/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150213.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 32 Headlines #1A LIFESAFER: Faces "Wagstaff" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime #1A LIFESAFER: Faces "Wagstaff" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT A+ AUTO INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AGAPE SENIOR: Patients' Suit Remanded to So. Carolina State Court ALY CENTRIFUGE: Faces "Mallett" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT AMURA JAPANESE: "Gore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages AOL INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Derby" Suit Claims APPLE INC: Falsely Marketed Devices Storage Capacity, Suit Says ARNOLD LEE: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile, "Brodsky" Suit Says ARYTZA LIMITED: Recalls Cucina Grande Deli Pizza Meat Trio AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES: Trial Court Ruling in Suit v. PSAV Flipped AVA RESTAURANT: Faces "Cazares" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BALTIMORE CONVENTION: Lewis Gets Partial OK to Amend Complaint BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages BANKERS LIFE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Agents' Commissions BARCLAY REX: Faces "Santiago" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BEACHBODY FITNESS: "Michael" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT BEAUVAIS LTEE: Recalls Granny Smith Apples and Gala Apples BIRCHBOX INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Renewal Offers BLACKBERRY CORPORATION: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Smartphones BNR CONCRETE: "Rosa" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages C&J ENERGY: Del. Supreme Court Flips Injunction Order CACTUS DRILLING: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CANDA SIX: Recalls Te Chang Food Bean Curd Products CHINA NATIONAL: Faces "Amorin" Suit Over Defective Drywalls COSTY'S ENERGY: Faces "Hickle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DALCOM MODERN: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims DEFENDER SECURITY: Party's Inactivity Caused Dismissal of Suit DORAKU LINCOLN: "Petrov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages EFT HOLDINGS: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Investment Scam EMC MORTGAGE: N.D. Ill. Judge Allows Complaint to be Amended ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Gag Order EVERYDAY SUPERFOODS: Recalls Omega Mango Yogurt Topping FIRST PREMIER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection FLORIDA TURNPIKE: "Mererro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages FORD: Recalls Escape and MKC Models Due to Inoperative Fuel Pump GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga. GATEWAY FUNDING: Faces "Rocha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages GOLD BUYER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties GOLDEN HOMES: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GRACO CHILDREN'S: Fails to Sink "Long" Complaint GUARANTEED INVESTMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HENRY FORD: Mich. App. Flips Cert. Ruling, Remands Patient Suit HILLSIDE TIRE: Faces "Cepeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HOLLISTER BISTRO'S: "Reitenga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages IKEA CANADA: Recalls VYSSA Crib Mattresses INTEGRITY FACILITY: Faces "Ellison" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT J3 OIL: "Mena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages JBI INC: Final Approval Hearing Set for April 27 KTM: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models LAND O' LAKES: Court Narrows Discovery Bid in FLSA Suit LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Farias" Suit Over Financial Reports LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Grayson" Suit Over Financial Reports LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Trax" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Offers LOVE 466 AVENUE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MAVIMA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Valencia" Suit Says MEADOWBROOK MEAT: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime MEDICAL MUTUAL: Faces "Tremmel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MERSCORP INC: Dismissal of Plymouth County Suit Affirmed MHI HOTELS: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages MIDWOOD LUMBER: Faces "Vivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MOISHE'S MINI: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MON PETIT: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MOTOR COACH: Recalls J Series Model NATIONAL CASH: "Spangler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Judge Compels Arbitration in "Schriever" Suit NEWMAR: Recalls Essex Diesel Pusher Motorhome Model NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Summary Judgment Bid Okayed in "Nelson" PGA TOUR: Doesn't Pay Caddies Endorsement Services, Suit Says PIERCE: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models PRIME TIME: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RETROFITNESS LL: Ardino et al. Suit Goes Back to State Court ROBERTA MOORE: Faces "Tzintzun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ROCHDALE VILLAGE: Faces "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT SAN BERNARDINO: Appellate Court Keeps Ruling in "Williams" Case SANOFI: Faces "de Brabander" Over Misleading Financial Reports SCIFUNERAL SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages SCOTIAN GOLD: Recalls Scotian Gold Apple Slices SHELBY HEALTHCARE: Tenn. High Court Rules on Bid to Quash Liens SIX AMIGOS: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Soria-Ramirez" Suit Says SNC-LAVALIN ENGINEERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime SOUTHERN WRECKER: "O'Neil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SUPERIOR RECHARGE: Mere Filing of Suit Does Not Waive Arbitration TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Herring" Suit Over Defective Airbags TELESTONE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports THRIFTY FOODS: Recalls Veggie Quiche Due to Undeclared Soy TULSA INSPECTION: "Fenley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Secure Business Licenses UNCLE T FOOD: Recalls Wei Hsin and Yu Hsiang Bean Curd Products UNITED STATES: Court Dismissed Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction VENAXIS INC: Sued in D. Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports ZA RESTAURANT: "Shahin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 47,507 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Verdict in Pa. Suit v. Crane Co. Reversed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing in NY Suit v. Crane Co. Concludes ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Accepts Appeal in "Suttner" v. Crane Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in Pa. Suits Appeals ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 66 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $431-Mil. Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $392MM Fibro Defense Receivable ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Has 5,700 Fibro Claims at Dec. 26 ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 117 Fibro Cases as of Nov. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Negotiations Ongoing in AMEC-Aerojet Dispute ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Pays $900,000 to Settle "Paulus" Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Hellam" Suit is Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in Pa. Suit Remains Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Peraica" Suit Heard ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Holdsworth" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 21 Hercules Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Has $324-Mil. Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Has $77MM Receivables ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $398MM Settlement with Insurers ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 9 Fibro Claims for $800,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.2MM Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah High Ct. Affirms Wrongful Death Suit Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Inmate's Suit Allowed to Proceed ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Priest" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit Partially Junked as to JR Clarkson ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ark. Court Recommends Dismissal of "Miller" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Junk Inmate's Suit Partially Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctrine of Claim Preclusion Bars Widow's Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss "Proctor" Suit Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transpo Co.'s Suit Over Fibro Leaks Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Court Agrees to Transfer "Trezza" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: PepsiAmericas Can't Pursue Claims Against FMC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Res Judicata Bars Damages Suit vs. Railway Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Gets Summary Judgment in "Lett" Suit ********* #1A LIFESAFER: Faces "Wagstaff" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Wagstaff, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a proxy of the State of California on behalf of aggrieved employees v. #1A Lifesafer Of California, Inc., Lifesafer Of Northern California, and #1A Lifesafer, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00484 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the manufacture, installation, and distribution of automobile ignition interlock devices, which prevent an individual who is intoxicated from operating a motor vehicle. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Geoffrey Konecky, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com #1A LIFESAFER: Faces "Wagstaff" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- William Wagstaff, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a proxy of the State of California on behalf of aggrieved employees v. #1A Lifesafer Of California, Inc., Lifesafer Of Northern California, and #1A Lifesafer, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00484 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the manufacture, installation, and distribution of automobile ignition interlock devices, which prevent an individual who is intoxicated from operating a motor vehicle. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Hyde, Esq. Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Sara F. Khosroabadi, Esq HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com josh@westcoastlitigation.com sara@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com A+ AUTO INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Raul Garcia and George Perez, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. A+ Auto, Inc., a for profit Florida corporation d/b/a/ A Luxury Autos, and Yaacov Nahom, Case No. 1:15-cv-20414 (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. A+ Auto, Inc. is a Florida corporation that owns and operates an automobile dealership company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Sanchez, Esq. ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 665-9211 Facsimile: (305) 328-4842 E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com AGAPE SENIOR: Patients' Suit Remanded to So. Carolina State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson remands to the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, South Carolina that case captioned The Estate of Dora Elizabeth B. Hanna, by and through her Personal Representative, King C. Hanna, Jr. and on behalf of a Class of Individuals Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Agape Senior, LLC; Agape Harbison, Inc.; Agape Lexington, Inc.; Agape Assisted Living, Inc.; Agape at Kathwood, Inc.; Carolina Community Hospice, Inc.; Agape Senior Primary Care, Inc.; Agape Management Services, Inc.; Agape West Columbia; Agape Senior Conway; Scott Middleton and his agents, assigns and representatives; Jackson and Coker Locum Tenens, LLC d/b/a Jackson Coker, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Ernest Addo, Third-Party Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-02872-JFA, (D. S.C.). This case arises out of purported medical treatment rendered to patients of Agape1 by Ernest Addo ("Addo"), an unlicensed physician who assumed the identity of Arthur Kennedy, a duly licensed South Carolina physician. Specifically, this action was initiated to pursue the claims of all patients who received care from Addo during the time he was associated with Agape. The original complaint was filed in state court in Richland County, South Carolina and alleged causes of action for negligent referral against Jackson & Coker and negligent hiring, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, negligent retention, negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, vicarious liability, and strict tort liability (declaratory judgment) against Agape. On October 4, 2012, this case was removed by the Agape defendants from state court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), codified in relevant part at 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Shortly after removal and as a result of the parties' request, the Court stayed this case for an extended period of time while the underlying declaratory judgment action was litigated to determine contested insurance coverage issues. The stay was eventually lifted on November 5, 2014. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs dismissed defendant Jackson & Coker and filed a Motion to Remand. According to Magistrate Judge Anderson, the local defendants in this case are related to one another. All of the Agape defendants constitute the entities of Agape and its owner and Chief Executive Officer, Scott Middleton. Plaintiffs allege that the Agape entities are subsidiary, sister, and affiliated corporations of Agape Senior, LLC. As such, all of the local defendants are related to one another, and comprise the vast majority of all defendants in this case. "The Court finds there is ample evidence to suggest that Agape's conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted in this case. Therefore, the "significant basis" prong is satisfied, and the Court finds that this case constitutes a local controversy under CAFA," Magistrate Judge Anderson added. "[T]he Court hereby grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. In light of the Court's remand of this case, it elects to defer to the state court any ruling on Defendants' Motion to Realign Ernest Addo and Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint." A copy of the January 20, 2015 ruling is available at http://is.gd/ydJp9Q from Leagle.com. Dora Elizabeth B Hanna, Plaintiff, represented by George M Hearn, Jr. -- hbmlaw@sccoast.net -- Hearn and Hearn and: Edwin Grey Wicker, Esq. Law Office of Michael E Spears, 122 S. Liberty Street Spartanburg, SC 29304 Telephone: (864) 583-3535 - and - Michael Eugene Spears, Esq. Michael E Spears, P.A. P.O. Box 5806 Spartanburg, SC 29304 Telephone: (864) 583-3535 Agape Senior LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua D Shaw -- jshaw@turnerpadget.com -- Turner Padget Graham and Laney & R Gerald Chambers -- gchambers@turnerpadget.com -- Turner Padget Graham and Laney. Scott Middleton, Defendant, represented by Joshua D Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney, R Gerald Chambers, Turner Padget Graham and Laney & Shaun Christian Blake, Rogers Lewis Jackson Mann and Quinn. Agape Harbison Inc, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Schwartz Corn -- elizabeth.corn@hoodlaw.com -- Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh -- jgresh@hbss.net -- Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Lexington Inc, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Assisted Living Inc, Defendant, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape at Kathwood Inc, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Carolinas Community Hospice Inc, Defendant, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Senior Primary Care Inc, Defendant, represented by Joshua D Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney. Agape Management Service Inc, Defendant, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape West Columbia, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Senior Conway, Defendant, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Senior West Columbia, Interested Party, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Senior Kathwood, Interested Party, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Senior Harbison, Interested Party, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Senior Lexington, Interested Party, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape West Columbia, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Carolinas Community Hospice Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Senior Conway, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape at Kathwood Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Harbison Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Management Service Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Lexington Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Agape Assisted Living Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover. Scott Middleton, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney, R Gerald Chambers, Turner Padget Graham and Laney & Shaun Christian Blake, Rogers Lewis Jackson Mann and Quinn. Agape Senior Primary Care Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney. Agape Senior LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney & R Gerald Chambers, Turner Padget Graham and Laney. Scott Middleton, Counter Claimant, represented by Joshua D Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney, R Gerald Chambers, Turner Padget Graham and Laney & Shaun Christian Blake, Rogers Lewis Jackson Mann and Quinn. Agape Senior Primary Care Inc, Counter Claimant, represented by Joshua D Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney. Agape Senior LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Joshua D Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney & R Gerald Chambers, Turner Padget Graham and Laney. Dora Elizabeth B Hanna, Defendant, represented by Edwin Grey Wicker, Law Office of Michael E Spears, George M Hearn, Jr, Hearn and Hearn & Michael Eugene Spears, Michael E Spears. ALY CENTRIFUGE: Faces "Mallett" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mallett, et al. v. Aly Centrifuge, Inc. a/k/a Aly Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00085 (W.D. Tex., February 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. Aly Centrifuge, Inc. is a Delaware corporation company doing business in Texas that provides services in the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Poncio, Esq. PONCIO LAW OFFICES PC 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 109 San Antonio, TX 78229-3550 Telephone: (210) 212-7979 Facsimile: (210) 212-5880 E-mail: salaw@msn.com AMURA JAPANESE: "Gore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Gore, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Amura Japanese Restaurant, Inc., a Florida for-profit corporation and Scarlet Chung, Case No. 6:15-cv-00153 (M.D. Fla., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, reimbursement for tips illegally taken, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 54 West Church Street, Orlando, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock, Esq. ROBERT W. BROCK, II PA Suite 223, 17 East Flager Street Miami, Fl 33131 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com AOL INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Derby" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Derby, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. AOL, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00452 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of transmitting unauthorized spam text message to the cellular telephones of individual throughout the nation. AOL, Inc. is a mobile social networking and internet company with its principal place of business in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Suzanne L. Havens Beckman, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: shavens@parisihavens.com APPLE INC: Falsely Marketed Devices Storage Capacity, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Neocleous and Shaefer Wiese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv- 00501 (N.D. Cal., February 3, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful practice of misrepresenting and omitting crucial material facts relating to the usable storage capacity on 8 and 16 Gigabyte iPhones, iPads and iPods and failing to disclose that as much as 23.1% of the Devices' advertised storage capacity will be inaccessible to the consumer due to mandatory preinstalled iOS 8 software. Apple Inc. is a multinational corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, online services, and personal computers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Mcshane, Esq. Jonas P. Mann, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 576-1776 E-mail: mmchane@audetlaw.com jmann@audetlaw.com - and - Clayton Halunen, Esq. Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES 80 South Eighth Street, Suite #1650 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com wolchansky@halunenlaw.com - and - Charles J. Laduca, Esq. Matthew E. Miller, Esq. William H. Anderson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 507 C St., N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com mmiller@cuneolaw.com wanderson@cuneolaw.com - and - Robert Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP Suite 2200, 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq. BARON & HERSKOWITZ 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-0101 Facsimile: (305) 670-2393 E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com ARNOLD LEE: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile, "Brodsky" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Brodsky, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Arnold Lee and John Does 1- 10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01046 (N.D. Ill., February 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. Arnold Lee is a California resident. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (8470 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com ARYTZA LIMITED: Recalls Cucina Grande Deli Pizza Meat Trio ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Arytza Limited Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional, Retail CFIA reference number: 9572 Affected products: 1.33 kg. Cucina Grande Deli Pizza - Meat Trio with all codes where mustard is not declared on the label AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES: Trial Court Ruling in Suit v. PSAV Flipped ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Juan Solares seeks to represent a class of employees who are or were employed by Audio Visual Services Group, Inc., doing business as PSAV Presentation Services (PSAV), which provides audio-visual services to hotels within the Century Corridor Property Business Improvement District (Century Corridor PBID) adjacent to the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). They allege that PSAV collects from customers a separately designated "service charge," "delivery charge," facility charge," "gratuity," "administrative fee," or other such charge that "customers might reasonably believe . . . were for the class member/employees' services." PSAV allegedly fails to pay the separately-designated charges it collects to its employees in violation of the Hotel Service Charge Reform Ordinance (Ordinance) in the Los Angeles Municipal Code. The failure of PSAV to pay these service charges to its employees is the basis for Solares's unfair competition law claim (UCL). Before the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three is the issue of whether audio-visual workers are within the class of hotel workers entitled to be paid service charges pursuant to the Ordinance. The Ordinance was intended to benefit hotel workers who earn low hourly wages and traditionally relied on gratuities. These hotel workers saw a decrease in gratuities because hotel customers assumed the service charge would be paid to the service worker who actually performed the services. Thus, the Ordinance applies only to those hotel workers who would have received a gratuity for their services but for the imposition of a service charge that hotel customers believed was in lieu of a gratuity. Because the class action complaint does not allege that Solares and the class he seeks to represent are within the class of hotel workers who traditionally relied on gratuities, and no proposed amendment could cure this defect, the complaint fails to state a UCL claim based upon a violation of the Ordinance. Accordingly, says the Appeals Court, it grants PSAV's petition for writ of mandate and directs the trial court to reverse its order, which overruled PSAV's demurrer to the UCL cause of action. "Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court to vacate its order of April 17, 2014, overruling PSAV's demurrer to the UCL cause of action alleged in Solares's class action complaint, and to enter a new and different order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. PSAV is awarded costs on appeal," the Appeals Court held in its January 21, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/OBwZ1A from Leagle.com. The case is AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; JUAN SOLARES, Real Party in Interest, NO. B256266. Schiffer & Buus and Eric M. Schiffer -- eschiffer@schifferbuus.com -- for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick, Randy Renick -- rrr@hadsellstormer.com -- Cornelia Dai; Davis, Cowell & Bowe, Elizabeth Ann Lawrence -- eal@dcbsf.com -- and Paul L. More -- pmore@dcbsf.com -- for Real Party in Interest. AVA RESTAURANT: Faces "Cazares" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emmanuel Cazares and Erick Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ava Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Buccaneer Diner and Costas Alexiou, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-00477 (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a diner restaurant located on Astoria Boulevard in Queens County, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com BALTIMORE CONVENTION: Lewis Gets Partial OK to Amend Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Current and former employees of the Baltimore Convention Center instituted a putative class action and collective action in July 2012 against the Convention Center and Peggy Daidakis, the Director of the Convention Center. