessor-in-interest of Appellee G-I Holdings, Inc., were among the roughly twenty asbestos producers who signed the Producer Agreement, thereby becoming Members of the Center. After G-I failed to pay its contractually-calculated share due to pay out personal injury settlements and cover Center expenses, U.S. Gypsum and Quigley were obligated to pay additional sums to cover G-I's payment obligations. G-I filed for bankruptcy and the Center, U.S. Gypsum, and Quigley each filed a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court seeking to recover for G-I's nonpayment under the Producer Agreement. The Center eventually settled its claim with G-I. Although arising in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding, the case concerns claims for breach of contract under Delaware law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit are asked to decide whether, under the Producer Agreement, U.S. Gypsum and Quigley may maintain a breach of contract action against G-I. The Circuit Court, in an opinion dated June 17, 2014, held that the Producer Agreement permits the Former Members to pursue a breach of contract action against G-I for its failure to pay contractually-obligated sums due to the Center, in light of the Former Members' payment of G-I's share. The Circuit Court therefore vacate the District Court's order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's grant of summary judgment in G-I's favor. The case IN RE: G-I HOLDINGS, INC., formerly known as GAF Corporation, Debtor: UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, Appellant No. 13-3335, and QUIGLEY COMPANY, INC., Appellant No. 13-3336 (3d. Cir.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/X34X1Bfrom Leagle.com. Appellant United States Gypsum Co. is represented by: Rachel S. Bloomekatz, Esq. JONES DAY 325 John H. McConnell Boulevard, Suite 600 P.O. Box 165017 Columbus, OH 43215 Email: rbloomekatz@jonesday.com -- and -- Brad B. Erens, Esq. Brian J. Murray, Esq. JONES DAY 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: bberens@jonesday.com bjmurray@jonesday.com Counsel for Appellant Quigley Co. Inc.: John P. DiIorio, Esq. SHAPIRO CROLAND 411 Hackensack Avenue Hackensack, NJ 07601 Email: jdiiorio@shapiro-croland.com -- and -- Stephen D. Hoffman, I, Esq. WILK AUSLANDER 1515 Broadway, 43rd Floor New York, NY 10036 Email: shoffman@wilkauslander.com Counsel for Appellees: Mark E. Hall, Esq. Dennis J. O'Grady, Esq. RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI One Speedwell Avenue Headquarters Plaza Morristown, NJ 07962-0000 Email: mhall@riker.com dogrady@riker.com -- and -- Andrew J. Rossman, Esq. Scott C. Shelley, Esq. Jacob J. Waldman, Esq. QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Email: andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com scottshelley@quinnemanuel.com jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing Set for Bids to Access Garlock Files ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued an order on June 11, 2014, scheduling a hearing on July 15, 2014, in Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC's Chapter 11 case to consider the approval of various pending motions in connection with the requests for access to sealed documents relating to asbestos claims and claimants in Garlock's bankruptcy case. The case is IN RE: GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, DOCKET NO. 3:13-CV-00464-MOC (W.D.N.C.). A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's decision is available at http://is.gd/js9PzKfrom Leagle.com. Mt. McKinley Insurance Company, Appellant, represented by Fred L. Alvarez, Esq. -- falvarez@wwmlawyers.com -- at Walker Wilcox Matousek, LLP; and J. Samuel Gorham, III, Esq., at Gorham & Crone, PLLC. Everest Reinsurance Company, Appellant, represented by Fred L. Alvarez, Esq., at Walker Wilcox Matousek, LLP; and J. Samuel Gorham, III, Esq., at Gorham & Crone, PLLC. Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Appellee, represented by Albert Franklin Durham, Esq. -- adurham@rcdlaw.net -- John R. Miller, Jr., Esq. -- jmiller@rcdlaw.net -- Michelle Elizabeth Earp, Esq., Ross Robert Fulton, Esq. -- rfulton@rcdlaw.net -- Shelley Koon Abel, Esq. -- sabel@rcdlaw.net -- and William Samuel Smoak, Jr., Esq., at at Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A.; and Garland Stuart Cassada, Esq. -- gcassada@rbh.com -- Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq. -- jkrisko@rbh.com -- Louis Adams Bledsoe, III, Esq. -- lbledsoe@rbh.com -- and Richard Charles Worf, Jr., Esq. -- rworf@rbh.com -- at Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, Appellee, represented by Andrew Thomas Houston, Esq. -- ahouston@mwhattorneys.com -- Richard Steele Wright, Esq. -- rwright@mwhattorneys.com -- and Travis Waterbury Moon, Esq. -- tmoon@mwhattorneys.com -- at Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC; and Trevor W. Swett, III, Esq. -- tswett@capdale.com -- at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered. Coltec Industries, Inc., Intervenor, represented by E. Taylor Stukes, Esq. -- taylorstukes@mvalaw.com -- and Mark Andrew Nebrig, Esq. -- marknebrig@mvalaw.com -- at Moore & Van Allen. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankr. Court Junks Tax Claim v. Predecessor ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Cecelia G. Morris of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a memorandum decision dated June 13, 2014, sustaining the objection of Metex Mfg. Corporation to the Illinois Department of Revenue's administrative claim for unpaid taxes, after finding that the tax claim was discharged in 1998 by confirmation of the plan of reorganization in the prior bankruptcy case of Kentile Floors, Inc., Metex's predecessor. Until the mid-1980s, Kentile used asbestos in certain of its tiles. Even to the extent the claims were not discharged, they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Judge Morris said. The case is In re: Metex Mfg. Corporation, Chapter 11 Debtor, CASE NO. 12-14554 (CGM)(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Judge Morris' Decision is available at http://is.gd/WK9tkqfrom Leagle.com. Paul E. Breene, Esq. -- pbreene@reedsmith.com -- and Paul M. Singer, Esq. -- psinger@reedsmith.com -- at REED SMITH LLP, Attorneys for the Debtor, New York, NY, and Pittsburgh, PA. Office Of The Illinois Attorney General James D. Newbold, Assistant Attorney General, Counsel for the Illinois Department of Revenue, Chicago, IL. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leave to Appeal Ruling in "Suttner" Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department, denied the motion filed by A.W. Chesterton Company, for reargument of or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of the Supreme Court entered March 21, 2014. The case is IN RE: EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to JOANN H. SUTTNER, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GERALD W. SUTTNER, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, and CRANE CO., Defendant-Appellant, MOTION NO. 206-14, DOCKET NO. CA 13-01373 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated June 13, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/lc81Z9from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tishman Dropped as Defendant in "Houston" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the asbestos personal injury action styled THOMAS HOUSTON and ELLEN HOUSTON, Plaintiffs, v. BEAZER EAST, Inc., individually and as successor-in interest to THIEM CORP. and UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES, et. al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190119/12, MOTION SEQ. 008 (N.Y. Sup.), defendant Tishman Liquidating Corporation, Inc., moves for an order dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it. In opposition, the Plaintiffs contend that Tishman is liable for their injuries pursuant to New York's Labor Law and the common law inasmuch as it negligently caused asbestos-laden dust to be released into plaintiff Thomas Houston's vicinity. Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated June 2, 2014, granted Tishman's motion, concluding that the requirements of Labor Law Section 200's notice prong was not satisfied by the Plaintiffs and that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Tishman is responsible for Mr. Houston's injuries under a common law negligence theory for creating and/or exacerbating an unsafe condition. A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/ErdNRgfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Order Dismissing Fibro Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the order of a district court dismissing Dennis and Tho Hellervik's complaint for asbestos-related injuries and from the lower court's denial of leave to amend their complaint. The Ninth Circuit ruled that because the district court did not give a legitimate reason for withholding leave to amend, it abused its discretion. The case is DENNIS HELLERVIK and THO HELLERVIK, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. 