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants wrongfully withheld wages and overtime compensation from plaintiffs, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. (Count I); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), Md. Code (2006 Repl. Vol, 2012 Supp.), Lab. & Empl. Article Sections 3-401 et seq. (Count II); and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), id. Sections 3-501 et seq. (Count III). Id. at 2-3. In addition, they complained that defendants withheld compensation and suspended employees without cause, in breach of the Baltimore Municipal Employees contract of employment with the City of Baltimore, dated July 1, 2008 ("2008 Contract") (Count IV). On June 12, 2014, plaintiffs filed their "Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint", pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, along with a proposed "First Amended Complaint", and a redlined version, showing changes between the original and the proposed amended complaints. The proposed amendments do two things: First, they seek to update "the original Complaint to reflect the current status of the claims and allegations and to implement the court's order." Second, they add two new claims, one for "breach of the negotiated agreement" ("Count V"), and one for breach of the duty of fair representation ("Count VI"). Defendants filed a response in opposition arguing that plaintiffs should not be permitted to add Counts V and VI because the amendments would be futile. The defendants state: "Even if there were statutory authority to consider Plaintiffs' claims in this case [against the Union, in Count VI], the proposed amendment should be denied as futile because it fails to plead facts supporting the claim that the Union violated its duty of fair representation." "I will grant the Motion in part and deny it in part," ruled District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander in a memorandum dated January 20, 2015. "I will grant plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint that includes changes reflecting the current status of the claims, following my Order of December 10, 2012, and any new facts. But, I will deny leave to amend the complaint to include Counts V and VI, because the addition of either count would be futile. And, because I will deny leave to add Count VI, I will also deny leave to add the Union as a defendant." A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/IJ7vKn from Leagle.com. The case is ANTHONY LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE BALTIMORE CONVENTION CENTER, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. ELH-12- 2008, (D. Md.) Anthony Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell -- scott@conwellusa.com -- Conwell Law LLC & Susan C Trimble -- Trimblelaw@comcast.net -- Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC. William Weeks, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC. Gregory Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC. Darrell Lilly, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC. Louis Pilsch, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC. Leonard Ward, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC. Michael Ward, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC. Gratten Branch, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC. Gregory Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Sheila Exum, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Abel Stukes, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Wanda Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Antonio Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Tina Porter-Hill, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Steven Dunlap, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Christopher Inman, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Jean Glasgow, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Clayton D. Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Rodney Abshire, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Chaniece Mobley, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Gilbert Watsen, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Robert Bullock, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Anthony Warren, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Sommerville Lamont, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Margaret Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Yvonne Hughley, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Theodora Harrod, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. John R. McCormick, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Tyrene Cash, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Robert Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Charles Dickerson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Levern Perrin, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Margaret Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Sherry Lawrence, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Haywood Bell, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Lamuel Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. Earl Dorsey, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell Law LLC. The Baltimore City Convention Center, Defendant, represented by Eric Hemmendinger -- eh@shawe.com -- Shawe and Rosenthal LLP & Gary Gilkey, Baltimore City Law Department. Peggy Daidakis, Defendant, represented by Gary Gilkey, Baltimore City Law Department. BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-20408 (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Bank of America Corporation The Plaintiff is represented by: Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq. Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com agp@rgpattorneys.com BANKERS LIFE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Agents' Commissions ---------------------------------------------------------- Kelly R. Graham, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life And Casualty Company, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00944 (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay agents their properly earned commissions under their contractual commission arrangements, specifically by forcing agents to share or kickback a certain portion of their earned commissions to various licensed financial advisors the Defendant employs or contracts in order to maximize sales and commissions to the benefit of the company. Bankers Life And Casualty Company is one of the largest insurance and financial services companies in the United States, having numerous offices nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. Bradley A. Tobin, Esq. FELDMAN LAW GROUP, P.A. 501 N. Reo Street Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com btobin@ffmlawgroup.com BARCLAY REX: Faces "Santiago" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Santiago, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees v. Barclay Rex Pipe Shop, Inc., Barclay Rex Enterprises Inc. and Vincent Nastri, Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-00762 (S.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate tobacco stores and lounges in the Borough of Manhattan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Garbarini, Esq. GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C. 150 East 58th Street, 27th fl. New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 300-5358 Facsimile: (888) 265-7054 E-mail: rgarbarini@garbarinilaw.com BEACHBODY FITNESS: "Michael" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan Michael Stinnett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Beachbody Fitness & Bootcamps, LLC d/b/a I.S.I. Elite Training and Adam M. Rice, Case No. 4:15-cv-00432 (D.S.C., January 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a fitness center in Horry County, South Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Henrietta U. Golding, Esq. James Keith Gilliam, Esq. MCNAIR LAW FIRM PO Box 336 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Telephone: (843) 444-1107 Facsimile: (843) 444-4729 E-mail: hgolding@mcnair.net jgilliam@mcnair.net BEAUVAIS LTEE: Recalls Granny Smith Apples and Gala Apples ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Beauvais Ltee., Coosemans Montreal Inc., Courchesne Larose Distribution: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9575 The food recall warning issued before has been updated to include additional information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation Industry is recalling Granny Smith apples and Gala apples exported by Bidart Bros. in the United States (US) from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Identified importers of the recalled products include Beauvais Ltee., Courchesne Larose and Coosemans Montreal Inc. Consumers should not consume and retailers, restaurants and institutions should not sell or use the recalled products described. Check to see if you have recalled products. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the location where they were purchased. If you are unsure as to whether products are included in this recall, contact the location where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness, people may die. PHAC is monitoring the US outbreak investigation. For more information see the Public Health Notice issued by PHAC dated Dec. 28, 2014. The recall was triggered by a recall initiated by the US producer which may be related to a foodborne illness outbreak. The CFIA is working with its federal partners, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and Health Canada, and the United States Food and Drug Administration and 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 product from the marketplace. BIRCHBOX INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Renewal Offers ------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Lapuebla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Birchbox, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00214 (S.D. Cal., January 30, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making automatic renewal offers continuous service offers without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent to an agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms. Birchbox, Inc. is a New York City-based online monthly subscription service that sends its subscribers a box of four to five carefully selected samples of makeup, or other beauty related products on a monthly basis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Sara Khosroabadi, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com sara@westcoastlitigation.com BLACKBERRY CORPORATION: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Smartphones --------------------------------------------------------------- Russ Semeran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Blackberry Corporation, a Delaware corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-00750 (D.N.J., February 2, 2015), arises out of the design and manufacturing defects of Blackberry Smart Cellular Telephones. Specifically, the contact application randomly merges contacts store in the phone thereby rending users unable to make calls by retrieving their contacts through the device, the photo application fails to permit the user to manage the size and resolution of photographs for the purposes of emailing, and fail to support widely utilized applications such as Yahoo Calendar. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Harrison, Esq. David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 110 Series Highway 35, 2nd Floor Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (888) 239-4410 Facsimile: (718) 799-9171 E-mail: josephharrisonesq@gmail.com nycotlaw@gmail.com - and - Marcus Bradley, Esq. Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com BNR CONCRETE: "Rosa" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Rosa, Oscar Rosas, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b) v. BNR Concrete Polishing, LLC, and David Beck, Case No. 3:15-cv-00335 (N.D. Tex., February 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants is a Texas corporation that provides home construction, retail & commercial projects services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq. Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL PC 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com josh.a.petersen@gmail.com rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net C&J ENERGY: Del. Supreme Court Flips Injunction Order ----------------------------------------------------- Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr. of the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed the decision of the Court of Chancery in the appealed case C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC., JOSHUA E. COMSTOCK, RANDALL C. McMULLEN, DARREN M. FRIEDMAN, ADRIANNA MA, MICHAEL ROEMER, C. JAMES STEWART, III, H.H. "TRIPP" WOMMACK, III, NABORS INDUSTRIES LTD., and NABORS RED LION LIMITED, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' AND SANITATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, NO. 655/657 2014 (Del.) C&J Energy Services, a Delaware corporation founded in 1997, is an oilfield services provider. The company went public in 2011 and currently has a market capitalization of over $730 million. Nabors Industries Ltd., which has a total market capitalization of over $3 billion, is a Bermuda exempt company that also provides oilfield services. Nabors has two primary divisions, completions and productions services division and a drilling and rig services division. The City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust is a stockholder of C&J Energy Services, Inc. C&J and Nabors made a transaction that will make C&J acquire a subsidiary of Nabors, which is domiciled in Bermuda, but Nabors will retain a majority of the equity in the surviving company. To obtain more favorable tax rates, the surviving entity, C&J Energy Services, Ltd. (New C&J), will be based in Bermuda, and thus subject to lower corporate tax rates than C&J currently pays. To temper Nabors' majority voting control of the surviving company, C&J negotiated for certain protections, including a bye- law guaranteeing that all stockholders would share pro rata in any future sale of New C&J, which can only be repealed by a unanimous stockholder vote. C&J also bargained for a fiduciary out if a superior proposal was to emerge during a lengthy passive market check, an unusual request for the buyer in a change of control transaction. And during that market check, a potential competing bidder faced only modest deal protection barriers. The City of Miami brought a class action on behalf of itself and other stockholders in C&J to enjoin a merger between C&J and a division of Nabors Industries Ltd. The plaintiffs argue that C&J's board entered into a change of control transaction without recognizing that it was doing so. With the mindset that it was acquiring an asset, the board never conducted an active market check to see if there were other buyers for C&J. the plaintiffs argue that the board failed to fulfill its fiduciary duties under Revlon in approving a transaction where Nabors would end up with majority voting control of C&J. Rather than engage in an active market check, the board signed up its favorite deal with the inadequate protections of a passive market check and certain bye- law provisions, which the plaintiffs characterize as protections for Comstock and his managers, not for C&J stockholders. Plaintiff seeks the court for injunction. The Court of Chancery imposed a mandatory injunction. The court order provides that C&J is ordered to solicit alternative proposals to purchase the Company. Hence the appeal. Chief Justice Strine reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery, observing that the Court of Chancery did not find that the plaintiffs' duty of loyalty claims had any merit based on the record, and could not even find a reasonable probability of success as to any care-based breach of fiduciary duty claim. A copy of Chief Justice Strine's decision dated December 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/owL4Dafrom Leagle.com Stephen C. Norman, Esquire, Michael A. Pittenger, Esquire, Jaclyn C. Levy, Esquire, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Michael C. Holmes, Esquire (argued), Elizabeth C. Brandon, Esquire, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Appellants C&J Energy Services, Inc., Joshua E. Comstock, Randall C. McMullen, Darren M. Friedman, Adrianna Ma, Michael Roemer, C. James Stewart, III, and H.H. "Tripp" Wommack, III William M. Lafferty, Esquire, Leslie A. Polizoti, Esquire, Eric S. Klinger-Wilensky, Esquire, Lindsay M. Kwoka, Esquire, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Alan J. Stone, Esquire(argued), Hailey DeKraker Esquire, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, New York, New York, for Appellants Nabors Industries Ltd. and Nabors Red Lion Limited Stuart M. Grant, Esquire, James J. Sabella, Esquire, Mary S. Thomas, Esquire, Jonathan M. Kass, Esquire, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Mark Lebovitch, Esquire, Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esquire(argued), Abe Alexander, Esquire, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Appellee City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust The Justices of the Supreme Court sitting en banc consists of Chief Justice Leo E. Strine, Jr. and Justices Randy J. Holland, Henry duPont Ridgely, Karen L. Valihura and Vaughn. CACTUS DRILLING: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian C. Peery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cactus Drilling Company, L.L.C., Case No. 6:15-cv- 00094 (E.D. Tex., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. Cactus Drilling Company, L.L.C. is an Oklahoma corporation doing business as land drilling contractor in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com CANDA SIX: Recalls Te Chang Food Bean Curd Products --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Canda Six Fortune Enterprise Co. Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9562 CHINA NATIONAL: Faces "Amorin" Suit Over Defective Drywalls ----------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo and Carmen Amorin, et al. v. China National Building Materials Import and Export Corporation, a People's Republic of China corporation, and CNBM Forest Products (Canada) Ltd., a Canadian corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00184 (D. Ore., February 2, 2015), arises out of the defective drywalls manufactures by the Defendants that caused structural mechanical and plumbing systems damages and damaged other appliances in the home. China National Building Materials Import and Export Corporation is a Chinese corporation that is in the business of purchasing and shipping logs from the United States and Canada to customers in China. CNBM Forest Products Ltd. is a Canadian corporation that is in States and Canada to customers in China. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Skerritt, Esq. TONKON TORP LLP 1600 Pioneer Tower 888 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-2099 Telephone: (503) 802-2024 Facsimile: (503) 972-3724 E-mail: dan.skerritt@tonkon.com - and - Russ M. Herman, Esq. HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 Facsimile: (504) 561-6024 E-mail: Ldavis@hhkc.com - and - Arnold Levin, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: Alevin@lfsblaw.com COSTY'S ENERGY: Faces "Hickle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Hickle and Reyes Lagunas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Costy's Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00130 (W.D. Pa., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Costy's Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services company with headquarter located at 2395 S. Main Street, Mansfield, PA 16933. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com DALCOM MODERN: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Diego Tolguarcas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Dalcom Modern, Inc. d/b/a Sushidamo, Kiwon Chong and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-00758 (S.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 330 W.58th Street, New York, New York 10019. 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 DEFENDER SECURITY: Party's Inactivity Caused Dismissal of Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Elaine B. Brown of the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the appealed case KEISHA HOLLIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Appellant- Plaintiff, v. DEFENDER SECURITY COMPANY d/b/a DEFENDER DIRECT, Appellee-Defendant, NO 49A04-1404-PL-156 (Ind. Ct. App.) In September 2009, Keisha and Robert Hollis filed a complaint against Defender with Ronald Weldy as their counsel. On October 14, 2009, the Hollises filed a motion for class certification. On November 23, 2009, Defender filed a motion to dismiss Robert's claims, and on February 16, 2010, the court granted Defender's motion. From 2010 through 2014 the plaintiff Keisha had only filed several motions for extension to extend deadlines and their counsel Ronald Weldy was subjected to disciplinary action by the Indiana Supreme Court and another lawyer in the name of Matthew Derringer filed an appearance for Keisha Hollis in 2013. On October 23, 2013, Defender filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Trial Rule 41(E). Defender alleged that the only activity in the case since the court's September 27, 2012 order "has been the non-substantive action of the Plaintiff's filing an appearance of additional counsel, Matthew Derringer, on July 17, 2013. Defender alleged that Keisha no longer lived in Indiana and had lost interest in the action, some of the witnesses had left Defender's employ, and the passage of time for witness testimony was prejudicial to Defender. On January 30, 2014, the court entered an order of dismissal pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 41(E). On March 3, 2014, Keisha filed a verified motion to reinstate and motion to correct error and alleged that the motion was made pursuant to Ind. Trial Rules 59 and 60. On March 10, 2014, the court entered an order denying Keisha's motion to reinstate and motion to correct errors. Judge Brown affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Keisha's complaint. A copy of Judge Brown's unpublished memorandum decision dated December 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/KCYkYefrom Leagle.com. Attorney for Appellant: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY & ASSOCIATES 8383 Craig Street, Suite 330 Indianapolis, IN 46250 Telephone: 317-842-6600 Facsimile: 317-842-6933 DAVID E. WRIGHT -- DWright@kgrlaw.com -- KEVIN D. KOONS -- KKoons@kgrlaw.com -- at Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP The Court of Appeals panel consists of Judges Elaine B. Brown, L. Mark Bailey and Margret G. Robb. DORAKU LINCOLN: "Petrov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Plamen Petrov, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Doraku Lincoln Road LLC, a Florida for-profit corporation, Kevin Aoki, and Aaron Hyatt, Case No. 1:15-cv-20398 (S.D. Fla., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, reimbursement for tips illegally taken, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Doraku Restaurant located in Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert William Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com EFT HOLDINGS: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Investment Scam ---------------------------------------------------- Yunxia Wang, Fengqin Xu, and Qun Xu, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v, EFT Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00727 (C.D. Cal., January 30, 2015), arises out of the chain investment scam that the Defendants promised participants that they could earn substantial returns through retail product sales, recruiting new participants into the chain, and owning part of the business, when in fact, the products were defective, the chain structure was illegal, and the alleged ownership was illusory. EFT Holdings, Inc. is an e-Commerce, publicly traded Nevada corporation with its principal place of business at 17800 Castleton Street, Suite 300, City of Industry, California 91748 that engages in the merchandising and sale of EFT-brand products over the internet. The Plaintiff is represented by: Suzelle M. Smith, Esq. Don Howarth, Esq. Padraic Glaspy, Esq. Jessica C. Walsh, Esq. HOWARTH & SMITH 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 728 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 955-9400 Facsimile: (213) 622-0791 E-mail: SSmith@howarth-smith.com DHowarth@howarth-smith.com PGlaspy@howarth-smith.com JWalsh@howarth-smith.com - and - Stephen Tuggy, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 485-1500 Facsimile: (213) 485-1200 E-mail: STuggy@lockelord.com EMC MORTGAGE: N.D. Ill. Judge Allows Complaint to be Amended ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Andrea R. Wood of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division ruled on plaintiff's motion in the case KIM PARKER, Plaintiff, v. EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. Defendants, No. 11-CV-05682 (N.D. Il.) Kim Parker originally filed a suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County in 2009. In 2011, she filed an amended complaint styled as class action against EMC Mortgage Corporation, which serviced her home mortgage loans, and EMC's parent company, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The amended complaint alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 (ICFA); two claims based on breach of contract/breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, one of which was based on a third-party beneficiary theory; a claim for promissory estoppel; and a claim for unjust enrichment. Defendants removed the case to the federal District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Subsequently, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court entered an order granting defendants' motion in part and denying it in part. The Court later denied class certification, and the case continued as a single-plaintiff action. After the parties had completed fact discovery, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment citing several admissions by Parker at her deposition that defendants claim establish that she never received any oral representation that she would get a permanent loan modification. Defendants argue in their Motion for Summary Judgment that crucial elements of proof regarding Parker's three remaining claims are absent, and therefore they are entitled to summary judgment in their favor. In lieu of responding to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Parker filed her Motion under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 56(d), along with the required affidavit representing that she could not respond to the motion absent additional discovery. Parker filed the Motion to Amend one week after filing her Rule 56(d) Motion. Judge Wood granted the motion to amend. Parker's Rule 56(d) Motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants were directed to produce documents Bates-labeled JPMC0000598-0069951 in a format that is reasonably usable, consistent with Rule 34(a)(1)(A). Defendants also shall tender to Parker a stipulation regarding the authenticity of the documents they have produced over the course of this litigation within 30 days of the entry of the Order. In light of the anticipated filing of the Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint and the additional discovery permitted by this ruling, defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice. A copy of Judge Wood's memorandum opinion and order dated December 18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/3lozfkfrom Leagle.com Kim Parker, Plaintiff, represented by: Al Hofeld, III, Esq. Hanan Erikat Van Dril, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF AL HOFELD, JR., LLC 1525 E. 53rd Street, Suite 832 Chicago, IL 60615 Telephone: 773-241-5844 Facsimile: 773-241-5845 EMC Mortgage LLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Defendants, represented by: Mark Bruce Blocker, Esq. Kevin M Fee, Jr, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-853-7000 Facsimile: 312-853-7036 Email: mblocker@sidley.com kfee@sidley.com - and - Michael Ryan Kemock, Esq. PIERCE AND ASSOCIATES, PC 1 N. Dearborn St., Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-346-9088 Facsimile: 312-551-4400 ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Gag Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William J. Martini of the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion in the case PAUL NICHOLS, Plaintiff, v. NANCY SIVILLI (in her official capacity), and ESSEX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Defendants, CIV. NO. 2:14-3821 (WJM) (D.N.J.) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, Paul Nichols brings a First Amendment challenge to a gag order issued by Essex County Superior Court Judge Nancy Sivilli. He also seeks an injunction that would prohibit the enforcement of the Gag Order. Judge Sivilli issued a Gag Order in the case of Myranova v. Malhan, a divorce and custody suit pending in the family division of the Essex County Superior Court. Nichols is a reporter for Bergen County Dispatch, who wishes to interview Malhan about his experiences in family court, which according to Nichols, are a matter of public interest. Nichols contends that that he is unable to interview Malhan because the Gag Order restricts Malhan from saying anything that relates to his divorce proceedings. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P 12(b)(6). Defendants first argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Nichols' suit against Judge Sivilli because Nichols has failed to satisfy Article III's "case or controversy" requirement. Defendants also contend that Nichols' suit against the Essex County Superior Court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Judge Martini granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Martini's opinion dated December 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/8Nj9hRfrom Leagle.com PAUL NICHOLS, Plaintiff, represented by: Paul Alexander Clark CLARK LEGAL SERVICES 8375 S. Willow Street, Suite 200 Lone Tree, CO 80124 Telephone: 720-358-4768 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant, represented by DANIEL JAMES KELLY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY MICHELLE M. SMITH, (in her official capacity as Clerk Superior Court of New Jersey), Defendant, represented by DANIEL JAMES KELLY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY SALLYANNE FLORIA, (in her official capacity as Presiding Judge Chancery Div., Family Part, Essex County), Defendant, represented by DANIEL JAMES KELLY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY Nancy Sivilli, Defendant, represented by ERIC SCOTT PASTERNACK, STATE OF NEW JERSEY EVERYDAY SUPERFOODS: Recalls Omega Mango Yogurt Topping ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Everyday Superfoods Inc. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9568 Affected products: 140 g. Omega Mango Yogurt Topping - Mangoes and Cranberries FIRST PREMIER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Flagg, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. First Premier Bank, a South Dakota State-Chartered Bank, Case No. 1:15-cv-00324 (N.D. Ga., January 30, 2015), alleges that the Defendant participates in a scheme to allow illegal online payday lenders access to the nation's secure electronic payment transfer network known as the ACH Network or Automated Clearing House to collect unlawful debts. First Premier Bank is a South Dakota state-chartered bank with main offices at 601 South Minnesota Avenue, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve Six, Esq. Darren Kaplan, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: six@stuevesiegel.com kaplan@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com - and - Jefferey M. Ostrow, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein,Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, PA 200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: ostrow@KOlawyers.com alperstein@KOlawyers.com FLORIDA TURNPIKE: "Mererro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Marerro, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Florida Turnpike Services LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-20375 (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Florida Turnpike Services LLC owns and operates a fuel and convenience store in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Markel, Esq. THE MARKEL LAW FIRM 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 458-1282 Facsimile: (800) 407-1718 E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com FORD: Recalls Escape and MKC Models Due to Inoperative Fuel Pump ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 3074 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015008 TC ID number: 2015008 Manufacturer recall number: 14S30 On certain vehicles, improper nickel plating of certain fuel pump internal components could contaminate the pump, potentially resulting in an inoperative fuel pump. This could result in a no- start condition, or an engine stall without warning and without the ability to restart the vehicle, which could increase the risk of a crash. Dealers will replace the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM). Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- FORD ESCAPE 2014 LINCOLN MKC 2015 GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga. -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert C. Jones transferred to the Northern District of Georgia IN RE GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, DAVID L.HASBROUCK, derivatively on behalf of GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PETER G. TRABER, JAMES C. CZIRR, JACK W. CALLICUTT, GILBERT F. AMELIO, KEVIN D. FREEMAN, ARTHUR R. GREENBERG, ROD D. MARTIN, JOHN F. MAULDIN, STEVEN PRELACK, HERMAN PAUL PRESSLER, III, and DR. MARC RUBIN, Defendants. And GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS, INC., Nominal Defendant, CASE NOS. 3:14-CV-00399- RCJ-WGC, 3:14-CV-00402-RCJ-WGC, (D. Nev.). This case arises from Galectin Therapeutics, Inc.'s alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This case is the consolidation of multiple suits brought by Galectin shareholders claiming that Galectin engaged in securities fraud. The Class Action Defendants and the Derivative Action Defendants filed motions to transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia. "[T]he Court determines, in its discretion, that transferring the Derivative Action would also best serve the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, and the interest of justice," wrote Judge Jones in his amended order dated January 21, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/r4Q5cK from Leagle.com. "[T]he Clerk shall transfer the consolidated cases numbers 3:14-CV-00402-RCJ-WGC and 3:14-CV-00399-RCJ-WGC to the Northern District of Georgia and to close the cases administratively in this District." Marissa Ballesteros, Plaintiff, represented by Darren J. Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David C. Walton, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Debra Wyman, Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP, David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. & William M. O'Mara, The O'Mara Law Firm, PC. Bradford C. Gelzayd, Plaintiff, represented by Casey Sadler, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. & Robert V. Prongay, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Jesus Garcia Gombau, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog & Robert A Riether, Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog, P.C. David L Hasbrouck, Plaintiff, represented by Frank J. Johnson, Johnson & Weaver, LLP, Nathan Hamler & Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty & Associates Chtd. Sui Yip, Plaintiff, represented by Brett D. Stecker, The Weiser Law Firm, P.C., Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, The Weiser Law Firm, P.C., John P. Aldrich, Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd., Robert B. Weiser, The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. & Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty & Associates Chtd. Michael Canton, Plaintiff, represented by Curtis B. Coulter, Law Offices of Curtis B. Coulter PC. Deannamarie B Fonseca, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog. Jose Garcia, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog. Michele Minnick, Plaintiff, represented by David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. Dale Szymanski, Plaintiff, represented by David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. Glenn Pratt, Plaintiff, represented by Glenn Pratt PRO SE. Isreal Avecedo, Movant, represented by Erik D. Buzzard, Palumbo Bergstrom LLP. Glyn Hotz, Movant, represented by Kirk B. Lenhard, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Naumon A Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Ryan Thomas Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. Rene Castillo, Movant, represented by Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC & Mark D Wray, Law Offices of Mark Wray. Leong J. Trung, individually and jointly with her husband Dr. John Tung, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Robert Burke, Movant, represented by Barry L. Breslow, Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low, Peter Borkon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Reed R Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Keegan G. Low, Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low. Galectin Therapeutics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith, King & Spalding LLP, Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. James C. Czirr, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith, King & Spalding LLP, Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. Peter G. Traber, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith, King & Spalding LLP, Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. Jack W. Callicutt, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith, King & Spalding LLP, Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. Gilbert F. Amelio, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. Kevin D Freeman, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. Arthur R. Greenberg, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. Rod D Martin, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. John F Mauldin, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. Steven Prelack, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. Marc Rubin, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. Herman Paul Pressler, III, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell. GATEWAY FUNDING: Faces "Rocha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Rocha and Ralph Jeter, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-00482 (E.D. Pa., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P. is a national mortgage bank that provides mortgage banking services to consumers in Pennsylvania, Utah, New Jersey, and other states across the country. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. KOLMAN ELY PC 414 Hulmeville Ave Penndel, PA 19047 Telephone: (215) 750-3134 E-mail: dcohenlaw@comcast.net - and - Erik H. Langeland, Esq. 733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 354-6270 E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com - and - Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROPUP, PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com GOLD BUYER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosie Vaughan, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. Gold Buyer of Orange Park, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Saqib Siddiq, individually, and Rohan P. Shan, individually, Case No. 3:15-cv-00104 (M.D. Fla., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Gold Buyer of Orange Park, Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation that buys and sells gold items. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eddie Easa Farah, Esq. FARAH & FARAH, PA 3rd Floor, 10 W Adams St Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 807-3180 Facsimile: (904) 358-5300 E-mail: efarah@farahandfarah.com GOLDEN HOMES: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Kiana Rodgers, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Golden Homes Services, LLC, a Georgia Company, Case No. 1:15- cv-00336 (N.D. Ga., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Golden Homes Services, LLC is a staffing company that places its employees at its client's assisted living facilities in the state of Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly N. Martin, Esq. Thomas F. Martin, Esq. MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP P.O. Box 1070 Tucker, GA 30085-1070 Telephone: (770) 313-5538 Facsimile: (770) 837-2678 E-mail: Kimberlymartinlaw@gmail.com tfmartinlaw@msn.com GRACO CHILDREN'S: Fails to Sink "Long" Complaint ------------------------------------------------ District Judge James Donato denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case SETH LONG, Plaintiff, v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS INC., et al., Defendants, Case NO. 13-CV-01257-JD (N.D. Cal.) Graco Children's Products Inc. sold and distributed car seats for infants and children, which are equipped with QT and QT3 buckles. Seth Long contends that the harness buckles were unduly difficult and at times impossible to unlatch, but that Graco concealed the problem and affirmatively advertised the car seats as having a harness that helps you get baby in and out. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a Recall Request Letter to Graco asking that it recall all model year 2009-2013 car seats equipped with the defective buckles. Long alleges claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The putative class consists of "California residents who purchased a Graco car seat in California, from January 1, 2009, to the present, that was equipped" with the QT or QT3 buckles. Defendants Graco and Newell Rubbermaid Inc. move to dismiss on jurisdiction grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The defendants also seek to strike plaintiff's class allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) on the grounds that the putative class is not ascertainable and that the class action is not a superior form of adjudication in light of Graco's recall. Judge Donato denied the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and deferred the motion to strike. The motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice, and the motion to strike is deferred pending class certification proceedings. A copy of Judge Donato's order dated December 17, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/96cXVUfrom Lealgle.com. Seth Long, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan L. Lurie -- Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert Kenneth Friedl -- Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Cody Robert Padgett -- Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Tarek H. Zohdy -- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Lawyers, APC; Mark Samuel Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Graco Children's Products Inc., Defendant, represented by Rocky N. Unruh -- runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Joseph J. Krasovec, III -- jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Yakov Paul Wiegmann -- ywiegmann@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff Hardin LLP; John Alexander Vogt -- javogt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rocky N. Unruh -- runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Joseph J. Krasovec, III -- jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Yakov Paul Wiegmann -- ywiegmann@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff Hardin LLP Graco Children's Products Inc., plaintiff, represented by Rocky N. Unruh -- runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Joseph J. Krasovec, III -- jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Yakov Paul Wiegmann -- ywiegmann@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff Hardin LLP; John Alexander Vogt -- javogt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., plaintiff, represented by Rocky N. Unruh -- runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Joseph J. Krasovec, III -- jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Yakov Paul Wiegmann -- ywiegmann@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff Hardin LLP AmSafe Commercial Products, Inc., AmSafe Partners, Inc., AmSafe, Inc., defendants, represented by Nathaniel Peardon Garrett -- ngarrett@jonesday.com -- Ann Theresa Rossum -- atrossum@jonesday.com -- Richard Joseph Bedell -- rjbedell@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day GUARANTEED INVESTMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Galina Pikh and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Guaranteed Investment, L.L.C., Mikhail Zelner, Case No. 1:15-cv-20400 (S.D. Fla., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a financial investment company in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PC 300 71st Stree, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM HENRY FORD: Mich. App. Flips Cert. Ruling, Remands Patient Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed the grant of certification and remanded the case of JANE DOE and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, and PERRY JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES INC, Defendant/Cross-Defendant-Appellant, and C TECH LLC, Cross- Defendant. JANE DOE and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs- Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEMS, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and PERRY JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES INC, Defendant/Cross-Defendant, and C TECH LLC, Cross-Defendant, NOS. 317973, 317975 ( Mich. App.) Perry Johnson provides transcription services for Henry Ford Health Systems involving patient records. Vingspan, a subcontractor of Perry Johnson made a configuration change to their server which left certain patient records unprotected. Googlebot, Google's automated web crawler, indexed the information, thereby making it possible to find patient information through Google's search engine. After Henry Ford learned of the problem, all information was removed from access on the Internet, the affected patients were notified, and steps were taken to more adequately protect patient information. Following Henry Ford's notification to the patients, plaintiff filed a lawsuit and sought class certification. Her suit includes, negligence, invasion of privacy in the form of public disclosure of private facts, and breach of contract under the theory that she was a third party beneficiary of Henry Health's agreement with Perry Johnson. Plaintiff's complaint sought all damages suffered by her and those similarly situated. The class consisted of 320 individuals who had doctor's visits at Henry Ford between June 3, and July 18, 2008. Over objections from Perry Johnson and Henry Ford, the trial court granted class certification, but the trial court later reduced that number to the 159 members. Both Perry Johnson and Henry Ford moved for summary disposition, and the trial court denied those motions. Henry Ford and Perry Johnson both appealed as on leave granted from the denial of their respective motions for summary disposition. Also, plaintiff filed a cross-appeal, contesting the trial court's reduction of the class from 320 individuals to 159. The Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed the grant of class certification and remanded the case for entry of summary disposition in favor of Henry Ford and Perry Johnson. A copy of the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion dated December 18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/CMNgRmfrom Leagle.com The Michigan Court of Appeals panel consists of Presiding Judge Christopher M. Murray and Judges Henry William Saad and Joel P. Hoekstra. HILLSIDE TIRE: Faces "Cepeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin L. Cepeda v. Hillside Tire Shop, Inc., and Gennadiy Barayev, Case No. 1:15-cv-00530 (E.D.N.Y., February 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. The Defendants own and operate a tire business located at 132-06 Hillside Avenue, Richmond Hill, New York 11418. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com HOLLISTER BISTRO'S: "Reitenga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Reitenga, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Hollister Bistro's LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Steven J. Hollister, and Denise Hollister, Case No. 2:15- cv-00058 (M.D. Fla., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, damages, penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Lee County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com IKEA CANADA: Recalls VYSSA Crib Mattresses ------------------------------------------ Starting date: January 13, 2015 Posting date: January 13, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-43355 Affected products: IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses The recall involves IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses with date stamp "May 4, 2014" or earlier. IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses include these models: VACKERT VINKA SPELEVINK SLOA SLUMMER The product name and date stamp are found on a label sewn onto the mattress. IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses are designed to be used with IKEA cribs to ensure a snug fit and safe sleeping environment for your baby. A gap between the mattress and the side or end of the crib that is greater than 3 cm poses an entrapment hazard for an infant. Health Canada has received one consumer incident report related to this advisory for a VYSSA crib mattress. IKEA Canada has received 10 reports in Canada of a potential gap created between the VYSSA mattress and the end of the crib, posing a safety hazard for infants. No injuries have been reported to Health Canada nor IKEA Canada related to this advisory. Approximately 63,800 VYSSA crib mattresses have been sold at IKEA stores across Canada and online at www.ikea.ca. The VYSSA crib mattresses have been manufactured in Mexico and sold since 2010 in Canada. Companies: Manufacturer IKEA Canada Limited Partnership Burlington Ontario Canada Consumers should check the gap between the IKEA VYSSA crib mattress and the side and end of the crib. If the gap is greater than 3 cm, consumers should immediately stop using the affected product and return it to any IKEA store for an exchange or a full refund. For more information, consumers may contact IKEA Canada by telephone toll-free at 1-800-661-9807 or visit IKEA's website. INTEGRITY FACILITY: Faces "Ellison" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Lynell Ellison, and all others similarly situated v. Integrity Facility Solutions, Inc., Schindler Development Systems, Inc., d/b/a Janitorial Concepts and Dan Schindler, Case No. 3:15-cv- 00312 (N.D. Tex., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants provide janitorial services to building facilities within the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: William E. Reid, Esq. REID & DENNIS PC 15660 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75248 Telephone: (972) 991-2626 Facsimile: (972) 991-2678 E-mail: wreid@reiddennis.com J3 OIL: "Mena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Mena on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. J3 Oil & Gas, Inc., and Distribution Solutions, LLC, Case No. 5:15- cv-00083 (W.D. Tex., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants provide drilling services of oil well sites in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Padgett Jr., Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (800) 634-8042 Facsimile: (800) 867-4455 E-mail: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com JBI INC: Final Approval Hearing Set for April 27 ------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Robert C. Jones of District of Nevada approves the preliminary settlement of the parties in the case HOWARD L. HOWELL, Lead Plaintiff, ELLISA PANCOE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. JBI, INC., f/k/a 310 HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN BORDYNUIK, and RONALD BALDWIN, JR., Defendants, Case No. 3:11-CV-00545-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev.) The parties have made an application, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), for an order preliminary approving the settlement of case, in which the court finds the settlement to be the result of an arms-length negotiation and is sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate to the class members. The settlement hearing shall be held on April 27, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. to determine whether the proposed settlement of the litigation on the 10:00 a.m. terms and conditions provided for in the stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the class and should be approved by the Court; whether a judgment as provided in the stipulation should be entered herein; whether the proposed plan of allocation should be approved; whether to certify the settlement class; whether to approve the plaintiffs' application for their reasonable costs and expenses, including lost wages directly relating to their representation of the class; and to determine the amount of fees that should be awarded to lead counsel. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court preliminarily certifies, solely for the purposes of effectuating the settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired JBI's securities between August 28, 2009 and January 4, 2012, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the class are defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families, any entity in which any defendant has or had a legal controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any defendant. There has been no prior notice to class members of the certification of the class in the litigation or prior opportunity for any person or entity to request to be excluded from the Class. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees, and Settlement Fairness Hearing the Proof of Claim and Release form, and Summary Notice The Court further finds that the mailing, posting, and publishing of the Notice, Proof of Claim, and Summary, meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process, is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled thereto. The Court appoints Gilardi & Co. LLC -- Claims Administrator -- to supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of claims. Nominees who purchased or acquired JBI, Inc. securities between August 28,2009 and January 4, 2012, inclusive, shall send the Notice and the Proof of Claim to all beneficial owners of such JBI, Inc. securities within twenty (20) days after receipt thereof, or send a list of the names and addresses of such beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator within twenty (20) days of receipt thereof, in which event the Claims Administrator shall promptly mail the Notice and the Proof of Claim to such beneficial owners. Class Counsel shall, if requested, reimburse banks, brokerage houses or other nominees solely for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing the Notice to beneficial owners who are Class Members out of the Settlement Fund, which expenses would not have been incurred except for the sending of such Notice, subject to further order of this Court with respect to any dispute concerning such compensation. Any Person falling within the definition of the Class may, upon request, be excluded from the Class. Any such Person must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion ("Request for Exclusion"), postmarked no later than 21 days prior to the Settlement Hearing. A Request for Exclusion must state (a) the name, address, and telephone number of the Person requesting exclusion; (b) each of the Person's purchases and sales of JBI, Inc. securities made during the Class Period, including the dates of purchase or sale, the number of shares purchased and/or sold, and the price paid or received per share for each such purchase or sale; and (c) that the Person wishes to be excluded from the Class. All Persons who submit valid and timely Requests for Exclusion in the manner set forth in this paragraph shall have no rights under the Settlement, shall not share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, and shall not be bound by the Settlement or the Judgment entered in this Litigation. Class Members (other than those Persons or entities who shall validly request exclusion from the Class) who wish to participate in the Settlement shall complete and submit a Proof of Claim form in accordance with the instructions contained therein. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all Proof of Claim forms must be postmarked within 120 calendar days after the date of this Preliminary Approval Order. Any Class Member who does not timely submit a Proof of Claim shall be barred from sharing in the distribution of the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Any Member of the Class may appear and show cause, if he, she or it has any reason why the proposed Settlement of the Litigation should or should not be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, why a Judgment should or should not be entered thereon, why the Plan of Allocation should or should not be approved, or why attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should or should not be awarded to Plaintiffs or Class Counsel; provided, however, that no Class Member or any other Person shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement, or, if approved, the Judgment to be entered thereon approving the same, or the order approving the Plan of Allocation, or the attorneys' fees and expenses to be awarded to Plaintiffs or Class Counsel, unless that Person has filed said objections, papers and briefs with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, no later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the Settlement Hearing and delivered copies of any such papers to counsel identified in the Notice, such that they are received on or before such date. Any Member of the Class who does not make his, her or its objection in the manner provided shall be deemed to have waived such objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making any such objection, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Class Members objection to the Settlement must follow the requirements in the Notice. All papers in support of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of expenses, and the application for attorneys' fees and expenses, shall be filed and served not later than 35 days prior to the Settlement Hearing. Any papers in further support of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of expenses, and the application for attorneys' fees, shall be filed and served no later than 10 days prior to the Settlement Hearing. Pending the Settlement Hearing, the Court stays all proceedings in the Litigation, other than proceedings necessary to carry out or enforce the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. A copy of Judge Jones's order dated December 18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/HPcrYpfrom Leagle.com Plaintiffs, represented by: David C OMara, Esq. THE OMARA LAW FIRM, P.C. 311 E. Liberty St. Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: 775-323-1321 Facsimile: 755-323-4082 - and - Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-201-9510 E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com lglancy@glancylaw.com mgoldberg@glancylaw.com Tim Amos, Movant, represented by Laurence M Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Patrick R. Leverty -- pat@levertylaw.com -- at Leverty & Associates Chtd JBI, Inc., John Bordynuik and Ronald Baldwin, Jr., Defendants, represented by Richard G. Campbell, Jr. -- rcampbell@armstrongteasdale.com -- Bret F Meich -- bmeich@armstrongteasdale.com -- at Armstrong Teasdale LLP; Katherine W. Wittenberg -- katherine.wittenberg@FaegreBD.com -- Michael R. MacPhail -- michael.macphail@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP KTM: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models ------------------------------------ Starting date: January 12, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 691 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015011 TC ID number: 2015011 On certain motorcycles, inner front fork components may not have been tightened properly. This could allow the inner front fork to become loose and cause the suspension to stick. Should the suspension become stuck, this could affect the vehicle handling and lead to a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, tighten the loose components. Affected products: 2015 KTM 250 SX-F LAND O' LAKES: Court Narrows Discovery Bid in FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder of the Eastern District of California ruled on the parties' motions in the case ARTURO SALGADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. LAND O' LAKES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; KOZY SHACK ENTERPRISES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, Defendants, CASE No. 1:13-CV-0798-LJO-SMS (E.D. Cal.) Plaintiff Arturo Salgado brings a putative class action against defendant Land O'Lakes, Inc. (LOL) and Kozy Shack Enterprises, Inc. (KS) for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and California state wage and hour laws. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that in violation of various California Labor Codes, Defendants failed to pay minimum wages in violation of Section 1197, failed to pay wages owed in violation of Sections 201, 203, 216, 218.5 and 227.3, failed to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of Sections 226.7(b) and 512(a), failed to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Section 226(a), failed to timely pay wages upon termination in violation of Section 201-02, failed to pay accrued vacation pay upon termination in violation of Section 227.3, failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of Sections 510 and 1194, engaged in unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.; and conversion. Salgado filed a motion to compel further production of documents and dissemination of a class notice. Particularly plaintiff seeks production of documents relating to wage statement, payroll and time-keeping records, as well as contact information for putative class members at LOL facilities state-wide. Defendants object to the scope of plaintiff's discovery requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants object to the wage statement, payroll, and time document requests on the grounds that plaintiff seeks records protected by individual privacy rights regarding wages and employment issues and lastly, defendants vigorously oppose providing the requested information, emphasizing the invasive nature of the financial information requested. Defendants' filed a motion for protective order. Magistrate Judge Snyder granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to compel. To the extent plaintiff request information relative to putative class members from all LOL facilities in California, the motion is denied. Precertification discovery shall be limited to records pertaining to putative class members, which the court defines as those individuals formerly or currently employed during the class period at the Turlock-Teg Facility. Magistrate Judge Snyder compels defendants to produce; (1) Wage statements for a random sample of 20% of the putative class members, for the period July-August 2012; (2) Time-keeping documents for a random sample of 20% of the putative class members, for the duration of the class period; (3) A list of names, addresses, and contact information of all putative class members formerly or presently employed at the Turlock-Teg Facility during the class period. Parties' counsel shall meet and confer regarding the terms of a proposed order as outlined at length in section IV(2). On or before 15 days from the date of the Order, the parties shall file a joint motion for protective order for the Court's review setting forth, at a minimum, the terms to govern the use of the to-be- disclosed names, addresses, telephone numbers, contact information, and documents, such terms to be drafted to protect the privacy interests of the third parties. The parties shall ensure that the proposed protective order contains the language required by Local Rules. Plaintiff's request for a Belaire notice is dismissed as moot. Seeking to compel production of payroll records, the motion is denied without prejudice. The Court has limited precertification discovery to the Turlock- Teg Facility, and defendants' motion for a protective order relative to state-wide discovery is dismissed as moot. A copy of Magistrate Judge Snyder's order dated December 17, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/pQpK1ifrom Leagle.com. Arturo Salgado, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Gundzik -- agundzik@gghslaw.com -- Rebecca Gilbert Gundzik -- rgundzik@gghslaw.com -- at Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton LLP; Neal J. Fialko -- at Law Office of Neal J. Fialkow, Inc. Land O' Lakes, Inc. and Kozy Shack Enterprises, Inc., Defendants, represented by Emilie Consuelo Woodhead -- ewoodhead@winston.com -- Emily C. Schuman -- eschuman@winston.com -- Joan Tucker Fife -- jfife@winston.com -- at Winston and Strawn LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Farias" Suit Over Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Farias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., John Barbour, and Raymond L. Arthur, Case No. 3:15-cv-00478 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. is a developer of educational entertainment for children. The Company's product portfolio consists of multimedia learning platforms and related content, and learning toys. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com info@glancylaw.com LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Grayson" Suit Over Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bette R. Grayson, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc., John Barbour, and Raymond L. Arthur, Case No. 3:15-cv-00453 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. is a developer of educational entertainment for children. The Company's product portfolio consists of multimedia learning platforms and related content, and learning toys. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com info@glancylaw.com - and - Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Roy Herrera Jr., Esq. Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 59-4600 Facsimile: (212) 86-2093 E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com RFinkel@wolfpopper.com rherrera@wolfpopper.com fqian@wolfpopper.com LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Trax" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Offers ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Trax, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LifeLock, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00220 (S.D. Cal., February 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making automatic renewal offers and continuous service offers without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms. LifeLock, Inc. owns and operates a company that offers what it claims is comprehensive identity theft protection to help safeguard the finances, credit and good name of consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Hyde, Esq. Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Sara F. Khosroabadi, Esq HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com josh@westcoastlitigation.com sara@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com LOVE 466 AVENUE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kal1sha Thomas, individually and on behalf of all other similarly- situated v. Love 466 Avenue of The Americas, Inc. d/b/a Ricky's NYC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00674 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate 29 stores all under the name of Ricky's NYC, primarily selling beauty supplies, but also carrying Halloween costumes and adult-themed sex products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth J. Chen, Esq. Jeanne-Marie Bates Christensen, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl. New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 E-mail: echen@wigdorlaw.com jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com MAVIMA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Valencia" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Emilio Vidal Valencia, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated and as class representative v. Mavima Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Brio Restaurant, Massimo Scoditti Sr., Massimo Carbone, and Massimo Scoditti Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-00701 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 786 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10065. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Peter Dawson, Esq. ROSS & ASMAR LLC 499 Seventh Avenue, 23rd Floor, South Tower New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (516) 524-7239 Facsimile: (212) 736-2873 E-mail: edawson@rossasmar.com - and - Steven Benjamin Ross, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN B. ROSS 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1203 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 736-4201 Facsimile: (212) 736-2873 E-mail: steven@rossasmar.com MEADOWBROOK MEAT: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Covarrubias, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Meadowbrook Meat Company Inc., A North Carolina Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00198 (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Meadowbrook Meat Company Inc. is a North Carolina Corporation manufactures and distributes frozen or cooled food products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Tracy, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 260-9171 Facsimile: (866) 365-3051 E-mail: MTRACY@MICHAELTRACYLAW.COM - and - Jose R. Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY, APLC 9861 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 208-3400 Facsimile: (949) 713-0432 E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com MEDICAL MUTUAL: Faces "Tremmel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Tremmel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Medical Mutual of Ohio, Case No. 1:15-cv-00212 (N.D. Ohio, January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Medical Mutual of Ohio owns and operates a number of call centers in Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonia M. Whitehouse, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. LAZZARO LAW FIRM 920 Rockefeller Bldg. 614 Superior Avenue, W Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: sonia@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com MERSCORP INC: Dismissal of Plymouth County Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Bobby E. Shepherd of the United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the state court dismissing the case Plymouth County, Iowa, Darin J. Raymond, by and through agent of, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Merscorp, Inc.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Bank of America N.A.; BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP; CitiMortgage, Inc.; EverHome Mortgage Company, Defendants-Appellees. GMAC-Residential Funding Corporation, Defendant, HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase Bank; Chase Home Finance LLC; EMC Mortgage Corporation; SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; WMC Mortgage Corporation; John Doe, Defendants 1-100, Defendants-Appellees, Corinthian Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, NO. 13-2334 (8th Cir.) Plymouth County initiated a class action complaint in state court against the Lenders/defendants alleging that they intentionally failed to record mortgage assignments in the county recorder's office and failed to pay the accompanying recording fees in violation of Iowa law. The County brought claims for unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy and sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and to pierce the corporate veil. After removing to federal court, the lenders/defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The lenders/defendants also challenged Plymouth County's standing to bring the suit. The district court granted the lenders'/defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that a determination of whether Iowa's Recording Act imposed a mandatory recording requirement resolved all of the claims. The district court found that the Iowa Recording Act does not impose a duty to record mortgages and assignments in the county where the property is located. Because the district court determined that Iowa law did not impose a mandatory recording requirement, the court dismissed all of the County's claims on the basis that they could not survive in the absence of mandatory recording. After the district court granted the motion to dismiss, Plymouth County filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint, in which the same has been denied. Appeal followed. Judge Shepherd holds that the district court properly dismissed Plymouth County's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and acted within its discretion by denying Plymouth County's motion to alter or amend its complaint. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. A copy of Judge Shepherd's judgment dated December 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/3i4O8jfrom Leagle.com. The Eight Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge William Jay Riley and Judges Bobby E. Shepherd and Steven M. Colloton. MHI HOTELS: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Holland, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. MHI Hotels Services, LLC d/b/a Holiday Inn Palm Beach Airport, Chesapeake Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-80110 (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a hotel management company that regularly transacts business within Palm Beach County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Markel, Esq. THE MARKEL LAW FIRM 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 458-1282 Facsimile: (800) 407-1718 E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com MIDWOOD LUMBER: Faces "Vivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Ezequiel Vivas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Midwood Lumber & Millwork Inc. d/b/a Midwood Lumber & Millwork, Boris Motovich and Alex Motovich, Case No. 1:15-cv-00513 (E.D.N.Y., February 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a lumber processing and millwork company located at 5301 First Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11232. 