3M COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12- 56373 (9th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/WEBcrqfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Stay "Morvant" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana is a motion filed by defendants, Century Indemnity Company, Continental Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, Insurance Company of North America, Maryland Casualty Company, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, to stay the proceeding in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned MARY MORVANT v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL. SECTION I, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-226 (E.D. La.), pursuant to the Colorado River abstention doctrine or, in the alternative, to continue deadlines. In an order dated June 17, 2014, District Judge Lance M. Africk denied the motion after determining that the Colorado River abstention doctrine does not apply because the state and federal cases are not parallel. Furthermore, even if the cases were parallel, only the amount of progress in the state court proceeding weighs in favor of abstention, while the remaining factors are neutral or weigh against abstention, Judge Africk said. This case does not present an exceptional circumstance which would warrant abstention, he added. A full-text copy of Judge Africk's Decision is available at http://is.gd/m0Xmpqfrom Leagle.com. Mary Morvant, Plaintiff, represented by Harold J. Flanagan, Esq. - - hflanagan@flanaganpartners.com -- Anders F. Holmgren, Esq. -- aholmgren@flanaganpartners.com -- Charles-Theodore N. Zerner, Esq. -- czerner@flanaganpartners.com -- and Sean Patrick Brady, Esq. -- sbrady@flanaganpartners.com -- at Flanagan Partners, LLP; and: Amanda Jones Ballay, Esq. Frank J. Swarr, Esq. Mickey P. Landry, Esq. Philip C Hoffman, Esq. LANDRY, SWARR & CANNELLA, LLC 1010 Common St #2050 New Orleans, LA 70112 Tel: 866-275-8706 Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by David P. Salley, Esq., and Erika Lynn Mullenbach, Esq., at Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor LLC. Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Stephen Porter Hall, Esq. -- stephen.hall@phelps.com -- and Jonathan B. Womack, Esq. -- jonathan.womack@phelps.com -- at Phelps Dunbar, LLP. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, represented by Simeon B. Reimonenq, Jr., Esq. -- sreimonenq@lawla.com -- and Katherine Osborne Hannan, Esq. -- khannan@lawla.com -- at Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard. Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Paula Marcello Wellons, Esq., and Desiree Weilbaecher Adams, Esq. -- dadams@twpdlaw.com -- at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Century Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by James M. Garner, Esq. -- jgarner@shergarner.com -- Martha Y. Curtis, Esq. - - mcurtis@shergarner.com -- and Paul R. Trapani, III, Esq. -- ttrapani@shergarner.com -- at Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Ricks" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, granted the motions to dismiss filed by eight defendants in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled JOHN SAM RICKS, JR. and BRENDA RICKS, Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; et al., Defendants, NO. 4:14-CV-37-BO (E.D.N.C.), after ruling that the plaintiffs, despite being adequately notified and given the opportunity to respond, have elected not to respond to any of the motions to dismiss. A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's June 9, 2014, Order is available at http://is.gd/nPkxa6from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alabama Dist. Court Dismisses Inmate's Fibro Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ On May 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in the civil rights case captioned CLARENCE J. RUTLAND, Plaintiff, v. IKE HARRIS, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-470-WKW (M.D. Ala.). On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff Clarence Rutland filed a document "[p]ursuant to Rule 60(b)," which the court construes as containing objections to the Recommendation. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objections have been made. The District Court acknowledged that Mr. Rutland's objections purport to introduce "newly discovered" allegations that he has suffered asbestos-related injuries while an inmate at Kilby Correctional Facility. But the claim is not presently before the court. The District Court held that if Mr. Rutland wishes to raise a new claim against an appropriate defendant, he must do so by filing a new civil action. Upon review of the Magistrate's Recommendation and Mr. Rutland's objections, the District Court ordered that Mr. Rutland's objections are overruled; the Recommendation is adopted; Defendant Ike Harris's motion to dismiss is granted; and Mr. Rutland's claims against Defendant Ike Harris are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2014, order penned by Chief District Judge W. Keith Watkins is available at http://is.gd/ayGxvFfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Trust Dropped as Defendant in "Bell" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order dated June 23, 2014, approving the stipulation agreed by and between counsel for Plaintiffs Donald and Sumiko Bell and counsel for Defendant Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, as successor to Felt Products Manufacturing Company, that the Complaint of Plaintiffs Donald Bell and Sumiko Bell, bearing the Civil Action No. 12-CV- 00131-CRB (JSC) may be and is hereby dismissed without prejudice as to this Defendant only. The parties agreed to each bear their own costs. The case is DONALD AND SUMIKO BELL; Plaintiffs, v. ARVIN MERITOR, INC., et al. Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-00131-CRB (JSC)(N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Order is available at http://is.gd/hVhvKYfrom Leagle.com. Stephen M. Fishback, Esq., and Seth A. Curtis, Esq., at Keller, Fishback & Jackson LLP, in Agoura Hills, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Erin S. McGahay, Esq. -- EMcGahey@sinunubruni.com -- at Sinunu Bruni LLP, in San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust as successor to Felt Products Manufacturing Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Reverses Ruling in "Graver" PI Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the asbestos mesothelioma case captioned DAVID AND FRANCES GRAVER, H/W, Appellees, v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, NOS. 470 EDA 2012, 641 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super.), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion dated June 26, 2014, holding that the statue of repose for improvements to real property set forth in 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. Section 5536 bars asbestos personal injury claims against entities engaged in performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of any improvement to real property. The Superior Court, accordingly, reversed the judgment of the lower court. A full-text copy of the Superior Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/UQY9a8from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Defendants Granted Summary Judgment in PI Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Susan Haas, individually and as executrix of Carl Brasmer, and individual heirs of the estate of Carl Brasmer initiated a products liability and wrongful death action against, inter alia, Defendants Boeing Company, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, and General Electric Company. The claims in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint arise out of the alleged injuries, and ensuing death, suffered by Decedent Carl Brasmer, which the Plaintiffs contend resulted from Brasmer's exposure to the Defendants' asbestos-containing products. The Defendants, except for 3M, each filed motions for summary judgment. In an opinion dated June 19, 2014, Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendants' motions, holding that Boeing has shown its entitlement to the government contractor defense, and the Plaintiffs have failed to identify any material facts precluding summary judgment on their claims against GE and Goodyear. The case is SUSAN HAAS, Individually and as Executrix of Carl Brasmer, and Individual Heirs of the Estate of CARL BRASMER, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2944 (FLW)(D.N.J.). A full-text copy of Judge Wolfson's Decision is available at http://is.gd/bHgqU3from Leagle.com. Carl Brasmer, Plaintiff, represented by: Michael Emmett McMahon, Esq. COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH PC 127 Maple Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 Tel: 732-747-9003 Fax: 732-747-9004 3M Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Carolyn Lee McCormack, Esq. -- cmccormack@lavin-law.com -- at Lavin O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio. BOEING COMPANY, Individually and as successor to McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Marc Scott Gaffrey, Esq. -- mgaffrey@hoaglandlongo.com -- at Hoagland, Longo, Oropollo & Moran. CBS Corporation, Individually and as successor to Viacom, Inc. and successor to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Keale, Esq., at Sedgwick LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Keale, Esq., and David Schuyler Blow, Esq., at Sedgwick LLP. Goodrich Corporation, Individually and as successor to the B.F. Goodrich Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Dawn Dezii, Esq. -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- at Margolis Edelstein. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter Defendant, represented by David J. Novack, Esq. -- dnovack@buddlarner.com -- and Terence W. Camp, Esq. -- tcamp@buddlarner.com -- at Budd, Larner, P.C. Honeywell International, Inc., Individually and as successor to the Bendix Corporation, Cross Defendant and Counter Defendant, represented by Ethan D. Stein, Esq., at Gibbons, PC. Northrop-Gruman Corporation, individually and as successor to Gruman Aerospace Corporation f/k/a Gruman Aircraft Engineering Group, Cross Defendant and Counter Defendant, represented by Kevin W. Rethore, Esq. -- kevin.rethore@dlapiper.com -- and Adam A. Desipio, Esq. -- adam.desipio@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Dismissing Suit v. Law Firm Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------- Mary Hall, the personal representative of the estate of Adolphus Hall, Sr., and Anaya McKinnon, the personal representative of the estate of Wanzy Lee Bowman, appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court's order dismissing their complaint filed against Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., a law firm. The plaintiffs filed the complaint against ELG requesting a declaratory judgment and alleging one count of unjust enrichment and one count of breach of contract. In the 1990s, ELG agreed to represent hundreds of clients who had been exposed to asbestos, including Adolphus Hall and Bowman. The Supreme Court of Alabama issued an opinion dated June 20, 2014, reversing the Circuit Court's order and remanding the case. The case is Mary Hall, personal representative of the Estate of Adolphus Hall, Sr., and Anaya McKinnon, personal representative of the Estate of Wanzy Lee Bowman, v. Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., NO. 1130301 (Ala.). A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/3xloQKfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton May Rebut Class Suit Presumption ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case styled HALLIBURTON CO., ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC., FKA ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE SUPPORTING FUND, INC., NO. 13-317 (U.S.), issued an opinion on June 23, 2014, ruled that, "Investors can recover damages in a private securities fraud action only if they prove that they relied on the defendant's misrepresentation in deciding to buy or sell a company's stock. In Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), we held that investors could satisfy this reliance requirement by invoking a presumption that the price of stock traded in an efficient market reflects all public, material information -- including material misstatements. In such a case, we concluded, anyone who buys or sells the stock at the market price may be considered to have relied on those misstatements." The Supreme Court added that, "We also held, however, that a defendant could rebut this presumption in a number of ways, including by showing that the alleged misrepresentation did not actually affect the stock's price -- that is, that the misrepresentation had no "price impact." The questions presented are whether we should overrule or modify Basic's presumption of reliance and, if not, whether defendants should nonetheless be afforded an opportunity in securities class action cases to rebut the presumption at the class certification stage, by showing a lack of price impact." Respondent Erica P. John Fund, Inc., is the lead plaintiff in a putative class action against Halliburton and one of its executives alleging violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. Section 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR Section 240.10b-5 (2013). According to EPJ Fund, between June 3, 1999, and December 7, 2001, Halliburton made a series of misrepresentations regarding its potential liability in asbestos litigation, its expected revenue from certain construction contracts, and the anticipated benefits of its merger with another company -- all in an attempt to inflate the price of its stock. Halliburton subsequently made a number of corrective disclosures, which, EPJ Fund contends, caused the company's stock price to drop and investors to lose money. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Decision, penned by Chief Justice Roberts, is available at http://is.gd/BfSvpefrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Re-Open Discovery in PI Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin issued a decision and order dated June 25, 2014, denied CBS Corporation's motion to re-open discovery in the case styled In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI) MDL 875 relating to MARGARET L. WONDRASH, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael Morris, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 94-C-216 (E.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of the Judge Randa's Decision is available at http://is.gd/57kDzCfrom Leagle.com Judge Randa said CBS's repeated attempts to re-open discovery must stop. Judge Randa pointed out that with minor exceptions, discovery was governed by the MDL court's scheduling orders. Margaret L Wondrash, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P Cascino, Esq., and Robert G McCoy, Esq., at Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. CBS Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Ivan A Gustafson, Esq., and William D. Harvard, Esq., at Evert Weathersby Houff; and Roshan N Rajkumar, Esq., at Bowman and Brooke LLP. ********* 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. Ma. Cristina Canson, 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 * * *