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 MOISHE'S MINI: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Avila, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Moishe's Mini Storage of Chicago, LLC and Pawel Makowski, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-01047 (N.D. Ill., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com MON PETIT: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Gervacio Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mon Petit Cafe Inc. d/b/a Mon Petit Cafe, Danielle Delburg, and Alessandra Mac Carthy, Case No. 1:15-cv-00709 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Mon Petit Cafe restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Vivianna Alexandra Morales, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 Facsimile: (212) 308-8582 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com morales@pechmanlaw.com MOTOR COACH: Recalls J Series Model ----------------------------------- Starting date: January 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 2 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015009 TC ID number: 2015009 On certain vehicles equipped with ZF front axles, incorrect routing may allow the brake hose to rub the front tire under certain conditions. This could eventually cause the brake hose protective cover and hose braiding to wear through, resulting in loss of or reduced air pressure to the front brake chamber during brake application. This could reduce braking system performance and increase stopping distances, or cause uneven brake application on the front axle, potentially affecting vehicle control. These issues could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: To be determined. Affected products: 2013, 2014, 2015 MCI J Series NATIONAL CASH: "Spangler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Spangler, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. National Cash Register Company, a Maryland Corporation, and Field Solutions, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00022 (N.D. Ga., February 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate call centers located within the State of Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. P.O. Box 4979, 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Judge Compels Arbitration in "Schriever" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the Middle District of Florida granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion in the case RICHARD SCHRIEVER and PAMELA SCHRIEVER, Plaintiffs, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-596-FTM-38CM (M.D. Fla.) The plaintiff Pamela Schriever executed a promissory note and borrowed funds from the defendant Navient Solutions, in which Richard Schriever is the co-signer. The defendant made several calls to plaintiffs' home telephone and cellular phone numbers. As a result of the alleged telephone calls, the plaintiffs filed a law suit in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Charlotte County, Florida. The defendant removed the case to present court and now moves to dismiss or compel arbitration based upon the arbitration clause in the note. The defendant argues the case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or in the alternative the court should compel arbitration pursuant to the note's arbitration agreement. The plaintiffs argue the defendant's motion should be denied because the case was removed to this court based upon federal question jurisdiction, the defendant failed to comply with M.D. Fla. Local Rule 3.01(g), and further the defendant has waived its right to arbitration. Judge Chappell granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. The Defendant is directed to inform the Court in writing when arbitration is scheduled, and inform the Court within 10 days of the arbitration's completion as to the status of the case. A copy of Judge Chappell's order dated December 17, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/MfrYOOfrom Leagle.com Richard Schriever and Pamela Schriever, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph C. LoTempio -- JLoTempio@DellutriLawGroup.com -- The Dellutri Law Group, PA Navient Solutions, Inc., formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc., Defendant, represented by: Laura Hardy Compton, Esq. Scott Parker Yount, Esq. GARRISON, YOUNT, FORTE, & MULCAHY, LLC 601 Bayshore Blvd. Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33606-2760 Telephone: 813-275-0404 Facsimile: 813-275-0304 NEWMAR: Recalls Essex Diesel Pusher Motorhome Model --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 12, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 2 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015012 TC ID number: 2015012 On certain vehicles, the steering column slip shaft may have inadequate spline engagement. This could lead to wear and potentially result in the steering shaft becoming disconnected or slipping, causing a loss of steering control and increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will replace the affected slip shafts with those that will have the minimum specified engagement. Affected products: 2015 Newmar Essex Diesel Pusher Motorhome NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Summary Judgment Bid Okayed in "Nelson" ------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Joseph E. Irenas of the District of New Jersey granted defendant Nissan North America, Inc.'s (NNA) motion for summary judgment in the case TAMEKA NELSON, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, CIV. NO. 11-5712 (JEI/AMD) (D.N.J.) Plaintiff Tameka Nelson purchased a used 2006 model year Nissan Maxima from Rancho Valley Chevrolet in California in 2006. Plaintiffs including Nelson, filed a putative class action suit against Nissan North America, asserting that they were injured by a design defect common to the 5-speed, automatic transmissions of their Nissan Maxima vehicles modet years 2004 through 2006. Nelson asserts four claims under California law: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (3) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and (4) unjust enrichment. NNA filed a motion for Summary Judgment on plaintiff Nelson's claims. Judge Irenas granted defendant NNA's motion for summary judgment. A copy of Senior Judge Irenas's opinion dated December 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/F3thSSfrom Leagle.com. Counsel for Plaintiffs: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Cory S. Fein, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN, P.C. 1331 Lamar Street, Suite 1070 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: 713-581-8295 Facsimile: 713-751-0906 - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP 361 West Lancaster Ave One Haverford Centre Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: 610-642-8500 Facsimile: 610-649-3633 Email: JosephSauder@chimicles.com MatthewSchelkopf@chimicles.com BenJohns@chimicles.com Martin Healy -- martin.healy@sedgwicklaw.com -- E. Paul Cauley, Jr. -- paul.cauley@sedgwicklaw.com -- S. Vance Witte -- vance.wittie@sedgwicklaw.com -- at SEDGWICK LLP, Counsel for Defendants PGA TOUR: Doesn't Pay Caddies Endorsement Services, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- William Michael Hicks, et al., and all others similarly situated v. PGA Tour, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00489 (N.D. Cal., February 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of unlawfully forcing golf caddies to wear the logos of the corporate sponsors without remuneration, and to preclude the Defendant from forcing caddies to provide these endorsement services gratuitously in the future. PGA Tour, Inc. organizes and promotes numerous golf tournaments throughout the state of California and maintains a permanent office in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Cirsch, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 277-5100 Facsimile: (310) 277-5103 E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com - and - W. Mark Lanier, Esq. Eugene R. Egdorf, Esq. Benjamin T. Major, Esq. Ryan D. Ellis, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 6810 FM 1960 West Houston, TX 77069 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com gene.egdorf@lanierlawfirm.com ben.major@lanierlawfirm.com ryan.ellis@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Arthur R. Miller, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PLLC 126 East 56th Street, 6th Floor Tower 56 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-2800 Facsimile: (212) 421-2878 E-mail: Arthur.miller@lanierlawfirm.com PIERCE: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models --------------------------------------- Starting date: January 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 6 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015005 TC ID number: 2015005 On certain vehicles, the lower control arms may have developed cracks at time of manufacture and may fail. This could cause partial suspension failure and could result in a loss of control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Owners will be provided with inspection instructions to determine if the control arms may be subject to the recall. Those found to be potentially affected will be inspected by the manufacturer and replaced as necessary. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- PIERCE ENFORCER 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 PIERCE QUANTUM 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 PIERCE ARROW XT 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 PIERCE VELOCITY 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 PIERCE IMPEL 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 PRIME TIME: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Martinez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Prime Time Restaurant and Bar Corp and George Les, Case No. 1:15-cv-01049 (N.D. Ill., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens,Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com RETROFITNESS LL: Ardino et al. Suit Goes Back to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Joel A. Pisano of the District of New Jersey remanded to the New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County, the case JOSEPH ARDINO, SAMANTHA ARDINO, KRISTA A. DEFAZIO, SCOTT RICHTER, JAMES HEANEY, and PHILLIP MAZZUCO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RETROFITNESS, LLC, ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Z TIMES THREE LLC d/b/a RETROFITNESS OF KENILWORTH, BRITCARIANNA, LLC d/b/a RETROFITNESS-FAIRFIELD, PJ'S FITNESS EXPRESS, INC. d/b/a RETROFITNESS OF BORDENTOWN, PRJ HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a RETROFITNESS OF WALL, JOHN/JANE DOES 1-100, DEFENDANT RETROFITNESS FRANCHISES 1-75 and XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14- CV-01567 (JAP) (D.N.J.) RetroFitness and the defendant franchisees are citizens of New Jersey, while ABC Financial Services Company, Inc. is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Arkansas and maintains its principal place of business in Sherwood Arkansas. RetroFitness is alleged to be a corporation that sells franchises of its health clubs in New Jersey. ABC Financial is responsible for collecting all membership dues and other fees payable by members of all New Jersey franchisees of RetroFitness, and ABC Financial is further required to deduct all monies owed by New Jersey franchisees of RetroFitness to RetroFitness and to remit such monies directly to RetroFitness. The plaintiffs, Joseph Ardino, Samantha Ardino, Krista Defazio, Scott Richter, James Heaney, and Phillip Mazzuco are identified as buyers of health club services. Plaintiffs' assert that RetroFitness and the Defendant franchisees are misrepresenting the member's payment obligation in violation of various New Jersey state laws. Plaintiff's class action complaint contains causes of action relating to defendants' alleged violations of the Health Club Services Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-39, et seq.(HCSA), the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq. (CFA), the Retail Installment Sales Act,N.J.S.A. 17:16C-1, et seq. (RISA), and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act,N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to 18 (WNA). Plaintiffs filed the complaint before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County. ABC Financial removed the matter to this Court, asserting that the underlying jurisdictional basis for removal was the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). Plaintiffs move the District Court to remand the matter, contending, among other things, that the local controversy exception to the CAFA applies. ABC Financial disagrees, and also, along with RetroFitness and the franchisee defendants, moves to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Pisano granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County, and denied all defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice as being moot. A copy of Judge Pisano's opinion dated December 18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/nbBdJ9- from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW R. WOLF -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- ANDREW WEI LI -- ali@wolflawfirm.net -- at THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC; JOHN N. POULOS -- poulos@pllawfirm.com -- at POULOS LOPICCOLO PC; JOSEPH K. JONES -- at LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES RETROFITNESS, LLC, Defendant, represented by EVAN MATTHEW GOLDMAN -- evan@marksklein.com -- JUSTIN M. KLEIN -- justin@marksklein.com -- at MARKS & KLEIN, LLP ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by JONATHAN A. CASS -- jcass@cohenseglias.com -- at COHEN, SEGLAS, PALLAS, GREENHALL & FURMAN Z TIMES THREE LLC, BRITCARIANNA, LLC and PJ'S FITNESS EXPRESS, INC., Defendants, represented by JOSHUA S. BAUCHNER -- jb@ansellgrimm.com -- at ANSELL GRIMM & AARON ROBERTA MOORE: Faces "Tzintzun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jetzary Tzintzun and Brisa Gorosieta, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Roberta Moore, Inc. d/b/a Bobbie's Screen Printing and Roberta Moore, Case No. 1:15-cv-01048 (N.D. Ill., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. The Defendants own and operate a screen printing business in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com ROCHDALE VILLAGE: Faces "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lynica Morales, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rochdale Village Inc., Marion Scott Real Estate, Inc., Marion Scott, and Herbert Freedman, Case No. 1:15-cv-00502 (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, damages, penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act Rochdale Village Inc. is a cooperative housing development that manages approximately 5,860 residential units located in 20 high- rise buildings. Marion Scott Real Estate, Inc. specializes in the management of government assisted housing in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee S. Shalov, Esq. McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Ave., 17th Fl New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 Facsimile: (212) 448-0066 E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com SAN BERNARDINO: Appellate Court Keeps Ruling in "Williams" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Thomas E. Hollenhorst of the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two, rejected plaintiffs' contention and affirmed the trial court's decision in the case BARBARA ANN WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. E057635 (Cal. App.) The plaintiffs and appellants Barbara Ann Williams, Shelda Vinson, and Karen Branch filed a suit against County of San Bernardino and Patricia Wilson for employment discrimination and wrongful termination action on September 11, 2007. On February 13, 2009, plaintiffs added class action allegations. More than three years later, on April 5, 2012, defendants moved to strike the class action allegations. On April 18, 2012, plaintiffs moved to certify the class, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.764. The court denied plaintiffs' motion on May 25, 2012. From February 2009 through May 2012, the court held at least three trial setting conferences and at least six case management conferences. Plaintiffs never asked for a trial date, nor did they take any further steps to manage the progress of their case to trial. On August 27, 2012, defendants moved for dismissal of this action pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Sections 583.310 and 583.360. On September 26, 2012, the court found that plaintiffs had failed to act with diligence in bringing the case to trial, and ordered the action dismissed. Plaintiffs timely appealed. Plaintiffs contend the trial court (1) abused its discretion in not setting a trial date at the ex parte hearing after indicating that its calendar was free to do so; (2) erred in dismissing this action in its entirety; (3) heard and decided three motions for partial summary judgment in violation of section 437c, subdivision (f)(1); and (4) improperly granted each of the motions for partial summary adjudication. Justice Hollenhorst rejected plaintiffs' contentions and affirmed the trial court's decision in dismissing the action. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to specially set the case for trial and defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to sections 583.310 and 583.360. A copy of Justice Hollenhorst's unpublished opinion dated December 18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/D6VooPfrom Leagle.com For Plaintiffs and Appellants: Rob Hennig, Esq. Brandon Ruiz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROB HENNIG 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1960 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-843-0020 Facsimile: 310-843-9150 For Defendants and Respondents: Calvin House, Esq. Clifton A. Baker, Esq. GUTIERREZ, PRECIADO & HOUSE 3020 E. Colorad Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91107 Telephone: 888-680-8579 Facsimile: 626-449-2330 The Court of Appeals of California Fourth District panel consists of Presiding Justice Manuel A. Ramirez and Justices Thomas E. Hollenhorst and Douglas P. Miller. SANOFI: Faces "de Brabander" Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Ellen de Brabander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sanofi, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00753 (S.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Sanofi is a global pharmaceutical company that researches, develops and manufactures prescription pharmaceuticals and vaccines. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Adam M. Apton, Esq. ZIMMERMAN, LEVI & KORSINKY, LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 1440 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com aapton@zlk.com SCIFUNERAL SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nina Rossi, Destin Defeo, and Martin Herman v. Scifuneral Services Of New York, Inc., a/k/a Service Corporation International, Case No. 1:15-cv-00473 (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Scifuneral Services of New York, Inc. operates numerous funeral homes in the New York City and around the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 110 Highway 35, 2nd Floor Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (718) 799-9111 Facsimile: (718) 799-9171 E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com SCOTIAN GOLD: Recalls Scotian Gold Apple Slices ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 10, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Scotian Gold Co-operative Limited Distribution: New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9574 Scotian Gold Co-operative Limited is recalling Scotian Gold brand apple slices that used apples sourced from the United States (US) that are now recalled from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities related to the recall of Granny Smith and Gala apples exported by Bidart Bros. in the US. 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. SHELBY HEALTHCARE: Tenn. High Court Rules on Bid to Quash Liens --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled on plaintiffs' motion to quash liens in the case DIANE WEST, ET AL., v. SHELBY COUNTY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION D/B/A REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AT MEMPHIS, NO. W2012-00044-SC-R11-CV (Tenn.) The Regional Medical Center at Memphis (the Med) is a nonprofit hospital operated by the Shelby County Healthcare Corporation. When a patient receives treatment at the hospital, the Med categorizes the patient according to the type of injury and the circumstances surrounding the injury. If the Med decides that a third party may be personally liable for the patient's injuries, the hospital perfects a lien for the full, unadjusted charges for the care the patient received while hospitalized, pursuant to the Tennessee Hospital Lien Act (HLA), Tenn. Code Ann. Sections 29-22- 101 to -107 (2012). Diane West was injured in a motor vehicle accident and was treated at the Med and released on the same day. On August 10, 2006, the Med perfected a lien in the amount of $14,008.97 for medical services it provided Ms. West. Ms. West was insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama (BCBSA) through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBST). Despite the payment received from BCBSA, the Med declined to release its $14,008.97 lien. Jammie Heags-Johnson was also injured in a motor vehicle accident and was treated at the Med and released on the same day. On August 3, 2006, the Med perfected a lien in the amount of $4,304.92 for the medical services it provided Ms. Heags-Johnson on July 21, 2006. On November 22, 2006, the Med perfected an amended lien that included the original $4,304.92, as well as an additional $338.42, unadjusted cost of additional medical services provided to Ms. Heags-Johnson. At the time of the accident, Ms. Heags-Johnson was insured by Accordia National Insurance which is part of the Baptist Health Services Group of the Mid-South, Inc. (BHS"). In accordance with its provider agreement with BHSG, the Med made a $880.98 adjustment to the costs of the services it provided to Ms. Heags- Johnson, and billed her insurance company for $2,952.96. Similarly, the Med made a $67.68 adjustment to the costs of the services it provided and billed Ms. Heags-Johnson's insurance company for $216.59. Ms. Heags-Johnson's insurance company paid the Med $3,169.55. The remaining balance of $525.12 represented co-pays owed to the Med by Ms. Heags-Johnson. Despite receiving payments from Ms. Heags-Johnson's insurance company and Ms. Heags- Johnson's offer to pay the remaining balance of her co-pays, the Med it declined to release its $4,643.34 lien. In doing so, the Med reiterated its position that its hospital lien was for the total unadjusted amount of Ms. Heags-Johnson's charges. On December 26, 2007, West and Heags-Johnson filed a class action suit in the Circuit Court for Shelby County seeking to quash the Med's liens and to recover damages. The lawsuit alleged, in part, that the Med had violated the HLA, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and accused the Med of attempted conversion, intentional interference with contract rights, and intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation. Because of the ERISA claim, the Med removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. After West and Heags-Johnson filed an amended complaint omitting the ERISA claim, the case was remanded to the circuit court. On February 9, 2010, Mses. West and Heags-Johnson filed a second amended complaint, alleging that the Med was engaging in illegal balance billing by receiving payment from its patients' insurance companies while, at the same time, perfecting a hospital lien for the full, unadjusted amount of the cost of the medical services provided. On May 18, 2010, West and Heags-Johnson moved to quash the Med's liens. The court denied the motion to quash. West and Heags-Johnson appealed to the Court of Appeals, which the latter reversed the trial court. Med made an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's refusal to quash the Med's lien against Ms. West. However, it reverses the court of appeals' judgment with regard to Ms. Heags-Johnson and affirmed the trial court's judgment because Ms. Heags-Johnson has not yet fully extinguished her debt to the Med. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. A copy of Justice Koch's opinion dated December 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Z8YhELfrom Leagle.com John I. Houseal, Jr. -- jhouseal@Glankler.com -- Don L. Hearn, Jr. -- DHearn@Glankler.com - at Glankler Brown, PLLC, for the appellant Shelby County Healthcare Corporation, d/b/a Regional Medical Center at Memphis For the appellees, Diane West, Jammie Heags-Johnson, and Charles Garland, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, represented by: Eugene A. Laurenzi, Esq. GOODWIN, MORRIS, LAURENZI & BLOOMFIELD, P.C. 50 North Front Street, Suite 800 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: 901-236-0578 Facsimile: 901-528-0246 - and - A. Wilson Wages, Esq. WAGES LAW FIRM 4557 Shelby Rd. Millington, TN 38053 Telephone: 901-872-8008 Facsimile: 901-872-4503 Email: awages@wageslaw.com For the Amicus Curiae: W. Bryan Smith, Esq. Tennessee Association for Justice 1903 Division Street Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: 615-329-3000 The Supreme Court of Tennessee panel consists of Chief Justice Sharon G. Lee, Justices William C. Koch, Jr., Janice M. Holder, Cornelia Clark and Gary R. Wade SIX AMIGOS: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Soria-Ramirez" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Lazaro Soria-Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Six Amigos, Inc., and Jatin Patel, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-01040 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop located at 4454 North Elston Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com SNC-LAVALIN ENGINEERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Bearicks on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SNC-Lavalin Engineers & Constructors, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00022 (S.D. Tex., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. SNC-Lavalin Engineers & Constructors, Inc. is a construction company conducting business in the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Padgett Jr., Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 E-mail: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com SOUTHERN WRECKER: "O'Neil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia O'Neill, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. Southern Wrecker and Recovery, LLC, a Florida Profit Corporation and Greg Gaylord, Case No. 3:15-cv-00126 (M.D. Fla., February 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Southern Wrecker and Recovery, LLC is a Florida corporation that provides vehicle towing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eddie Easa Farah, Esq. FARAH & FARAH, PA 3rd Floor10 W Adams St Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 807-3180 Facsimile: (904) 358-5300 E-mail: efarah@farahandfarah.com SUPERIOR RECHARGE: Mere Filing of Suit Does Not Waive Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Texas granted the petition for review, reversed the Court of Appeals judgment, and remanded to the trial court the case captioned as, RICHMONT HOLDINGS, INC., NUKOTE HOLDING, INC., NUKOTE INTERNATIONAL, INC., INKBRARY, L.L.C., SUPERIOR ACQUISITIONS L.L.C., JOHN P. ROCHON, SR., JOHN P. ROCHON, JR., KELLY KITTRELL, RUSSELL MACK, C & R SERVICES, INC. AND KENNETH R. SCHLAG, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR RECHARGE SYSTEMS, L.L.C., AND JON BLAKE, Respondents, NO. 13-0907 (Tex.) Richmont Holdings, Inc., through an affiliate, bought the assets of Superior Recharge Systems, L.L.C. The parties' Asset Purchase Agreement contained an arbitration provision. Superior Recharge's part-owner, Jon Blake, agreed to continue as general manager of the business for two years. The employment contract contained a covenant not to compete but not an arbitration clause. After six months, Blake's employment was terminated, allegedly for cause. Superior Recharge and Blake sued Richmont and several of its affiliates and principals in Denton County for fraud, breach of contract, a declaration that the covenant not to compete was unenforceable, and an injunction. Richmont sued Blake individually in Dallas County to enforce the covenant not to compete, invoking a forum selection clause in that agreement, and moved to transfer venue of the Denton County suit to Dallas County or Collin County. In the Denton County suit, Richmont does not appear to have sought discovery other than a request for disclosure. Nineteen months after being sued, Richmont moved to compel arbitration, asserting that Blake's claims arose out of the Asset Purchase Agreement and were therefore subject to arbitration. Blake did not dispute that assertion but argued that Richmont had waived arbitration by engaging in litigation. The trial court denied the motion to compel. The court of appeals affirmed, but not on waiver, the only ground Blake raised. Rather, it held that Blake's claims were not covered by the arbitration agreement. Richmont filed a petition for review. The Supreme Court granted the petition for review and reversed the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case to the trial court. The Supreme Court said the mere filing of a suit does not waive arbitration, even when the movant files a second, separate suit in another county based in part on a contract at issue in the first action and the arbitration provision in the asset purchase agreement has no application to Blake's lawsuit is contrary to the parties' contentions and has no support in the record. A copy of the state Supreme Court's opinion dated December 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/FaZkv3from Leagle.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Herring" Suit Over Defective Airbags --------------------------------------------------------------- Tina Herring, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00056 (N.D. Okla., February 3, 2015), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, they violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel. Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Kanner, Esq. Conlee Schell Whiteley, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY LLC 701 Camp St. New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-5777 Facsimile: (504) 524-5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.whiteley@kanner-law.com - and - Wilfred K. Wright Jr., Esq. WRIGHT LAW PO Box 982 Claremore, OK 74017 Telephone: (918) 341-1923 Facsimile: (918) 341-1923 E-mail: re.9001@yahoo.com TELESTONE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Chao Sun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Telestone Technologies Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00703 (D.N.J., February 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Telestone Technologies Corporation is a Delaware corporation that offers homegrown access-network equipment, such as repeaters, antennas and radio-frequency peripherals, project design, project management, installation, maintenance and other after-sales services to its customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com THRIFTY FOODS: Recalls Veggie Quiche Due to Undeclared Soy ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Soy Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Thrifty Foods Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9571 Affected products: 250 g. Thrifty Kitchens Veggie - Roasted Artichoke, Sundried Tomato, Spinach, Kale & Feta Quiche TULSA INSPECTION: "Fenley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tommy L. Fenley, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Tulsa Inspection Resources, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02316 (D. Kan., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Tulsa Inspection Resources, LLC is a limited liability company providing pipeline inspection and pipeline integrity services to companies in the oil and gas industry throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Dirks, Esq. Williams Dirks Dameron, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 Facsimile: (816) 221-8763 E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net akoropey@bm.net UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Secure Business Licenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miadeco Corp., B & S Taxi Corp., Checker Cab Operators, Inc., Mr. Phil Ellis Lowery, Ms. Minnie Mae Lowery, Ms. Eddielene G. Lowery Brown, Mr. Arnett Jr. Lee, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-20356 (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' illegal practice of operating as a passenger service company without for-hire licenses. The Defendants own and operate a passenger service company that provides for-hire transportation services to consumers in Miami- Dade County through the use of a smartphone application designed to act as a means to dispatch its drivers to customers through internet communications. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ralph George Patino, Esq. PATINO & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 550 Biltmore Way, Suite 740 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 443-6163 Facsimile: 443-5635 E-mail: rpatino@patinolaw.com UNCLE T FOOD: Recalls Wei Hsin and Yu Hsiang Bean Curd Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 12, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Uncle T Food Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9580 UNITED STATES: Court Dismissed Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction ------------------------------------------------------------ Senior District Judge Ortrie D. Smith of the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, dismissed the case entitled JOEL BREMER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEH JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-1226-CV-W-ODS (W.D. Mo.) In 2001, Joel Bremer was convicted of crime under the Adam Walsh Act. A United States citizen, Mr. Bremer filed an I-130 petition with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) seeking to classify his wife Mrs. Ma Susan Bremer, his foreign national spouse, as an immediate relative so she could become a lawful permanent resident. Under the Adam Walsh Act, USCIS may not approve I-130 petitions if the petitioner has been convicted of a qualifying crime, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion" determines that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary of the petition. 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I). Mr. Joel Bremer and Mrs. Ma Susan Bremer filed a class action complaint in District Court on December 20, 2013. Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that Defendants improperly denied their visa petitions pursuant to the AWA. Plaintiffs generally allege these improper denials violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and various Constitutional provisions. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue that the District Court lacks jurisdiction to review all of plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the judicial review scheme established in 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(2). Judge Smith dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. A copy of Judge Smith's order and opinion dated December 17, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/ybEBKKfrom Leagle.com. Joel Bremer and Ma Susan Bremer, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew L. Hoppock -- mhoppock@dunndavison.com -- at Dunn & Davison, LLC Rand Beers, Robert M. Cowan, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Daniel Renaud, Defendants, represented by: Geoffrey Forney, Esq. Lana L Vahab, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: 202-514-2000 Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov Alejandro Mayorkas Defendant, represented by: Geoffrey Forney U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: 202-514-2000 Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov Alejandro Mayorkas Defendant, represented by: Lana L Vahab U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: 202-514-2000 Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov VENAXIS INC: Sued in D. Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Nile J. Boldt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Venaxis, Inc., Stephen T. Lundy, and Jeffrey G. McGonegal, Case No. 1:15-cv-00222 (D. Colo., February 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Venaxis, Inc. is a Colorado-based in vitro diagnostic company focused on developing and commercializing its lead product candidate, the APPY1 diagnostic test. The APPY1 test is designed to aid in the identification of patients at low risk for acute appendicitis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 536-7849 E-mail: Kip@shumanlawfirm.com Rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com fmcconville@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ZA RESTAURANT: "Shahin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Ahmed Shahin, Jorge Carmona, Javier Portugal, Raul Ramirez, Duane Dawson, Shain Fike, Miguel Lopez, and Jose Diaz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Za Restaurant Management LLC d/b/a Reserve Cut Steakhouse, and Albir Allaham, Case No. 1:15-cv-00708 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, misappropriated tips and other monies, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 40 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Roberto Concepcion, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 Facsimile: (212) 308-8582 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com concepcion@pechmanlaw.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 47,507 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. was a defendant in 47,507 claims filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015. Of the 47,507 pending claims as of December 31, 2014, approximately 18,700 claims were pending in New York, approximately 9,300 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 5,100 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 300 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits. Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either dismissed or concluded through settlements. As of January 26, 2015, the Company has paid three judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009. The third payment, in the amount of $0.9 million, was made in June 2014, approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the William Paulus matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies. The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. The Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Verdict in Pa. Suit v. Crane Co. Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has issued a second opinion reversing a jury verdict in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by James Nelson against Crane Co., according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015. On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount of $0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of $0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson. All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Company resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the settled claims for 2012. On September 5, 2013, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson verdict against all defendants, reversing and remanding for a new trial. Plaintiffs requested a rehearing in the Superior Court and by order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the panel opinion, and granted en banc reargument. On December 23, 2014, the Superior Court issued a second opinion reversing the jury verdict. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing in NY Suit v. Crane Co. Concludes ----------------------------------------------------------- Briefing has concluded in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Ronald Dummitt against Crane Co., according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015. On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October 18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012 confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of damages to $8 million. At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered a judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company, taking into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under New York law. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed in a 3-2 decision and order dated July 3, 2014. The Company has appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The parties' briefing has concluded and oral argument will be heard in 2015. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Accepts Appeal in "Suttner" v. Crane Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Court of Appeals has accepted Crane Co.'s appeal from an order in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Gerald Suttner, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015. On October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs' damages of $3 million. The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which were denied. The court entered a judgment of $0.1 million against the Company. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by order dated March 21, 2014. The Company sought reargument of this decision, which was denied. The Company sought review before the New York Court of Appeals, which was accepted in the fourth quarter of 2014. Oral argument will be heard in 2015. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in Pa. Suits Appeals ------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. awaits ruling on its appeal from an order in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Thomas Amato and Frank Vinciquerra, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015. On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5 million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a $2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has appealed. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 66 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Ashland Inc., had 66 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 December 31, 2014. Ashland and Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland that was acquired in 2009, have liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given various assumptions, Ashland retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. (HR&A). The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on recent experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates, disease mix, enacted legislation, open claims and litigation defense. The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately compared to the results of previously conducted third party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population expected to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities and receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income. The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley, a former subsidiary. The amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate from period to period. For the three months ended December 31, 2014, Ashland had 66 asbestos- related claims. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $431-Mil. Fibro Reserves ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. had $431 million total reserves for asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non- discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this estimate, completed during the June 2014 quarter, it was determined that the liability for asbestos claims should be increased by $4 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $431 million at December 31, 2014 compared to $438 million at September 30, 2014. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $392MM Fibro Defense Receivable ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc.'s receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to $392 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently being accessed. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries. The amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage. For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. Approximately 70% of the estimated receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of December 31, 2014. The remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London insurance companies, which generally have lower credit quality ratings, and from Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy obligations have been transferred to a Berkshire Hathaway entity. Ashland discounts this portion of the receivable based upon the projected timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless likely settlement amounts can be determined. At December 31, 2014, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to $392 million, of which $80 million relates to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $402 million at September 30, 2014. During the June 2014 quarter, the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve described above, and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers, was updated. This model update resulted in a $7 million increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries. In 2014, subsequent to the model update, a $15 million increase to the receivable was recorded to reflect a change to certain model assumptions related to the timing of receipts. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Has 5,700 Fibro Claims at Dec. 26 -------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International PLC has 5,700 pending asbestos-related claims pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 26, 2014. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Yarway Corporation ("Yarway") and Grinnell LLC ("Grinnell"), along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. Over 90% of cases pending against affiliates of the Company have been filed against Yarway or Grinnell, and have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. Claims filed against Yarway derive from Yarway's purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in the sale or distribution of steam valves and traps and from its alleged manufacture of asbestos-containing expansion joint packing. Yarway's alleged manufacture, distribution and/or sale of asbestos-containing materials ceased by 1988, and Yarway ceased substantially all of its manufacturing, distribution and sales operations in 2003. Claims filed against Grinnell typically allege that it manufactured, sold or distributed valves, gaskets, piping and sprinkler systems containing asbestos. As of December 26, 2014, the Company has determined that there were approximately 5,700 claims pending against it, which includes approximately 3,200 claims pending against Yarway. This amount reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable claims made against it and includes adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants, are duplicative of other actions or for which the Company is indemnified by third parties. Tyco International PLC (Tyco), formerly Tyco International Ltd., is engaged in providing security products and services, fire detection and suppression products and services, as well as life safety products. The Company operates through three segments. The North America Installation & Services and Rest of World Installation & Services segments design, sell, install, service and monitor electronic security systems and fire detection and suppression systems. The Global Products segment designs, manufactures and sells fire protection, security and life safety products. The Company offers its products and services under various brands, including Tyco, Sensormatic, Wormald, Ansul, Simplex, Scott, and ADT (in jurisdictions outside of North America). It serves the commercial, industrial, retail, institutional and governmental markets, as well as non-United States residential and small business markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 117 Fibro Cases as of Nov. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- GenCorp Inc., had 117 asbestos cases pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2014. The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and Pennsylvania. There were 117 asbestos cases pending as of November 30, 2014. Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued. Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for fiscal 2014, 2013, and 2012 were $0.4 million for all years presented. GenCorp Inc., is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and systems along with a real estate segment that includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of our excess real estate assets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Negotiations Ongoing in AMEC-Aerojet Dispute ------------------------------------------------------------- Negotiations are ongoing in the asbestos-related dispute between GenCorp Inc.'s Aerojet Rocketdyne and AMEC, plc, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2014. In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, ("AMEC") the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet Rocketdyne subsidiary, for Aerojet Rocketdyne to assume the defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271 plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana, and reimbursement of over $1.7 million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet Rocketdyne retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under the relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain, specified liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet Rocketdyne declined to accept the liability and requested additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC filed a complaint for breach of contract against Aerojet Rocketdyne in Sacramento County Superior Court, AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, Case No. 342013001424718. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed its answer to the complaint denying AMEC's allegations and discovery is ongoing. As of November 30, 2014, AMEC contends it has incurred approximately $3.0 million in past legal fees and expenses. The court has scheduled a trial date for May 18, 2015. The parties attended a mediation session on December 9, 2014 and negotiations are ongoing. As of November 30, 2014, the Company has accrued $0.2 million related to this matter. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable from the U.S. government. GenCorp Inc., is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and systems along with a real estate segment that includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of excess real estate assets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Pays $900,000 to Settle "Paulus" Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. paid $0.9 million as judgment in the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by William Paulus, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015. On August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the William Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found that the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%) of plaintiffs' non-economic damages of $6.5 million, plus a portion of plaintiffs' economic damages of $0.4 million. Based on California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered in the amount of $0.8 million against the Company. The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which were denied. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by order dated February 21, 2014. The Company sought review of certain aspects of the ruling before the California Supreme Court, and review was denied. Having exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies, the Company in June 2014 paid to plaintiffs the amount of $0.9 million, the judgment including interest, and this amount is included in second quarter indemnity totals. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Hellam" Suit is Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s appeal from an order issued in the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by James Hellam remains pending, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015. On November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA. The jury found that the Company was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non- economic damages of $4.5 million, plus a portion of their economic damages of $0.9 million. Based on California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company in the amount of $1.282 million. The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict and also requesting that settlement offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with California law. On January 31, 2013, the court entered an order disposing partially of that motion. On March 1, 2013, the Company filed an appeal regarding the portions of the motion that were denied. The court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.1 million. The Company appealed. By opinion dated April 16, 2014, the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of liability against the Company, and the California Supreme Court denied review of this ruling. The Court of Appeal reserved the arguments relating to recoverable damages to a subsequent appeal that remains pending. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in Pa. Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s appeal from an order issued in a consolidated asbestos-related lawsuit pending in a Pennsylvania court remains pending, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015. On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5 million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a $2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has appealed. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Peraica" Suit Heard ----------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s appeal from an order issued in the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Ivo Peraica was heard in the fourth quarter of 2014, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015. On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35 million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to $18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion, judgment also entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6 million (including interest). The Company has appealed. The Company has taken a separate appeal of the trial court's denial of its summary judgment motion. The Court has consolidated the appeals, which were heard in the fourth quarter of 2014. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Holdsworth" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. is awaiting a ruling in the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Lee Holdsworth, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015. On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a $3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and the court will set a hearing to assess the amount of damages. Plaintiffs have requested judgment in the amount of $1.1 million. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if necessary. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 21 Hercules Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Hercules, had 21 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 December 31, 2014. Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. The amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate from period to period. For the three months ended December 31, 2014, Hercules had 21 asbestos-related claims. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Has $324-Mil. Reserves --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Hercules, had $324 million total reserves for asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non- discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this estimate, completed during the June 2014 quarter, it was determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims should be increased by $10 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $324 million at December 31, 2014 compared to $329 million at September 30, 2014. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Has $77MM Receivables -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Hercules, had $77 million receivables associated with its asbestos reserve from insurers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain reimbursement obligations pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements with insurance carriers exist. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. The estimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of December 31, 2014. As of December 31, 2014 and September 30, 2014, the receivables from insurers amounted to $77 million, respectively. During the June 2014 quarter, the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers was completed. This model update caused a $3 million increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries. As a result of the January 13, 2015, settlement reported above, Hercules has resolved all disputes with Chartis (AIG) member companies under their existing coverage-in-place agreement for past, present and future Hercules asbestos claims, and an adjustment in the insurance receivable will be made in the next quarterly report. Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that might be received, other variables include the type and severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of possible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop these estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost models was developed. These models are based on national studies that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos- related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptions regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and legal defense costs, as well as other variables mentioned previously. Ashland has currently estimated in various models ranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range as high as approximately $870 million for the Ashland asbestos- related litigation and approximately $670 million for the Hercules asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.5 billion in the aggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selected in the various models. If actual experience is worse than projected, relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of alleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to resolve those claims, Ashland may need to further increase the estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these increases could be material over time. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $398MM Settlement with Insurers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc., and its subsidiary, Hercules, entered into a $398 million comprehensive settlement with Underwriters at Lloyd's, certain London Companies and Chartis (AIG) member companies, along with National Indemnity and Resolute Management, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. On January 13, 2015, Ashland and Hercules entered into a comprehensive settlement with Underwriters at Lloyd's, certain London Companies and Chartis (AIG) member companies, along with National Indemnity and Resolute Management, Inc., under which Ashland and Hercules received a total of $398 million and, in exchange, released all claims against these entities for past, present and future coverage obligations arising out of the asbestos coverage-in-place agreements that were the subject of the pending arbitration proceedings. In addition, as part of this settlement, Ashland and Hercules released all claims against National Indemnity and Resolute Management, Inc. in the Kentucky state court action. As a result, the arbitration proceedings and the Kentucky state court action have been terminated. Ashland intends to segregate a significant portion of the funds received in the settlement to pay for ongoing and future litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with asbestos claims. As a result of this settlement, during the quarter ending March 31, 2015, Ashland expects to record an after-tax gain of approximately $110 million to $130 million, within the discontinued operations caption of the Statement of Consolidated Comprehensive Income and an approximately $250 million reduction in the receivable balance within the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. The ranges reflect certain current estimates and assumptions with respect to tax consequences of the transaction that may change as certain tax attributes are finalized. See Note K of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for further information. Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 9 Fibro Claims for $800,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company settled nine asbestos-related lawsuits and claims for a total of $0.8 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended November 29, 2014. The Company states: "From time to time and in the ordinary course of business, we are a party to, or a target of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including product liability, personal injury, contract, patent and intellectual property, environmental, health and safety, tax and employment matters. While we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters, we have concluded, based upon currently available information, that the ultimate resolution of any pending matter, individually or in the aggregate, including the asbestos litigation described in the following paragraphs, will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flow. "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party. "In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs). Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of defense costs and under certain circumstances, settlements and judgments, in asbestos-related lawsuits. Under these agreements, we are required under certain circumstances to fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent. In addition, to delineate our rights under certain insurance policies, in October 2009, we commenced a declaratory judgment action against one of our insurers in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Additional insurers were brought into the action to address issues related to the scope of their coverage. In 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement with the defendant insurers in this case that provided for the allocation of defense costs and settlements in the future. The allocation under the settlement agreement depends on the outcome of an appeal of two issues to the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. "For the year ended November 29, 2014, the Company settled 9 asbestos-related lawsuits and claims for a total of $0.8 million. "We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured. Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for insurance recoveries. "Based on currently available information, we have concluded that the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flow. However, adverse developments and/or periodic settlements could negatively impact the results of operations or cash flows in one or more future periods." H.B. Fuller Company is formulator, manufacturer and marketer of adhesives, sealants and other specialty chemical products. The Company operates in four segments: Americas Adhesives, Construction Products, EIMEA (Europe, India, Middle East and Africa) and Asia Pacific. Industrial adhesives represent its core product offering. Customers use its adhesives products in manufacturing common consumer and industrial goods, including food and beverage containers, disposable diapers, windows, doors, flooring, appliances, sportswear, footwear, multi-wall bags, water filtration products, insulation, textiles and electronics. It has established a variety of product offerings for residential construction markets, such as tile-setting adhesives, grout, sealants and related products. These products are sold primarily in its Construction Products operating segment. On June 6, 2013, it acquired Plexbond Quimica, S.A. In September 2014, H.B. Fuller Co acquired ProSpec Construction Products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.2MM Fibro Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corporation recorded an estimated $8,202,000 for its asbestos-related aggregate liability, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables in light of additional information in order to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable. Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between $6,700,000 and $11,200,000 using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from December 31, 2014. The Company's estimation of its asbestos- related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates $8,202,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2014. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos settlement payments and legal defense costs of approximately $2,000,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of these costs is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period. The Company is also involved in other unresolved legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes related to product design, manufacture and performance. The Company's estimation of its product-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates $4,594,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2014. In some cases, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss because there is insufficient information regarding the matter. Management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period. Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and other material handling products serving a range of commercial and industrial end user markets. The products include a range of electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys, winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps, logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions; below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light- rail systems. The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of hoists, alloy and high strength carbon steel chain and attachments, and actuators in North America. In March 2014, Columbus McKinnon Corp acquired privately-owned Unified Industries, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah High Ct. Affirms Wrongful Death Suit Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Micah Riggs is the personal representative of the estate of decedent Vickle Warren, his mother-in-law. Mr. Riggs brought a wrongful death on behalf of Ms. Warren's children, Amanda Riggs and Benjamin Warren. In 2007, Ms. Warren developed peritoneal mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer linked to asbestos exposure. Later that year, Ms. Warren filed a personal injury lawsuit against Georgia-Pacific LLC, Union Carbide Corporation and other defendants, seeking damages due to her exposure to asbestos, which she claimed caused her mesothelioma. The personal injury lawsuit went to trial, and on May 12, 2010, a jury found that Ms. Warren was entitled to $5,256,818 in damages. The jury allocated 5 percent of the fault to Georgia-Pacific and 20 percent to Union Carbide; the remaining fault was distributed among other parties. Ms. Warren died on May 25, 2010, 13 days after receiving the verdict in her personal injury lawsuit. The court of appeals later affirmed the judgment. On May 23, 2012, Mr. Riggs, on behalf of the Heirs, filed a wrongful death and survival suit against Georgia-Pacific, Union Carbide Corporation, and others, including some defendants who were named in Ms. Warren's personal injury suit and some who were not. The court ruled that the claims against the new defendants were barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed them. The Heirs conceded that they are barred from re-litigating issues that were decided in Ms. Warren's personal injury case. They argue that the issue in their wrongful death suit is simply whether exposure to Defendants' asbestos products caused Ms. Warren's death and if so, what damages are owed to the Heirs. Defendants Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide moved to dismiss the wrongful death claim under rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that Ms. Warren's personal injury trial and judgment precluded the wrongful death action. The Third District Court denied the motion and held that the Heirs had an independent cause of action for wrongful death. The Supreme Court of Utah, in an opinion dated Jan. 30, 2015, affirmed the district court's ruling and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Utah Code section 78B-3-106 states plainly that "when the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another, his heirs . . . may maintain an action for damages." According to the Supreme Court, the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and does not indicate that the cause of action is in any way tied to the decedent's own personal injury action. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that wrongful death is an independent cause of action not barred by the existence of a final judgment in the decedent's underlying personal injury suit. The Supreme Court also noted also that article XVI, section 5 of the Utah Constitution requires that the Court robustly protect Utah's wrongful death cause of action from attempts to limit it. The case is MICAH RIGGS and AMANDA RIGGS, Appellees, v. GEORGIA- PACIFIC LLC and UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Appellants, NO. 20130459, (Utah). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/x1zHcafrom Leagle.com. Gilbert L. Purcell, Alan R. Brayton, Brian Holmberg, A. Jase Allen, Salt Lake City, for appellees. Karra J. Porter, Esq. -- karra.porter@chrisjen.com -- Sarah E. Spencer, Esq. -- sarah.spencer@chrisjen.com -- Katherine E. Venti, Esq., Salt Lake City, for appellant Georgia-Pacific, LLC. Patricia W. Christensen, Esq. -- pchristensen@parrbrown.com -- Salt Lake City, Mary Price Birk, Esq. -- mbirk@bakerlaw.com -- Ronald L. Hellbusch, Esq. -- rhellbusch@bakerlaw.com -- Denver, CO, for appellant Union Carbide Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Inmate's Suit Allowed to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ DeShawn Drumgo, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, in Smyrna, Delaware, filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He alleges, among other things, that the vents are filthy and have not been cleaned in decades, there is a gas leak, and that asbestos is airborne and is coming through the vents. In a memorandum dated Jan. 30, 2015, Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ordered that Drumgo will be allowed to proceed with condition of confinement claims against defendants Lt. Farrington, C/O Lenigan, Lt. Todd Drace, Cpl. Matthew Dutton, and VCC Warden Pierce. Judge Sleet further ordered that the remaining defendants and claims will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and Section 1915A(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(c)(1). The case is DESHAWN DRUMGO, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL, et al., Defendants, CIV. ACTION NO. 14-1134-GMS (D. Del.). A full-text copy of Judge Sleet's Decision is available at http://is.gd/InQSd2from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Priest" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an order dated Jan. 29, 2015, adopting the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge James B. Clark III that defendant Asbestos Corporation Limited's motion to dismiss plaintiff Leon Priest's asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit be granted for lack of personal jurisdiction. The case is LEON PRIEST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2697 (D.N.J.). A full-text copy of Judge Cecchi's Order is available at http://is.gd/v5Pp0ifrom Leagle.com. LEON C. PRIEST, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant, represented by KARDON A. STOLZMAN, Esq. -- KStolzman@NapoliBern.com -- NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES, LLP & MONICA HABIB ANDRAWIS, NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK. SHARON M. PRIEST, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant, represented by KARDON A. STOLZMAN, NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES, LLP. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by GARY MICHAEL EVERY, Esq. -- gevery@goldfeinlaw.com -- GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH PC & MADHURIKA JEREMIAH, Esq. -- mjeremiah@goldfeinlaw.com -- GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH, P.C.. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, Esq. -- christopher.keale@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP. CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP. CHARLES A. WAGNER CO., INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by KEVIN E. HOFFMAN, Esq. -- %20khoffman@kentmcbride.com -- KENT & MCBRIDE, PC. CRANE CO., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by ANGELA DIGIGLIO, Esq. -- angela.digiglio@klgates.com -- K&L GATES & TARA LYNNE PEHUSH, Esq. -- tara.pehush@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP. FMC CORPORATION, Defendant and Claimant, represented by ANGELA COLL CALIENDO, Esq. -- acaliendo@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by ROBYN GNUDI KALOCSAY, Esq. -- robyngnudi.kalocsay@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIR RYAN & MICHAEL DORON GOLDKLANG, Esq. -- michael.goldklang@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIR RYAN. FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP & MICHAEL A. TANENBAUM, Esq. -- michael.tanenbaum@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP. GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by CYNTHIA J. CHO, Esq. -- cho@lawlynch.com -- LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP, DIANE M. POMPEI, Esq. -- pompei@lawlynch.com -- Lynch Daskal Emery LLP & IAN STERN MILLICAN, LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP. GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by STEVEN FREDERIK SATZ, Esq. -- ssatz@hoaglandlongo.com -- HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST & DOUKAS. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by ETHAN D. STEIN, Esq. -- estein@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC. INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by LISA PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA LINDENBAUM & TOMASZEWSKI, PLLC. JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by DAWN DEZII, Esq. -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN. MANNINGTON MILLS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by JORDAN DAVID BELTZ, Esq. -- jbeltz@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by RICHARD V. JONES, LAW OFFICES OF ROGER V. JONES, LLP. PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK OF DELAWARE, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by PAUL C. JOHNSON, Esq. -- pcjohnson@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA. PETERBILT MOTORS COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by DINESH UTTAM DADLANI, Esq. -- ddadlani@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD.. PNEUMO ABEX LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by ROY VIOLA, JR., Esq. -- rviola@hptylaw.com -- HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG. TRANE US, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by LISA PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA LINDENBAUM & TOMASZEWSKI, PLLC. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI, Esq. -- rpicini@carusosmith.com -- CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC. VIKING PUMPS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by MARK F. MACDONALD, BAGINSKI MEZZANOTTE HASSON & RUBINATE. WARREN PUMPS, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by PAUL C. JOHNSON, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA. WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA. WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by NORA J. GRIMBERGEN, Esq. -- ngrimbergen@hoaglandlongo.com -- HOAGLAND LONGO. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit Partially Junked as to JR Clarkson ----------------------------------------------------------- In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant J.R. Clarkson Co., sued as the successor by merger to IMI Cash Valve, Inc., moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiffs' decedent Donald Izbicki misidentified Cash valves as a source of his exposure. In the alternative, Cash moves for partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' eleventh cause of action for loss of consortium. Mr. Izbicki served in the United States Navy and United States Air Force for nearly 30 years. In 1955 he was assigned to work aboard the USS Butner as a fireman's apprentice and machinist's mate in respect of which he was responsible for repairing and maintaining equipment. Mr. Izbicki testified that Cash was one of several manufacturers whose valves he repaired and that his work therewith caused him to be exposed to asbestos. Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated Jan. 28, 2015, granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Judge Heitler granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment only to the extent of dismissing the plaintiffs' eleventh cause of action against it for loss of consortium. The plaintiffs' eleventh cause of action for loss of consortium is severed and dismissed as against defendant J.R. Clarkson, Judge Heitler ruled. The case is MADELINE E. IZBICKI, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of DONALD J. IZBICKI, Sr., deceased, Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCE AUTO SUPPLY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190140/13, MOTION SEQ. 009 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/y9B95vfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ark. Court Recommends Dismissal of "Miller" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keith E. Miller, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a pro se action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claiming the Defendants violated his constitutional rights. The Plaintiff alleges that he was employed as a "skilled worker" by the Defendants and that while performing work on a project, he claims he was exposed to asbestos when he cut through a concrete foundation. He brought the action alleging that each of the Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they knowingly allowed him to continue work at that site without proper protection, despite knowing that unsafe levels of asbestos were present. Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division, recommended that the Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The case is KEITH E. MILLER, ADC # 144926, Plaintiff, v. GAIL MAINARD, Construction Engineer, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al., Defendants, NO. 5:15CV00018-BRW-JJV (E.D. Ark.). A full- text copy of Magistrate Volpe's Decision is available at http://is.gd/hE0hp4from Leagle.com. Keith E Miller, Plaintiff, Pro Se. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Junk Inmate's Suit Partially Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Edwin Jay Hutchison, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking damages for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights by the California Prison Industry Authority, operating under the auspices of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and individuals who are employees of CALPIA or of SQSP. On April 4, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ordered service of the following cognizable claims: (1) an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Andrew Deems, Chief Executive Officer of Health Care Services at SQSP, for creating a policy, custom or practice of failing to test inmates who may have been exposed to asbestos; (2) an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to hazardous conditions against CALPIA and employees of CALPIA and SQSP; and (3) a state law claim against CALPIA for violation of California Government Code injury caused by a dangerous condition on its property if certain conditions are met. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, holding that the Plaintiff's constitutional claims against CALPIA and its employees sued in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against all Defendants, except for CEO Deems, based on deliberate indifference to hazardous conditions and the Plaintiff's statutory claim against CALPIA are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Judge Wilken directed the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint asserting an Eighth Amendment claim against specific Defendants, in their individual capacity, based on allegations of specific conduct undertaken by them that prevented or delayed the Plaintiff from receiving medical treatment so as to aggravate his disease. The case is EDWIN JAY HUTCHISON, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-04635-CW (N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Wilken's order dated Jan. 14, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/mA0FxTfrom Leagle.com. Edwin Jay Hutchison, Plaintiff, Pro Se. California Prison Industry Authority, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office. Ron Glass, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office. Gary Loredo, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office. Philip Earley, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office. Luu Rogers, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office. John Walker, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office. Elizabeth Babcock, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice, Loran Michael Simon, California State Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office. Brad Smith, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office. Charles Pattillo, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office. Kevin Chappell, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice, Loran Michael Simon, California State Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office. Andrew W. Deems, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice, Loran Michael Simon, California State Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State Attorney General's Office. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctrine of Claim Preclusion Bars Widow's Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation filed on November 26, 2014, a motion for judgment on the pleadings arguing that Beverly Ahnert's claims are barred on the ground of claim preclusion and res judicata. General Electric filed a similar motion on December 22, 2014. Both parties cite an August 29, 2014, findings of fact and conclusions of law respecting defendant Owens-Illinois's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Beverly Ahnert and her husband sued these defendants in 2010 alleging that Daniel Ahnert developed asbestosis from exposure to the defendants' asbestos containing products. After Daniel Ahnert was diagnosed and died from mesothelioma, Beverly Ahnert did not oppose the movant's motions for summary judgment and stipulated to their dismissal. Hence, CBS and General Electric were dismissed from the earlier action with prejudice. In a decision and order dated Feb. 3, 2015, Judge C.N. Clevert, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted CBS and GE's motions, holding that Beverly Ahnert's attempt to sue these same defendants again must fail inasmuch as the pending claims are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. The case is BEVERLY AHNERT Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. BRAND INSULATION INC., BUILDING SERVICES INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC., CBS CORPORATION, EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, FOSTER WHEELER LLC, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, L & S INSULATION COMPANY INC., PABST BREWING COMPANY, SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, MERCO-THERMOTEC INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-C-1456 (E.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Clevert's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Fp5NMbfrom Leagle.com. Beverly Ahnert, Plaintiff, represented by Jin Ho Chung, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Robert G McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. Brand Insulations Inc, Defendant, represented by Donald H Carlson, Crivello Carlson SC & Eric D Carlson, Crivello Carlson SC. Building Services Industrial Supply Inc, Defendant, represented by Gabrielle B Adams, Esq. -- gadams@whdlaw.com -- Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC, John J Laffey, Esq. -- jlaffey@whdlaw.com -- Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC & Sarah Thomas Pagels, Esq. -- stpagels@whdlaw.com -- Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendant, represented by James A Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J Rhoades, Crivello Carlson SC. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven W Celba, Celba LLC. L & S Insulation Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Frank R Terschan, Esq. -- frank.terschan@tshglaw.com -- Terschan Steinle Hodan & Ganzer Ltd. Pabst Brewing Company, Defendant, represented by Michael T Antikainen, Hepler Broom LLC. Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant, represented by James A Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J Rhoades, Crivello Carlson SC. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Defendant, represented by Travis J Rhoades, Crivello Carlson SC & James A Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC. Merco-Thermotec Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher P Banaszak, Esq. -- cbanasza@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC & Robert S Driscoll, Esq. -- rdriscol@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss "Proctor" Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, unanimously affirmed the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 1, 2014, which denied the motion of defendant Andal Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the asbestos-related complaint as against it. According to the Appellate Division, the record presents triable issues of fact as to whether Andal's alleged predecessors-in- interest performed certain construction work at the former World Trade Center site, and were responsible for the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos at the site. Although the plaintiff failed to identify any entity that used asbestos during the period that he worked at the site in 1970, he submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Andal's alleged predecessors-in-interest were present during that period and used an asbestos product in the area in which plaintiff worked. The case is JAMES AUGUSTUS PROCTOR, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents v. ALCOA, INC., ET AL., Defendants, ANDAL CORP, ETC., Defendant- Appellant, 14153, 190040/13 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/KRKcUXfrom Leagle.com. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Armand Kalfayan, Esq. -- armand.kalfayan@wilsonelser.com -- of counsel), for appellant. Early Lucarelli Sweeney Meisenkothen, New York (Kyle A. Shamberg, of counsel), for respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transpo Co.'s Suit Over Fibro Leaks Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, commenced a diversity action against defendants RTL Enterprises, LLC, and East Coast Systems Engineering, Inc., alleging state law claims for negligence and breach of contract related to two separate asbestos leaks. RTL and East Coast separately filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, while Swift filed a cross motion seeking leave to amend its complaint, limited jurisdictional discovery, and/or transfer to another forum. Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the defendants' motions and denied Swift's cross motion, holding that the only argument Swift offers with respect to the due process test is that, "[w]hen the 'product' involved is a hazardous substance or waste, the court should consider the nature of the substance involved in determining the expectation of the defendant to be hauled into court in another state" and Swift does not cite any authority that would be binding on the court for such a proposition, instead relying primarily on one case from the District of Rhode Island. Accordingly, Judge Sharpe dismissed Swift's complaint and ordered the Clerk to close the case. The case is SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. RTL ENTERPRISES, LLC et al., Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-902 (GLS/CFH)(N.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Judge Sharpe's memorandum-decision and order dated Feb. 3, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/OLpWJbfrom Leagle.com. DANIEL W. COFFEY, ESQ., Bowitch, Coffey Law Firm, Albany, NY, for the Plaintiff. THERESA B. MARANGAS, ESQ., Esq. -- theresa.marangas@wilsonelser.com -- RTL Enterprises, LLC, Wilson, Elser Law Firm, Albany, NY, JACOB F. LAMME, ESQ., -- lamme@mltw.com -- JOHN J. PRIVITERA, ESQ., -- privitera@mltw.com -- East Coast Systems Engineering, Inc., McNamee, Lochner Law Firm, Albany, NY, for the Defendants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Court Agrees to Transfer "Trezza" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued on Feb. 5, 2015, a memorandum and order agreeing that the case captioned ANTHONY TREZZA, and PEGGY TREZZA, Plaintiffs, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, et al., Defendants, NO. 4:14CV01282 AGF (E.D. Mont.), should be transferred to a different venue. The case arises out of Plaintiff Anthony Trezza's contraction of lung cancer that he asserts was a result of his exposure to asbestos over a 20 year period in different locations across the country. The Defendants are all allegedly companies that have manufactured, distributed, and/or sold asbestos or asbestos products to which Anthony Trezza was exposed. Several of the Defendants filed motions to transfer the case to a different venue. Judge Fleissig concludes that the case should be transferred to a different venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a) and believes that the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina would be the most appropriate venue. However, the Court offered the parties the opportunity to show that another venue would be more appropriate and directed them to file a memoranda showing cause why the action should not be transferred to North Carolina or proposing a venue other than the Western District of North Carolina. A full-text copy of Judge Fleissig's Decision is available at http://is.gd/yTJTWdfrom Leagle.com. Anthony Trezza, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, Esq. -- RHorace@NapoliBern.com -- NAPOLI AND BERN & Sean Patrick Barth, Esq. -- SBarth@NapoliBern.com -- NAPOLI AND BERN. Peggy Trezza, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, NAPOLI AND BERN & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI AND BERN. 84 Lumber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq. -- gls@herzogcrebs.com -- HERZOG CREBS LLP & James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP. American Biltrite Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. Bird, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Esq. -- ldenk@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P., Michael R. Dauphin, Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Robert J. Brummond, Esq. -- rbrummond@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Esq. -- ddonahue@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, Esq. -- gflatt@heylroyster.com -- HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, Esq. -- kplotner@heylroyster.com -- HEYL AND ROYSTER. Conwed Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Mark D. Bauman, Esq. -- mbauman@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON. Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM. DAP, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. DOMCO Products Texas Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Esq. -- bveath@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.. Eaton Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by J. Todd Applegate, Esq. -- applegate@pspclaw.com -- PITZER SNODGRASS, P.C. & Brian J. Connolly, REEG LAWYERS, LLC. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ &Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. FMC Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq. -- ddobbels@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC & Marcie J. Vantine, Esq. -- mvantine@smbtrials.com -- SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Robert Drake Andrekanic, CRIVELLO AND CARLSON. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq. -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Anita Maria Kidd, Esq. -- akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Esq. -- jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, Esq. -- mking@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP. Goulds Pumps, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Mark D. Bauman, HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON. Honeywell International Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield, Esq. -- aspringfield@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC. J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Stephen J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD. John Crane, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Albert J. Bronsky, Esq. -- ajbronsky@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Agota Peterfy, CARMODY MACDONALD P.C.. Kohler Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq. -- cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com -- JOLEY AND OLIVER. Navistar, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC. Patterson Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Leslie G. Offergeld, WALKER AND WILLIAMS, P.C.. Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Esq. -- torris@wvslaw.com -- WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC, Mary Dianne Rychnovsky, Esq. -- mrychnovsky@wvslaw.com -- Williams Venker & Sanders LLC, Matthew E. Pelikan, Esq. -- mpelikan@wvslaw.com -- WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC & Ross S. Titzer, Esq. -- rtitzer@wvslaw.com -- WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC. Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ,Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. RSCC Wire & Cable LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Schneider Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq. -- J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com - - LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP, Charles S. Anderson, Esq. -- Charles.Anderson@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP, Matthew J. Morris, Esq., LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP &Matthew W. Schuh, Esq. -- Matthew.Schuh@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP. Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP &Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP. Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP. Young Group Ltd., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Anastasios T. Foukas, Esq. -- afoukas@smsm.com -- SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Anastasios T. Foukas, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John D. Risvold, Esq. -- jrisvold@smsm.com -- SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PepsiAmericas Can't Pursue Claims Against FMC -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed a bankruptcy court's Oct. 27, 2010, grant of summary judgment in favor of Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., agreeing with the Bankruptcy Court that PepsiAmericas, Inc., failed to establish a right to pursue any claim against Debtors Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul Products, Inc. Before the Bankruptcy Court was a motion for summary judgment on the amended proof of claim of PepsiAmericas, filed in the bankruptcy of Federal-Mogul Global against FMC and FMP. PepsiAmericas had alleged that Federal-Mogul Global improperly billed shared insurance policies, giving rise to claims based on tort, conversion, and breach of the implied covenant good faith and fair dealing. Federal-Mogul Global argued that no factual basis existed to substantiate the validity of PepsiAmerica's claims. The dispute derives from both parties' relationship with the former Abex Corporation, a producer of brakes and other friction products that spawned countless cases of asbestos exposure. The assets and liabilities of Abex Corporation were divided and sold through several mergers and acquisitions resulting Appellant and Appellee, among others, owning a portion. That is, along with owning assets from Abex Corporation, both parties owned liabilities from asbestos-related litigation filed against Abex. Both Appellant and Appellee collected proceeds from Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Policies which insured against those asbestos claims. However, Abex Corporation was not the only source of Appellee's asbestos-related liability, as it owned six other streams of the asbestos liability. Appellant has argued that Appellee improperly collected insurance proceeds from the shared Comprehensive General Liability plans to compensate for cases deriving from its six non-Abex streams of liability, and as a result benefited from the insurance policies without indemnifying Appellant for litigation costs and expenses. The case is In re: Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., relating to PepsiAmericas, Inc., n/k/a Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan, Bottling Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Federal-Mogul Global Inc., et al., Debtor-Appellee, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-CV-986, NO. 11-CV-813 (D. Del.). A full-text copy of Judge Rodriguez's opinion and order dated Feb. 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/uUL7Pgfrom Leagle.com. Federal Mogul-Global Inc., Debtor and Appellee, represented by James E. O'Neill, III, Esq. -- joneill@pszjlaw.com -- Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones, LLP & Laura Davis Jones, Esq. -- ljones@pszjlaw.com -- Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones, LLP. T&N Limited, Debtor and Appellee, represented by James E. O'Neill, III, Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones, LLP & Laura Davis Jones, Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones, LLP. PepsiAmericas Inc., Appellant, represented by Ricardo Palacio, Esq. -- RPalacio@ashby-geddes.com -- Ashby & Geddes, William P. Bowden, Esq. -- WBowden@ashby-geddes.com -- Ashby & Geddes & Benjamin Wilson Keenan, Esq. -- BKeenan@ashby-geddes.com -- Ashby & Geddes. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Res Judicata Bars Damages Suit vs. Railway Co. --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted the motion filed by defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company for judgment in the damages action that follows a prior personal injury action arising from the same alleged asbestos exposure but was dismissed for failure to timely substitute a personal representative upon the death of the plaintiff's decedent. Judge Schroeder granted NSRC's motion after agreeing with NSRC that the dismissal of the prior action under Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure acts as res judicata against the present claims it contends arise out of the same transactions and core of operative facts. The case is RICHARD ERIC TAYLOR, individually and as Executor for the Estate of DIANE GRUBB TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 1:12CV688 (M.D.N.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Schroeder's memorandum opinion and order dated Feb. 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/nNEJIFfrom Leagle.com. RICHARD ERIC TAYLOR, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM MARC GRAHAM, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A. & JOHN E. GUERRY, III, Esq. -- rguerry@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Defendant, represented by DAVID A. DAMICO, Esq. -- dadamico@burnswhite.com -- BURNS WHITE LLC & JOHN S. BUFORD, Esq. -- jbuford@brookspierce.com -- BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Gets Summary Judgment in "Lett" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jane J. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., as to plaintiff Patricia Lusk in the consolidated action to recover for injuries suffered as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by Mundet Cork Corporation, with whom Crown Cork merged in 1965. The case is WILLIAM G. LETT and MARIA LETT, Plaintiffs, v. CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., and GUARD-LINE, INC., Defendants, PATRICIA LUSK, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of William E. Lusk, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., and GUARD-LINE, INC., Defendants, and DEBRA WHITE, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Frederick H. White, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., and GUARD-LINE, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NOS. 3:14-CV-860-B, 3:14-CV-861-B, 3:14-CV-862-B (N.D. Tex.). A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's memorandum opinion and order dated Feb. 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/NRLJQkfrom Leagle.com. William G Lett, Plaintiff, represented by Kyla G Cole, Waters & Kraus LLP, Peter A Kraus, Waters & Kraus & Symone J Redwine, Waters & Kraus LLP. Maria Lett, Plaintiff, represented by Kyla G Cole, Waters & Kraus LLP, Peter A Kraus, Waters & Kraus & Symone J Redwine, Waters & Kraus LLP. Patricia Lusk, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Kyla G Cole, Waters & Kraus LLP, Peter A Kraus, Waters & Kraus & Symone J Redwine, Waters & Kraus LLP. Debra White, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Kyla G Cole, Waters & Kraus LLP, Peter A Kraus, Waters & Kraus & Symone J Redwine, Waters & Kraus LLP. Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc, Defendant, represented by James C Ho, Esq. -- jho@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Prerak Shah, Esq. -- pshah@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Guard-Line Inc, Defendant, represented by Nathaniel Austin Bosio, Esq. -- nbosio@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson PLLC & Kevin Melchi, Esq. -- kmelchi@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson PLLC. ********* 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 2015. 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 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *