/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150227.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 42 Headlines 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Bid to Appeal A10 NETWORKS: Faces Suit by Shareholders After 67% Post-IPO Drop ABM SECURITY: Cert. Ruling in Security Guards' Action Upheld ADOBE SYSTEMS: 9th Circuit Junked Appeal From Rejection of Deal ADT LLC: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ADVANCE AMERICA: Judge Nixed "Zieger" Suit With Leave to Amend ADVANCE ANALYTICAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Action Claims ALIBALA GROUP: Sued in New York by Investors Over IPO Omissions ALIPHCOM: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Frenzel" Suit ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco-Related Cases Pending at Dec. 31 ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces 10 Health Care Cost Recovery Actions ALTRIA GROUP: 57 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial in 2015 ALTRIA GROUP: 70 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts ALTRIA GROUP: $8.3 Million Verdict in "Brown" Case ALTRIA GROUP: Named as Defendants in 7 Class Actions in Canada ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Medical Monitoring Class Suit Pending v. PM USA ALTRIA GROUP: 12 Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending as of Jan. 27 ALTRIA GROUP: 26 "Lights" Class Actions Served Through Jan. 27 ALTRIA GROUP: 18 Courts in 19 "Lights" Cases Won't Certify Class ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Set in "Miner" Case ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in UST Case to Begin in 2016 First Quarter AMERICAN MEDICAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fernandez" Suit Says AMIRA NATURE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ANASTASIA M. GARCIA: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ANGELO OF MULBERRY: Faces "Hajjar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ANTHEM INC: Faces "Becker" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Haag" Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hurley" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach ARIZONA: Faces Class Suit by Foster Kids Over Budget Cuts ART LANDSCAPING: Faces "Osorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ATLANTIC CAR: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages AURCANA CORPORATION: Settles Class Action for $4 Million BARCLAYS BANK: Court Refuses to Dismiss Most Claims in Forex Suit BE LLC: Obtains Final Approval of "DuFour" Suit Settlement BEACON: RI Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal BECTON DICKINSON: Class Suits in Calif. Not Part of Settlement BELL MATTRESS: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages BELMONT VILLAGE: Gets Final Approval of Brumfield Suit Settlement BP WEST: "Kelly" Suit Over Debit Card Fee Dismissed BRINK'S INCORPORATED: "Ceron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT CANADA: Merchant to Represent '60s Scoop Class Action Plaintiffs CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces "Madatyan" Suit Over Alternator Recall CLS TRANSPORTATION: "Iskanian" Case Remanded to Trial Court CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Court Junks Class Suit With Leave to Amend CONSOL ENERGY: To Pay $20MM Portion of CNX Gas Case Settlement CONSOL ENERGY: 4th Cir. Flips Certification Order in "Hale" Case CONSOL ENERGY: 4th Cir. Flips Cert. Ruling in "Addison" Case DAIRY FARMERS: Court Awards Atty. Fees in Antitrust Litigation DELAWARE MANUFACTURED: Del. Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids EBAY INC: Defending Against Data Theft Class Action ENHANCED RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ENERGY CORP: Court Refuses to Junk Claims Over Oil & Gas Royalty ENTERGY CORPORATION: Appellate Court Voids Class Certification EPLUS INC: Received Payment of $6.2 Million in Class Action EQUITRUST LIFE: 9th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment in "Eller" Case EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Settlement in "Holman" Suit Wins Final Okay FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Allows WVAW to Join Class Action GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Obtains Final Approval of Miller Suit Deal GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Dore" Suit in Fla. Over Product Misbranding GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses "Feitelson" Case With Leave to Amend GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Has Tricked Consumers Into Buying Free Tax ID GREENBERG TRAURIG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Facciola" Suit GROUPME INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action GRUMA CORPORATION: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HARBINGER GROUP: Continues to Defend Haverhill Class Action HARBINGER GROUP: Class Settlement in "Cressy" Case Has Final OK HOME LOAN: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiffs Won't Appeal 9th Cir. Decision INTUITIVE SURGICAL: "Adel" Class Action Lawsuit Ends INTUITIVE SURGICAL: No Trial Date Yet in "Abrams" Case INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 102 Product Liability Lawsuits INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiff in "Taylor" Case to Appeal Ruling JACK IN THE BOX: Dismissal of "Pratt" Suit Upheld KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge Rejects Bid to Remand "Estrada" Suit KINRAY INC: Court Okays Amendment to "Velasquez" Overtime Suit KNOCKOUT LOCKOUTS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LAREDO PETROLEUM: April 30 Final Hearing on $6.65MM Settlement LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Court Allows Debt FDCPA Class Suit to Proceed LG ELECTRONICS: Suit Over Defective Plasma and LCD TVs Dismissed MARION, FL: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Bailiff Intrusion MATANUSKA-SUSITNA: Bid to Strike Jury Demand Gets Partial OK MICHIGAN: Mag. Judge's Recommendation Adopted in "Wayne" Case MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection MISSOURI: Sued for Retaliating Against Medicaid Challenger MOHAMMAD AFRAKHTEH: Faces "Zelaya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MONTEREY, CA: Class of Inmates in Overcrowded Jail Certified MWI VETERINARY: Faces Class Suit Over Sale to AmerisourceBergen NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Accused of Giving 'Sham' Classes to Athletes NEW DOMINION: Faces Class Action Over Earthquake Damage NEW YORK: Gov. Cuomo Asked to Immediately Replace Rep. Grimm PAE GROUP: "Yocupicio" Wage & Hour Suit Stays in Dist. Court PF CHANG'S: Celiac Disease Foundation Won't Back Class Action PGA TOUR: Faces Class Suit by 83 Caddies Over Antitrust Violation PHH MORTGAGE: NJ Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Finch" Suit PROMPT MEDICAL: Faces "Cross" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sued for Monopolizing Medical Testing in NoCal RADIOSHACK 401(K): Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Workers Plan REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Reiskin Suit SEARS ROEBUCK: Customer Questions Extra Fee for HVAC Installation SISTERS OF CHARITY: Prime Healthcare Must Face "Geiger" Suit SONY PICTURES: Seeks Dismissal of Hacking Class Action STAPLES INC: Delivery Driver Files Wage Class Action SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages TAKATA CORP: ARA Files Class Action Over Defective Airbags TRAILER TRANSIT: Court Dismisses "Walker" Case With Prejudice UBER TECH: For-Hire Drivers File Class Action UBS AG: Court Dismisses Class Suit Involving Ex-Indonesian VP UNION PACIFIC: Supplemental Expert Report Due April 1 UNITED STATES: FDA Failed to Act on Risperdal Effects, Suit Says VERITY PARTNERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages W.W. GRAINGER: E.D. Cal. Judge Approves Deal in "Torchia" Case WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Herbal Supplement False Advertising WAL-MART STORES: Sued for Not Paying Assistant Store Managers' OT WEISS & WEISS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Turner" Suit Says WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Dismiss WYANDOTTE, KANSAS: Dist. Court Approves Deal in "Jackson" Suit YAVONE LLC: Sued in D. Oregon Over Illegal Business Practices ZIPCAR INC: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Excessive Late Fees * New York Court Allows Debt Collection Lawsuits to Proceed Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Football Hero Fears Cancer Due to Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loose-Fill Fibro Home Identified in NSW Testing ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Repeat Fibro Warning After Fire ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Clarifies Cutoff for Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Strengthens Rejection of Exposure Theory ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found by Police Union Clears Office ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Forces Closure of Childcare Center ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Reaches $358-Mil. Fibro Settlement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrowsmith Business, Supervisor Fined $29,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Sentences 5 for Fibro Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manager Pleads Guilty in Fibro Removal from Bldg ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers to Remove Fibro Tiles at Miller Library ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Plead Guilty to Fibro Violation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Ministry Probes Sudbury Fibro Complaint ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Demolishing Plant Fined Over Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims Drag on Insurance Industry Earnings ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheldon Silver Arrested for Bribery, Kickbacks ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHP Appeals Against $2.2MM Fibro Cancer Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Finds Suggest Fibro May be Widespread in Nevada ASBESTOS UPDATE: Report Says Up to 6 Tons of Fibro in Finley ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Removes Ex-Worker's Suit to Fed. Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: FACT Act Introduced in House ASBESTOS UPDATE: DC Cir. Asked to Rethink Fibro Death Dismissal ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Man Charged with Illegal Fibro Disposal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Matson Man Receives GBP50,000 for Fibro Illness ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Attys Face Off at Transparency Hearing ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Man Charged With Illegal Fibro Disposal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Disturb Fibro at Aussie School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Business Owner Accused of Fibro Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in New Mexico Building ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Contractor Ruled Guilty in Abatement Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Trusts Continue to Deplete, Witness Says ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suffolk Co. in Court for Unsafe Fibro Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Snub Appeal From Fibro Claim Limit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ipswich Co. Fined for Exposing Workers to Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Fear Spread of Fibro in Columbia Univ. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Kills Former Factory Worker ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1MM Punitive Damages Awarded in NJ Fibro Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro NHS Costs Law Overruled by Supreme Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ni Management to Settle Fibro Allegations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lawsuit Granted Reprieve by Appeals Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Cuts Award Over Fibro Injuries to $30MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Makes $490MM Final Payment to Trust ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Bill Would Make it Harder to File Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moon Area Fibro Removal Schedule Stirs Ire ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sufferers to Receive GBP54,000 in New Rules ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan Fibro Release Leads to 3 Convictions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepsi Can't Recoup Payouts From Federal-Mogul ASBESTOS UPDATE: EL Workers Exposed to Fibro, Mercury, Suit Says ASBESTOS UPDATE: GOP Drafting Bill to Let Fibro Cos. Off the Hook ASBESTOS UPDATE: Record Fibro Payout Cut After Silver's Arrest ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Expects More State Fines for Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Alert at Leisure Center in Castlereagh ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Fines Tigard Firm for Fibro Removal Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gran's Disease Caused by Fibro Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Covered Clothes Caused Woman's Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Fibro Victim Appeals to Colleagues ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waltham Forest Council to be Sentenced ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wales Blocked from Claiming Fibro Costs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Victim Receives Settlement ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Senate Ponders Fibro Trust Claims Act ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Kills Derby Founder Worker ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hailsham Man Suffering From Fibro Poisining Dies ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Oglebay Norton Unit Can't Dodge Fibro Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suits Against Crane Co. Time-Barred ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 12,000 Pending Fibro Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Technologies Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC App. Affirms Compensation Ruling in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants Bids to Vacate PI Suit Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hammond" Suit Remanded to Miss. State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 Cos. Obtain Dismissal of "Denton" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Inmate's Claims for Damages Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Bray" Suit ********* 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Bid to Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 28, 2014, that the court has not yet ruled on the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal the various rulings against them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to have a partial final judgment entered dismissing those claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0 million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013. On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank Action"). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company intends to defend each of these actions vigorously. On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action. On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending, for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines. On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations stemming from Trilegiant's refund mitigation strategy and a claim for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the Frank case into the Consolidated Action. On April 28, 2014 Plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal the various rulings against them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to have a partial final judgment entered dismissing those claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. The Court has not yet ruled on this new motion. The Company has filed its answer to the complaint on May 12, 2014. A10 NETWORKS: Faces Suit by Shareholders After 67% Post-IPO Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that software maker A10 Networks deceived investors ahead of its initial public offering last year, a class action alleges, pointing to a 67 percent drop since March. The City of Warren Police And Fire Retirement System filed the complaint against San Jose, Calif.-based A10 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. When A10, a provider of software-based application networking solutions, made its initial public offering on March 21, 2014, a decade after its founding, it had several products in its wheelhouse that signaled positive revenue trends, according to the Jan. 29 complaint. The class highlights the 2005 launch of the AX series of application delivery controllers, which optimize data-center performance, and the May 2013 rollout of the "Thunder Series" family of appliances to integrate such controllers. Critical to the class's claims, however, is that "the products in the two product families are not interchangeable, and as A10's Thunder Series product sales increased and AX Series products decreased, the company built up an inventory of obsolete AX Series product." Since A10 sales cycles can stretch past 12 months for large-end customers, A10 has "tremendous visibility into where the company is tracking on sales at any given point in time," the class says. That means "A10 had strong visibility into sales outcomes for at least the four quarters of fiscal 2014 at the time of the March 21, 2014, IPO, and at least some visibility into sales outcomes for 1Q [the first quarter] 2015," according to the complaint. Despite the bloat of obsolete product on its books at inflated values, A10 allegedly took only "a partial inventory write-down of $2.6 million at the end of fiscal 2013." "Significant obsolete inventory" allegedly remained on A10's books at inflated values at the time of the IPO, the complaint alleges. A10 sold 9 million shares in the IPO, plus another 3.845 million shares were sold by certain selling stockholders, raising more than $135 million in gross proceeds for the company and $57.675 million for the selling stockholders, according to the action. Claiming that the company's registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission was misleading, the class notes that it "emphasized A10's purportedly strong on-going sales growth rate . . . without disclosing any then present downturn in that sales trend." The class specifies that one section of the registration statement "conceal[ed] that a significant portion of the 2013 sales growth was due to existing customers exchanging AX series product for the newly rolled out Thunder Series product." What A10 should have disclosed was that its 2013 sales growth had been substantially augmented by" such product conversions, "rather than through organic sales to new customers, and this upgrade cycle had largely extinguished itself by the time of the IPO," according to the complaint. Indeed A10 was allegedly finding it difficult "to protect its intellectual property and to compete with unique product offerings" after a 2012 civil settlement required it to license all of its patents to Brocade Communications Systems through 2025. The class says A10 also concealed that it "was then experiencing lower revenue bookings from its all-important North American service provider customers." In addition to lacking sufficient engineering staff to timely close sales, A10 furthermore "did not have sufficient management oversight and involvement in those sales," the complaint states. Though A10 was not on track to achieve the financial results, the company failed in its duty to disclose those declining trends, according to the complaint. By the time the class filed suit, A10 stock was trading at $5 a share, "a more than 67% decline from the IPO price," according to the complaint. A10 and its CEO, Lee Chen, are named as defendants to the action along with five other individual officers and directors, and several financial institutions that allegedly performed underwriting services for A10. Those companies are Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; RBC Capital Markets LLC; Pacific Crest Securities LLC; Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. The class seeks damages, rescission and injunction for violations of the Securities Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Williams, Esq. ROBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 9410 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com ABM SECURITY: Cert. Ruling in Security Guards' Action Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------ Associate Justice Victoria Gerrard Chaney of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One, ruled on the defendant's appeal in the appealed case entitled JENNIFER AUGUSTUS, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ABM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, NOS. B243788 and B247392 (Cal. App.) ABM Security Services, Inc. employs thousands of security guards at locations in California. Jennifer Augustus, Emmanuel Davis and Delores Hall worked for ABM as security guards. In 2005, Augustus filed a putative class action, seeking to represent all security guards employed by ABM. In 2006, her complaint was related to and consolidated with similar complaints filed by Davis and Hall, and a master complaint was filed. The master complaint alleges ABM failed to consistently provide uninterrupted rest periods, or premium wages in lieu of rest breaks, as required by section 226.7 of Wage Order No. 4. They alleged that ABM failed to provide rest periods required by California law in that it failed to relieve security guards of all duties during rest breaks, instead requiring its guards to remain on call during breaks. Plaintiffs contend a security guard's rest period is therefore indistinguishable from normal security work, which renders every rest break invalid. The trial court certified a class and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication, concluding an employer must relieve its employees of all duties during rest breaks, including the obligation to remain on call. Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on the issue of damages, seeking unpaid wages, interest, penalties, attorney fees and an injunction. Finding no triable issue as to whether ABM was subject to approximately $90 million in statutory damages, interest, penalties, and attorney fees, the court granted the motion. ABM appealed from the resulting judgment. Justice Chaney reversed the orders granting summary adjudication and summary judgment and the amended judgment vacated. The order certifying the class is affirmed. A copy of Justice Chaney's unpublished opinion dated December 31, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/F6TBx2from Leagle.com. For Defendant and Appellant: Theodore J. Boutrous -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Theane Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Andrew G. Pappas -- apappas@gibsondunn.com -- Bradley J. Hamburger -- bhamburger@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Keith A. Jacoby -- kjacoby@littler.com -- Dominic J. Messiha -- dmessiha@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson For California Employment Law Council and Employers Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant: Paul Grossman -- paulgrossman@paulhastings.com -- at Paul Hastings David R. Ongaro -- David.Ongaro@tklaw.com -- at Thompson & Knight as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. John A. Taylor, Jr. -- jtaylor@horvitzlevy.com -- Robert H. Wright -- rwright@horvitzlevy.com -- Felix Shafir -- fshafir@horvitzlevy.com -- at Horvitz & Levy as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. D. Gregory Valenza -- gvalenza@shawvalenza.com -- at Shaw Valenza as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. For Plaintiffs and Respondents: Drew E. Pomerance -- dep@rpnalaw.com -- Michael B. Adreani -- mba@rpnalaw.com -- Marina N. Vitek -- mnv@rpnalaw.com -- at Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani; Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich -- at The Ehrlich Law Firm; Monica Balderrama -- Arthur Meneses -- at Initiative Legal Group; Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- Matthew R. Bainer -- mbainer@scalaw.com -- at Scott Cole & Associates; Alvin L. Pittman -- at Law Offices of Alvin L. Pittman As Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents: Louis Benowitz -- louis@benowitzlaw.com -- at Law Offices of Louis Benowitz; and William Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- David T. Mara -- dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- at The Turley Law Firm The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, for Division One panel consists of Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild and Associate Justices Victoria Gerrard Chaney and Jeffrey W. Johnson. ADOBE SYSTEMS: 9th Circuit Junked Appeal From Rejection of Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the 9th Circuit on Feb. 3 dismissed an appeal of a federal judge's rejection of several Silicon Valley tech giants' first effort at settling an anti- poaching labor antitrust class action while a new, $415 million offer awaits the judge's approval. The appellate case is Adobe Systems, Inc., et al. v. Siddharth Hariharan, et al., Case No. 14-72745, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District Court case is Siddharth Hariharan, et al. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:11-cv-02509-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. * * * Courthouse News Service reports that citing the settlement with tech workers over wage-fixing, Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel asked the 9th Circuit on January 30 to dismiss a petition for a writ of mandamus. The appellate case is Adobe Systems, Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Intel Corp., Defendants-Petitioners v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Respondent; and Michael Devine, Mark Fichtner, Siddharth Hariharan, Brandon Marshall, and Daniel Stover, Plaintiffs-Real Parties in Interest, Case No. Case No. 14-72745, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The trial court case is Michael Devine, et al. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:11-2509-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Defendant and Petitioner Google Inc. is represented by: Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. Daniel Purcell, Esq. Eugene M. Paige, Esq. Justina Sessions, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: rvannest@kvn.com dpurcell@kvn.com epaige@kvn.com jsessions@kvn.com - and - Edward D. Johnson, Esq. Lee H. Rubin, Esq. Donald M. Falk, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 300 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331-2057 Facsimile: (650) 331-4557 E-mail: wjohnson@mayerbrown.com lrubin@mayerbrown.com dfalk@mayerbrown.com Defendant and Petitioner Apple Inc. is represented by: Michael F. Tubach, Esq. George A. Riley, Esq. Christina J. Brown, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: griley@omm.com cjbrown@omm.com mtubach@omm.com Defendant and Petitioner Adobe Systems, Inc., is represented by: David C. Kiernan, Esq. Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq. Craig A. Waldman, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com cwaldman@jonesday.com Defendant and Petitioner Intel Corporation is represented by: Gregory P. Stone, Esq. Bradley S. Phillips, Esq. Steven M. Perry, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Email: gregory.stone@mto.com brad.phillips@mto.com steven.perry@mto.com ADT LLC: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADT LLC and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-at-00247 (E.D. Cal., February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked more than 40 per week. ADT LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. It provides electronic security, interactive home and business automation and alarm monitoring services throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Alan Harris, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 4771 Cromwell Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 931-3777 Facsimile: (323) 931-3366 E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com ADVANCE AMERICA: Judge Nixed "Zieger" Suit With Leave to Amend -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the District of Delaware granted the defendants' motions in the case EDMUND ZIEGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS, INC. d/b/a ADVANCE AMERICA, and NCAS OF DELAWARE, LLC d/b/a ADVANCE AMERICA, Defendants, C.A. NO. 13-1614-GMS (D. Del.) Edmund Zieger entered into a loan agreement with Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. in the amount of $650.00. Pursuant to the terms of the Customer Agreement, Zieger was to submit payments of approximately $249.50 every month for six months, for a total of $1,496.94, in order to repay the loan. Removing the principal from the calculus, this amounted to $846.94. Zieger also granted Advance ACH authorization to make automatic debit withdrawals from his bank account to meet the monthly payments. In addition, the Customer Agreement contained provisions governing dispute resolution, which contains a clause that mandated that disputes would be resolved via arbitration or small claims court. After making one of the scheduled monthly payments, Zieger filed the putative class action complaint. Subsequently, after a second payment had been withdrawn, the parties reached an agreement whereby Advance would not take or accept further payment from Zieger during the pendency of the action. The complaint alleges that the Customer Agreement Zieger signed and other similar agreements signed by putative class members are unconscionable. The complaint contains five counts: (1) injunctive relief preventing the enforcement of the Customer Agreement, (2) declaratory judgment that the Customer Agreement and those containing similar terms are unconscionable and enforceable, (3) breach of duty of fair dealing, (4) violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and (5) unjust enrichment. Advance filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Zieger lacks standing to assert several of the claims in the complaint and therefore the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these matters. Advance also moved to dismiss Counts III, IV, and V for failure to state a claim. In addition, Advance filed a motion to strike the class allegations of the complaint. Judge Sleet granted defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to strike, but Zieger was granted leave to amend his complaint with new class allegations. A copy of Judge Sleet's memorandum dated December 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/6sSdlEfrom Leagle.com. Edmund Zieger, Plaintiff, represented by Richard H. Cross, Jr. -- rcross@crosslaw.com -- Christopher Page Simon -- csimon@crosslaw.com -- Cross & Simon, LLC Advance America Cash Advance Centers Inc., Defendant, represented by Peter J. Walsh, Jr -- pwalsh@potteranderson.com -- John Anderson Sensing -- jsensing@potteranderson.com -- at Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP; Lewis S. Wiener -- lewis.wiener@sutherland.com -- Wilson G. Barmeyer -- wilson.barmayer@sutherland.com -- at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP NCAS of Delaware LLC, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Walsh, Jr -- pwalsh@potteranderson.com -- John Anderson Sensing -- jsensing@potteranderson.com -- at Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP ADVANCE ANALYTICAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Packaging, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advance Analytical Testing Laboratories, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, Advanced Analytical Testing Laboratories, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, and Krishna Chivukula, Case No. 1:15-cv-01414 (N.D. Ill., February 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited junk faxes in bulk to unwilling recipients with deficient opt-out notices. The Defendants offer several laboratory-testing services, such as water and gas testing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 878-1342 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com isalam@siprut.com ALIBALA GROUP: Sued in New York by Investors Over IPO Omissions --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Alibaba's initial public offering raked in more than $25 billion while the Chinese e-commerce behemoth faced a probe into bribery and counterfeiting, a federal class action alleges. Manishkumar Khunt filed the complaint on February 2 in Manhattan against Alibala Group, CEO Jack Yun Ma, and three other individuals. Another investor, Devorah Klein, filed similar allegations in the same court February 3. Alibaba is a Chinese e-commerce company that provides an online portal linking Chinese manufacturers with overseas buyers. It also runs Alipay, an online payment service, and the online shopping website Taobao. The company bills itself as "the largest online and mobile commerce company in the world in terms of gross merchandise volume," according to the complaint. Alibaba's initial public offering in late September 2014 raised $25 billion, but investors now say that Alibaba knew two months beforehand "that company executives had met with China's State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC) in July 2014 . . . and that regulators had then brought to Alibaba's attention a variety of highly dubious -- even illegal -- business practices that the SAIC advised Alibaba it was then clamping down on and which threatened the core of Alibaba's business." These practices included the sale of counterfeit goods, such as branded handbags and fake cigarettes, and of restricted weapons. SAIC also allegedly informed Alibaba that its staff members were taking bribes from merchants to boost their search rankings, engaging in anticompetitive behavior such as forbidding merchants from using rival's sites, and doing nothing to stop merchants from false advertising. The civil suits come just days after Jan. 28 reports by various financial media that the SAIC had formally issued a white paper accusing Alibaba of engaging illegal activity. News of the accusations caused Alibaba's share price to fall 4 percent on unusually high volume that day. On Jan. 29 Alibaba released disappointing financial results for the fourth quarter of 2014, missing its revenue target by over $200 million, according to the complaint. It also allegedly reported that profits fell 28 percent from fourth quarter 2013. The shares slid a further 9 percent, reaching a price down more than 25 percent from its four-month high, according to the complaint. Alibaba CEO Jack Ma told reporters that the government's findings were mistaken, and the SAIC said January 30 that its findings did not have "judicial effect," Voice of America reported . But investors claim that Alibaba would not have been able to hit the price point of $68 per share in its IPO if it had disclosed the accusations against it. Alibaba's shares traded February 3 at $90.10. They reached a high of $119.15 in November 2014. The Plaintiff in the February 2 lawsuit is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com The Plaintiff in the February 3 lawsuit is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, 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 ALIPHCOM: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Frenzel" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case ROBERT FRENZEL, Plaintiff, v. ALIPHCOM, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-03587- WHO (N.D. Cal.) AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone is a California corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It markets and sells Jawbone UP, a fitness-tracker wristband that contains an accelerometer designed to track the user's daily movements and sleep patterns. Jawbone has distributed three generations of the device: a first generation Jawbone UP released in 2011, a second generation Jawbone UP released in 2012, and a Jawbone UP24 released in 2013. Frenzel resides in Kansas City, Missouri, and is a Missouri citizen. Frenzel purchased a second generation Jawbone UP from an Apple store. Before purchasing the device, Frenzel reviewed Jawbone's marketing materials and representations. The representations included that Jawbone UP is a fitness and lifestyle tracker that monitors the purchaser's physical activity, sleep patterns, and eating habits, and the battery is expected to last for 10 days when fully charged. Within a few months, Frenzel's Jawbone UP stopped maintaining its charge. Frenzel contacted Jawbone and was issued a replacement second generation Jawbone UP. The replacement also experienced power problems and ultimately died when it failed to turn on. Frenzel again contacted Jawbone but was told that his only recourse was to purchase a new device. Plaintiff alleges that he was fraudulently induced to purchase a Jawbone UP fitness-tracker wristband by misrepresentations regarding the product's battery life and general functionality. Plaintiff asserts six causes of action in the complaint: (i) violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (ii) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (iii) violations of California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq.; (iv) breach of express warranty; (v) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (vi) breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Plaintiff seeks an order certifying a national class, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Frenzel's claims are precluded by California's choice-of-law rules and, in addition, are not adequately alleged. Judge Orrick granted defendant's motion to dismiss in an order dated December 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/pCtwFZfrom Leagle.com. Robert Frenzel, Plaintiff, represented by Julia A. Luster -- jluster@bursor.com -- Annick Marie Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com -- Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- at Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Aliphcom, Defendant, represented by Mortimer H. Hartwell -- mhartwell@velaw.com -- at VINSON & ELKINS LLP; Howard Holderness -- hholderness@morganlewis.com -- Jeremy Noah Lateiner -- jlateiner@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco-Related Cases Pending at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------ Altria Group, Inc., reported, in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending in the United States against Philip Morris USA Inc. and, in some instances, Altria Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2014, December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012: Type of Case Number of Cases Pending as of 12/31/2014 12/31/2013 12/31/2012 ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- Individual Smoking and Health Cases 67 67 77 Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims Litigation 5 6 7 Health Care Cost Recovery Actions 1 1 1 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Class Actions 12 15 14 Individual Smoking and Health Cases does not include 2,558 cases brought by flight attendants seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS"). The flight attendants allege that they are members of an ETS smoking and health class action in Florida, which was settled in 1997 (Broin). The terms of the court-approved settlement in that case allow class members to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibit them from seeking punitive damages. Also, does not include individual smoking and health cases brought by or on behalf of plaintiffs in Florida state and federal courts following the decertification of the Engle case. Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims Litigation includes as one case the 600 civil actions (of which 346 were actions against PM USA) that were to be tried in a single proceeding in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation). The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that the United States Constitution did not preclude a trial in two phases in this case. Issues related to defendants' conduct and whether punitive damages are permissible were tried in the first phase. Trial in the first phase of this case began in April 2013. In May 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on the claims for design defect, negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and concealment and declined to find that the defendants' conduct warranted punitive damages. Plaintiffs prevailed on their claim that ventilated filter cigarettes should have included use instructions for the period 1964 - 1969. The second phase, if any, will consist of individual trials to determine liability and compensatory damages on that claim only. In August 2013, the trial court denied all post-trial motions. The trial court entered final judgment in October 2013 and, in November 2013, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. On November 3, 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which the court denied on January 8, 2015. ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces 10 Health Care Cost Recovery Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, Philip Morris USA Inc. is a named defendant in ten health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are also named defendants in seven smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces. A Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products. ALTRIA GROUP: 57 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial in 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, 57 Engle progeny cases and three individual smoking and health cases against Philip Morris USA Inc. are set for trial in 2015. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are also scheduled for trial in 2015. Trial dates are subject to change. Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts have been returned in 56 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights" and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 38 of the 56 cases. These 38 cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (6), Florida (10), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for reconsideration. Oral argument of plaintiff's appeal of this ruling occurred in September 2014. Of the 18 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, 15 have reached final resolution. A verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois (Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in December 2006, but plaintiff is seeking to reinstate the verdict, which an intermediate appellate court ordered in April 2014. PM USA filed a petition for leave to appeal, which automatically stayed the April 2014 order. In September 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal. As of January 27, 2015, 70 state and federal Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision. Thirty-six verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs and 34 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA. ALTRIA GROUP: 70 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts --------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, 70 federal and state Engle progeny cases involving Philip Morris USA Inc. have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court Engle decision. Thirty-six verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs. Thirty-four verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA (Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis, Russo (formerly Frazier), C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa, Oliva, Weingart, Junious, Szymanski, Gollihue, McCray, Denton, Hancock, Wilder, D. Cohen, LaMotte, J. Campbell, Dombey, Haldeman, Jacobson, Blasco, Gonzalez, Reider, Banks, Surico, Davis, Baum, Bishop, Starbuck and Vila). In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only some of which have resulted in new trials as of January 27, 2015. The juries in the Reider and Banks cases returned zero damages verdicts in favor of PM USA. The juries in the Weingart and Hancock cases returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no damages, but the trial court in each case granted an additur. In the Russo case (formerly Frazier), however, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in defendants' favor in April 2012 and remanded the case for a new trial. Defendants sought review of the case in the Florida Supreme Court, which was granted in September 2013. Oral argument occurred in April 2014 in the Florida Supreme Court on the question of whether the statute of repose applies in Engle progeny cases. ALTRIA GROUP: $8.3 Million Verdict in "Brown" Case -------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that on January 21, 2015, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict against Philip Morris USA Inc. awarding plaintiff in the "Brown" case approximately $8.3 million in compensatory damages and $9 million in punitive damages. ALTRIA GROUP: Named as Defendants in 7 Class Actions in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, Philip Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical injury as well. Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1). As of January 27, 2015, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes. ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Medical Monitoring Class Suit Pending v. PM USA --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that one medical monitoring class action is currently pending against Philip Morris USA Inc. In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan have indicated they may seek to treble any damages awarded. The future defense of these cases may be negatively impacted by evolving medical standards and practice. One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against Philip Morris USA Inc. In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs purportedly brought the action on behalf of the state's residents who are: age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of $190 million. In June 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for partial summary judgment and to strike affirmative defenses, which the district court denied in March 2012 without prejudice. In October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the district court amended the class definition to extend to individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria through February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was not a Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013. In January 2014, plaintiffs renewed their previously filed motions for partial summary judgment and to strike affirmative defenses. In December 2014, the court issued its rulings on plaintiffs' previously-filed motions, granting and denying the motions in part. A trial date has not been set. ALTRIA GROUP: 12 Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending as of Jan. 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, a total of 12 Lights/Ultra Lights" cases are pending in various U.S. state courts. Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of January 27, 2015, a total of 12 such cases are pending in various U.S. state courts. In El-Roy, a purported "Lights" class action in Israel, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and ordered the plaintiffs to pay defendants approximately $100,000 in attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs in that case noticed an appeal. Oral argument at the Israel Supreme Court occurred on November 17, 2014, and the same day plaintiffs agreed to accept judgment against them in return for trial costs. ALTRIA GROUP: 26 "Lights" Class Actions Served Through Jan. 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in Good, and through January 27, 2015, 26 purported "Lights" class actions were served upon Philip Morris USA Inc. and, in certain cases, Altria Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. All of these cases either were filed in federal court or were removed to federal court by PM USA and were transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL proceeding"). In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia, Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal. Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their cases. In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back to the federal district courts in which the suits originated. These cases were ultimately resolved in a manner favorable to PM USA. In Tang, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice in July 2012, concluding the litigation. In Phillips, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, following the district court's denial of class certification, PM USA made an offer of judgment to resolve the case for $6,000, which plaintiff accepted, and the court dismissed the case. In Cabbat, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii denied plaintiffs' class certification motion in January 2014. After plaintiffs were unsuccessful in obtaining appellate review, in July 2014, the parties filed, and the court approved, a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice. In Wyatt, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied plaintiffs' class certification motion in August 2013. After plaintiffs were unsuccessful in obtaining appellate review, PM USA made an offer of judgment to resolve the case for $1,000, which plaintiff accepted in September 2014. The district court dismissed the case in October 2014. ALTRIA GROUP: 18 Courts in 19 "Lights" Cases Won't Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, 18 courts in 19 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of Philip Morris USA Inc. Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified class in the Price case. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action (Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August 2009, but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case. The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district court's dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation. In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October 2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation. ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Set in "Miner" Case ----------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that certified class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen) and Arkansas (Miner). State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen) and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases include: Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review. In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross- motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case. In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court denied. Trial is scheduled to begin October 19, 2015. Brown: In June 1997, plaintiffs filed suit in California state court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA and others, violated California law regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices. In May 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial court decision that decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court. At that time, the class consisted of individuals who, at the time they were residents of California, (i) smoked in California one or more cigarettes manufactured by PM USA that were labeled and/or advertised with the terms or phrases "light," "medium," "mild," "low tar," and/or "lowered tar and nicotine," but not including any cigarettes labeled or advertised with the terms or phrases "ultra light" or "ultra low tar," and (ii) who were exposed to defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California. Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of a portion of the costs of "light" cigarettes purchased during the class period and injunctive relief ordering corrective communications. In September 2012, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court dismissed all defendants except PM USA from the lawsuit. Trial began in April 2013. In May 2013 the plaintiffs redefined the class to include California residents who smoked in California one or more of defendant's Marlboro Lights cigarettes between January 1, 1998 and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California. In June 2013, PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class. Trial concluded in July 2013. In September 2013, the court issued a final Statement of Decision, in which the court found that PM USA violated California law, but that plaintiffs had not established a basis for relief. On this basis, the court granted judgment for PM USA. The court also denied PM USA's motion to decertify the class. In October 2013, the court entered final judgment in favor of PM USA. In November 2013, plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the court denied. In December 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA filed a conditional cross-appeal. In February 2014, the trial court awarded PM USA $764,553 in costs. Also in February 2014, plaintiffs appealed the costs award. Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which potential class members can qualify to become part of the class. The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim. A trial date has not been set. Miner: In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants' contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the "federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL proceeding. In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1, 1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights, including Marlboro Ultra Lights, for personal consumption in Arkansas. PM USA filed a notice of appeal of the class certification ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2013. Oral argument is scheduled for February 12, 2015. ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in UST Case to Begin in 2016 First Quarter -------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that in December 2014, the court in the UST Litigation entered a scheduling order setting trial to commence in the first quarter of 2016. Claims related to smokeless tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: First, UST LLC and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in certain actions in West Virginia brought by or on behalf of individual plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless tobacco manufacturers and other organizations seeking damages and other relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a result of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products. Included among the plaintiffs are five individuals alleging use of U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC's smokeless tobacco products and alleging the types of injuries claimed to be associated with the use of smokeless tobacco products. USSTC, along with other non-cigarette manufacturers, has remained severed from such proceedings since December 2001. Second, UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in a number of other individual tobacco and health suits over time. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of limitations. USSTC is currently named in one such action in Florida (Vassallo). In December 2014, the court entered a scheduling order setting trial to commence in the first quarter of 2016. AMERICAN MEDICAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fernandez" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reya Fernandez, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. American Medical Collection Agency, and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-01205 (D.N.J., February 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically by sending debt collection letters which unlawfully exposed sensitive and personal financial information to the public through the window envelope. American Medical Collection Agency is a debt collection agency with offices at 4 Westchester Plaza Suite 110, Elmsford, New York 10523. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com AMIRA NATURE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, on Feb. 10 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Amira Nature Foods, Ltd. Stock between September 27, 2012 and February 9, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Amira investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Amira class action, go to the website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-506.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The lawsuit alleges: (a) Amira fraudulently overstated its Indian- produced basmati rice exports, thereby overstating revenues by at least 24% and 18.7% in FY 2013 and 2014, respectively; (b) Amira concealed that many of its counterparties are secretly related parties, including its largest customer, one of its largest suppliers, a potential counterparty to a $30 million transaction, and over a dozen others; (c) Amira's CEO used company money to pay his own personal household expenses, including salaries for a personal house manager and a chef for his farmhouse. The lawsuit alleges that the truth was disclosed on two occasions, on April 3, 2013, causing its stock price to fall to $1.10 by April 5, or almost 20%, and on February 9, 2015, causing Amira's stock price to fall $3.45, or almost 26% from its previous close. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 13, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-506.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq., or Jonathan Horne, Esq., of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. ANASTASIA M. GARCIA: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Yenisey Perez, Cintia Cini, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Anastasia M. Garcia, P.A. and Anastasia M. Garcia, Case No. 1:15-cv-20615 (S.D. Fla., February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a legal services firm in Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM ANGELO OF MULBERRY: Faces "Hajjar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Bashir Hajjar and Izet Jasaraj, on of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Angelo Of Mulberry Street Inc., and Giovanni Aprea, Concetta "Tina" Aprea, Rino Aprea, Teresa Aprea, and Luigi "Gino" Silvestri, in their personal and professional capacities, Case No. 1:15-cv-01082 (S.D.N.Y., February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 146 Mulberry Street, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Bodansky, Esq. David Evan Gottlieb, Esq. Tanvir Haque Rahman, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 E-mail: bbodansky@wigdorlaw.com dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com trahman@wigdorlaw.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Becker" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Hank Becker and John L. McAffry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00230 (S.D. Ind., February 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Laddie Montague, Esq. Sherrie Savett, Esq. Shanon Carson, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Jon Lambiras, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC 1622 Locust St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: hlmontague@bm.net ssavett@bm.net scarson@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net jlambiras@bm.net - and - Michael F. Becker, Esq. THE BECKER LAW FIRM 50 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (440) 372-0810 E-mail: mbecker@beckerlawlpa.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Haag" Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- David Haag and Maria Haag, individually, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-00238 (M.D. Fla., February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 7th Floor, 201 N Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hurley" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Thomas Hurley, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00247 (S.D. Ind., February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Kennedy, Esq. KROGER GARDIS & REGAS LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 900 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 692-9000 Facsimile: (317) 264-6832 E-mail: jpk@kgrlaw.com - and - Robert R. Sparks, Esq. STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA The Federal Building 150 East Fourth, Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Telephone: (513) 621-2120 Facsimile: (513) 241-8259 E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com ARIZONA: Faces Class Suit by Foster Kids Over Budget Cuts --------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Tim Hull reports that Arizona's deep budget cuts threaten thousands of foster children with physical and emotional harm, 10 children claim in a federal class action. Ten foster children and their next friends sued Arizona Department of Child Safety Director Charles Flanagan and Arizona Department of Health Services Director William Humble on Feb. 3, alleging numerous civil rights violations on behalf of more than 16,000 children in the state's foster care system. Arizona's population of foster children, many of whom have been removed from their families because of abuse and neglect, nearly doubled from 2003 to 2012, a time during which national rates declined, according to the 51-page lawsuit. "This huge growth in the state's foster care population has been fueled by extensive state budget cuts to important support services that had previously helped keep families together," the complaint states. Community-based providers and in-home services which "aimed at making removal of children into foster care unnecessary" have seen some of the deepest cuts, declining from $43 million in fiscal year 2008 to less than $22 million in fiscal year 2012, according to the plaintiffs. The lawsuit identifies several issues that have "plagued" the state's foster-care system for at least a decade, leading former Gov. Jan Brewer to describe it as "broken" in 2014. These include "a severe shortage in and inaccessibility of physical, mental and behavioral health services available to children in state care." "As a result, far too many children in state foster care custody do not receive the health care services they desperately need and all children in state care are subject to an unreasonable risk that they will suffer physical and emotional harm and deterioration while in the state's care," the complaint states. It tells of the often horrific foster-care experiences of the 10 plaintiffs, all of whom are identified only by their initials. One 10-year-old girl, B.K., who has spent most of her life in foster care, was so neglected by the system that she eventually threatened suicide. "The state failed to ensure that B.K. obtained the glasses she needed to see properly," the lawsuit states. "The state also failed to discover that B.K. was walking with a limp, and failed to make sure that she received the orthopedic shoes she needed. Despite months of complaints from B.K. about a toothache, the state failed to make sure she saw a dentist while she was living at the group home." B.K. later reported "hearing voices that were telling her to hurt other people or that someone would die," according to the complaint, and in December 2014 she "had another psychiatric crisis and threatened suicide" and "the state moved her out of the foster home and admitted her to another psychiatric hospital." The foster-care system is dogged by a "widespread failure to conduct timely investigations of reports that children have been maltreated while in state foster care custody"; a "severe and sustained shortage of family foster homes"; and a "widespread failure to engage in basic child welfare practices aimed at maintaining family relationships," according to the complaint. The plaintiffs seek an injunction and other relief to "ensure that all members of the General Class receive . . . physical, mental and behavioral health services," prompt investigations of reports of abuse and neglect, and concentration up on and commitment to reunification with siblings and biological parents. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne C. Ronan, Esq. Timothy M. Hogan, Esq. ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 514 West Roosevelt Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 258-8850 Facsimile: (602) 258-8757 E-mail: aronan@aclpi.org thogan@aclpi.org - and - Keith Beauchamp, Esq. Roopali H. Desai, Esq. Shelley Tolman, Esq. COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 381-5478 Facsimile: (602) 224-6020 E-mail: kbeauchamp@cblawyers.com rdesai@cblawyers.com stolman@cblawyers.com ART LANDSCAPING: Faces "Osorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melvin Manuel Lopez Osorio, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) v. Art Landscaping, Corp., Alexander Acosta, Case No. 1:15-cv-20614 (S.D. Fla., February 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Art Landscaping, Corp. is a full service design and installation landscaping company located in Kankakee, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM ATLANTIC CAR: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Edgar Miranda, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Atlantic Car Wash, Inc., d/b/a 5 Star Auto Spa, Efim Roitman, and Fema Mittleman, Case No. 1:15-cv-00796 (E.D.N.Y., February 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop located at 571 Washington Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11238. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com AURCANA CORPORATION: Settles Class Action for $4 Million -------------------------------------------------------- Aurcana Corporation on Feb. 10 disclosed that it has entered into an agreement to settle the class action litigation commenced by Nunzio Cardillo and John Witiluk in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and two former executives of the Company. The Settlement provides for the full and final settlement, release and dismissal of all claims brought under the Action. The Settlement is subject to customary conditions, including the receipt of court approval of the Settlement. Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company will pay an aggregate of $4,000,000, which amount, net of legal fees and other costs, will be divided among members of the plaintiff class on a pro rata basis. The Settlement Amount will be fully funded by insurance maintained by the Company, and the Company does not anticipate that the payment of the Settlement Amount will have any effect on the Company's cash position or operations. The Company elected to enter into the Settlement in order to avoid the expense, burden and inconvenience associated with the continuance of the Action. The Settlement does not constitute an admission by the Company of any violation of law or other wrongdoing. Kevin Drover, the Company's President and CEO, states, "We are pleased that a settlement of the class action litigation has been reached and will not have an impact on Aurcana's cash position. The Company remains fully focused on continuing to improve the operation and profitability of the La Negra mine." About Aurcana Corporation Aurcana Corporation is a primary silver producing company with two properties: the La Negra Mine in Mexico and the Shafter Silver Project in Texas, US. The latter was put on care and maintenance in December 2013, in part due to depressed silver prices. The Company is developing new mining plans for both properties as it continues to work to improve margins and shareholder value. BARCLAYS BANK: Court Refuses to Dismiss Most Claims in Forex Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Adam Klasfeld reports that in private corner of the Internet, a shadowy group of power people allegedly met in chat rooms called "The Cartel," "The Bandits' Club" and "The Mafia" to plot illicit, lucrative trades. No, it's not a scene from the ongoing federal trial of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who is accused of running an underground narcotics empire on the Deepnet. The allegation comes from an antitrust lawsuit accusing 12 major banks of sending their top-level traders to manipulate a booming foreign-currency exchange trade that nets more than $5 trillion a day. Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS failed to dismiss most of those claims, as alleged in three actions, January 29. One of the lawsuits consolidates the claims of a dozen investment funds, pension plans, hedge funds and a municipal board that sued the banks in 2003. U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield's ruling summarizes the case as allegedly involving "a long-running conspiracy among the world's largest banks to manipulate the benchmark rates in one of the world's largest markets." The accused banks controlled 84.25 percent "of all trades in the market in 2013," Schofield wrote. They are accused of fixing "the fix," a rate estimated as the "median price of actual foreign exchange transactions in the 30 seconds before and after 4 pm London time," the opinion states. Of all of these estimates, the most widely used is allegedly the WM/Reuters rate. The complaints accuse the banks of sending their top-level traders "to meet and conspire for over a decade" on chat rooms, instant messages and emails. "The chat rooms, with evocative names such as "The Cartel," "The Bandits' Club," "The Mafia" and "One Team, One Dream," were the primary sites of conspiracy," Schofield wrote, describing the allegations. "The Cartel, for example, counted traders from at least four defendants among its members, including Citigroup, Barclays, UBS and JPMorgan, whose chief currency dealer in London ran the chat room. The Cartel's members 'exchanged information on customer orders and agreed to trading strategies to manipulate' the fix. After manipulating the fix, members allegedly 'would send written slaps on the back for a job well done.' "In The Cartel and in other chat rooms, FX traders from the various defendant banks shared inappropriate 'market-sensitive information with rivals' including 'information about pricing,' their customers' orders and their net trading positions in advance of 4 pm London time. The traders discussed the 'types and volume of trades they planned to place.' Using this nonpublic information, and 'by agreeing in chat rooms and instant messages' to employ collusive trading strategies, defendants moved the fix in the direction they desired and thereby fixed the prices of the FX instruments." The traders allegedly discussed "front running," "banging the close" and "painting the screen" as their three strategies for "fixing the fix." U.S. and European regulators fined many of these major banks $4.25 billion for conspiring to manipulate foreign currency markets on Nov. 12, 2014. "Other investigations remain ongoing," Schofield noted. "Since the investigations began, all 12 defendants have terminated, suspended or overseen the departure of over 30 long- time and key employees associated with their FX operations," the opinion states. Schofield gave a green light to the U.S.-based antirust claims, but she dismissed the foreign actions as statutorily barred. "Fairly read, the U.S. Complaint adequately alleges that defendants engaged in a long-running conspiracy to manipulate the fix to defendants' advantage," she wrote. Citigroup declined to comment. Attorneys for the plaintiffs and Barclays did not return calls by press time. BE LLC: Obtains Final Approval of "DuFour" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Charles T. Breyer issued a final approval order approving a settlement on February 23, 2015, in TIMOTHY and JEANNE DuFOUR and KENNETH TANNER, individuals, on their own behalves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BE., LLC, DYNAMIC SHOWCASES, LLC, California limited liability companies, MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a California corporations, BE MARKETING LIMITED, a private limited company registered in England and Wales, ERIK DeSANDO, BARRY FALCK, JACOB STEINBECK, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 09-03770- CRB, (N.D. Cal.). Under the ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/cJXkHVfrom Leagle.com, Judge Breyer held that the Settlement consideration is fair and that said Settlement is, in all respects, fair, just, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class Members. The Court certified the Settlement Class solely for purposes of effectuating the settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as: Persons who entered into non-arbitrable contracts for services with Be., LLC and/or Monterey, examples of which contracts were identified in ECF Filing Nos. 187-6, 187-7, and 187-10, and who did not properly and timely opt out of the Settlement. David C. Parisi of Parisi & Havens LLP and Ethan Preston of Preston Law Offices were confirmed as Class Counsel. Plaintiffs Timothy and Jeanne DuFour were confirmed as class representatives. The Court ordered Monterey to establish a Settlement Fund of $1,250,000 on the later of September 15, 2014 and (i) if no appeal has been filed, after 45 days have lapsed since entry of the Judgment, or (ii) if a timely appeal has been filed (including any appeal by an objecting Class Member or Plaintiffs/Class Counsel's appeal from an award of fees and/or costs), after 45 days have lapsed since the appeal is finally resolved, with no possibility of further appellate or other review, resulting in final judicial approval of the Settlement. The Court ordered Monterey to maintain such Settlement Fund until all money within the Settlement Fund is distributed. The Court awarded Class Counsel attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in the total amount of $600,000. The Court also awarded Plaintiffs an incentive fee of $5,000. Ethan Preston -- ep@eplaw.us -- PRESTON LAW OFFICES, Scottsdale, Arizona, David C. Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Suzanne Havens Beckman -- shavens@parisihavens.com -- PARISI & HAVENS LLP, Sherman Oaks, California. BEACON: RI Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------- Workcompcentral reports that the Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a massive class action against state-chartered workers' compensation insurance carrier Beacon for allegedly improperly diverting $101 million in surplus revenue to its largest policyholders. BECTON DICKINSON: Class Suits in Calif. Not Part of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the class actions filed in the Superior Court of California are not part of the proposed settlement and are still pending. On October 5, 2014, CareFusion Corporation ("CareFusion") and the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger that provides for the acquisition of CareFusion by the Company. Under the terms of the merger agreement, a subsidiary of the Company ("the merger subsidiary") will merge with and into CareFusion, with CareFusion surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Several putative class action lawsuits have been filed against CareFusion, its directors, the Company and the merger subsidiary in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County. These lawsuits generally allege that the members of the board of directors of CareFusion breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by, among other things, carrying out a process that plaintiffs allege did not ensure adequate and fair consideration to CareFusion stockholders. The plaintiffs in these actions further allege that CareFusion, and the Company aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 30, 2014, the parties to the actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Actions") entered into an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Actions on the basis of additional disclosures made in a CareFusion Schedule 14A, filed with the SEC on January 5, 2015. The settlement terms are reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). On December 31, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel notified the Delaware Court of Chancery of the settlement and MOU. Pursuant to the MOU, the parties to the Delaware Actions have agreed to negotiate in good faith to execute a stipulation of settlement, and will present the proposed settlement to the Delaware Court of Chancery as soon as practicable. The actions filed in the Superior Court of California are not part of the proposed settlement and are still pending. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of the suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous defense of each of these matters. BELL MATTRESS: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan L. Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bell Mattress, Inc., Daniel Zamora, and Flor Zamora, Case No. 1:15-cv-20634 (S.D. Fla., February 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a music company located in 24 Thompson Rd, East Windsor, CT, United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Jay Militzok, Esq. MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A. 3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 727-8570 Facsimile: (954) 241-6857 E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com BELMONT VILLAGE: Gets Final Approval of Brumfield Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell, on February 20, 2015, granted final approval of a class action settlement in LISA BRUMFIELD, and IVA FARHANI individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BELMONT VILLAGE, L.P., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 13-07445-BRO (CWX), (C.D. Cal.). The Court held that the Settlement Class conditionally certified in the Preliminary Approval Order is confirmed. Judgment is entered dismissing the action against Defendant Belmont Village, L.P. on the merits and with prejudice and without the payment of fees or costs other than as provided in the Settlement. All claims asserted by Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. Judge O'Connell held that Harris & Ruble and the Law Office of Andrew J. Sokolowski (Class Counsel) are qualified to represent the Settlement Class, and the Court confirms their appointment as Class Counsel. Class Counsel's request for an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $114,828 is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). The Court also approved reimbursement for Class Counsel's expenses in the amount of $5,059.24. The Court approved the payment of settlement-administration fees and expenses to CPT Group, Inc. in the amount of $26,000. The Court found that it is appropriate to grant service awards in the amounts of $5,000 each to Plaintiffs Brumfield and Farhani. These payments will be made pursuant to the procedures specified in the Settlement Agreement. The Court approved the penalty payment of $5,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and directed that $3,750 be distributed to the LWDA with the remaining $1,250 to be distributed among the class members on a pro rata basis in accordance with California Labor Code section 2699(i). The case is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own costs, Judge O'Connell concluded. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/e3CLc2from Leagle.com. Lisa Brumfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski -- andrew@sokolawfirm.com -- The Law Office of Andrew J Sokolowski, D Alan Harris -- HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble & Priya Mohan -- pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble. Belmont Village LP, Defendant, represented by Dorothy Sheng-Ing Liu -- dliu@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP & Emily Jane Leahy -- eleahy@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP. BP WEST: "Kelly" Suit Over Debit Card Fee Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of California granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case, CHARLES KELLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-01507-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.) Charles Kelly drove into BP's ARCO station in Vacaville since he had seen BP's sign advertising gas at a price lower than at other nearby stations. When he parked his car in front of a pump, he saw the same price and inserted his debit card in a nearby machine. The display warned him that if he continued, his card would be charged an additional $0.35. This was the first time he learned of the fee. Kelly sued BP West Coast Products LLC under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq. and under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. Kelly seeks to represent a class of any BP customers who purchased gas with a debit card from an ARCO brand gasoline station in the state of California. He seeks, among other remedies, damages and an injunction requiring BP to disclose the existence of the debit card fee on its street signs and pumps. BP moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Judge Mueller granted BP's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. A copy of Judge Mueller order dated December 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/vn1H8Dfrom Leagle.com. Charles Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Carlson mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com -- at Carlson Legal Services BP West Coast Products, LLC, Defendant, represented by Isabelle Louise Ord -- isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com -- Mark Allen Nadeau -- mark.nadeau@dlapiper.com -- Thomas Alexander Cierny -- alec.cierny@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper, LLP BRINK'S INCORPORATED: "Ceron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Dorian Ceron, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brink's Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Brink's Global Services USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-01129 (C.D. Cal., February 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide security services including secure transportation and logistics solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Fletcher W. H. Schmidt, Esq. Paul Keith Haines, Esq. BOREN OSHER AND LUFTMAN LLP 222 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 2222 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2220 Facsimile: (310) 322-2228 E-mail: fschmidt@bollaw.com phaines@bollaw.com CANADA: Merchant to Represent '60s Scoop Class Action Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a Saskatchewan law firm is representing more than a thousand victims who are seeking compensation from the federal government for the '60s Scoop, and some Manitoba survivors think it's a good idea. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the federal government ran the Adopt Indian Metis program. Under the program, thousands of indigenous children were taken from their homes and adopted into white families in Canada and the United States. Some children even ended up as far away as the United Kingdom. Marlene Orgeron is from the Sapotaweyak Cree Nation in Manitoba. After both her parents died, she lived with her aunt and uncle until the age of four. That's when she was taken from Manitoba and adopted into a family in Louisiana. She returned to the province when she was 21, but she says there will always be a disconnect with her birth family. "You share the same blood but that doesn't automatically mean there's going to be this relationship," she said. Ms. Orgeron hasn't signed on, but says she supports the class- action lawsuit. "Money isn't going to solve anything," she said. "But if someone got into a horrible car accident and it wasn't their fault, then they should be compensated." Ms. Orgeron says what's more important is that the federal government acknowledge the damage caused by the '60s Scoop and apologize. "It needs to be done publicly," she said. "All of Canada should hear an apology." Selena Kern also supports the lawsuit but agrees that acknowledgement of wrongdoing from the federal government is more important. Raised on the Brokenhead Ojibway Nation until she was nine years old, Kern was taken with two of her siblings and adopted into a Pennsylvania family. Although she's returned to live in Manitoba, Kern says being taken from her family and community has robbed her of the Ojibway culture and language. It's something she worries she won't be able to pass on to her son. "But I know if there is any compensation, it's going directly to him," she said. The Merchant Law Group served the federal government with the class-action lawsuit on Jan. 30. Merchant also represented more than 7,000 Indian residential school survivors in a landmark case against the federal government that lead to a multibillion-dollar settlement agreement. CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces "Madatyan" Suit Over Alternator Recall ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that Chrysler Group LLC was slapped on Feb. 9 with a putative class action in California state court, claiming the automaker issued a recall over hundreds of thousands of cars equipped with faulty alternators but doesn't have enough parts to repair all the affected vehicles and is refusing to pay for rentals for customers. Lead plaintiff Robert Madatyan says that Chrysler issued a recall notice in October for vehicles featuring defective 160 amp alternators -- which cause the cars to rapidly and completely shut down while being driven and can catch on fire -- and informed owners and lessees that it would take approximately six months to obtain the needed parts. But in the meantime, consumers were warned not to drive the vehicles or park them near structures, even though Chrysler refuses to pay for rental vehicles. "Chrysler should, among other things, be required to furnish or pay for replacement vehicles until Chrysler fixes the defective vehicles and should pay damages and restitution to the owners and lessees of the vehicles for loss of use, loss of market value and other financial losses," the complaint said. The suit says Chrysler began designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling the affected vehicles in 2011, with approximately 434,581 Dodge Challenger, Charger and Durangos and Chrysler 300 and Jeep Grand Cherokees equipped with the defective parts. The cars feature a defective 160 amp alternator, causing the vehicles to shut down and possibly catch fire, and if the car doesn't completely shut down, the defect causes electrical failure that results in failure of the systems that enable the driver to control the vehicle, steer it and brake it, according to the complaint. The failures occur without warning, or at least without enough warning to prevent the dangers, the suit says. The defect can cause fires in the cars even when they are parked or not being operated, and hundreds of complaints have been filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that outline these issues, the suit says. In October, Chrysler issued a recall notice, stating that the parts needed to remedy the defect are not available. The notice said it would take the automaker six months to get the parts and then another two months to fix the vehicles, so the cars wouldn't be able to be driven until July or later, according to the suit. "Yet Chrysler refuses to furnish or pay for rental or replacement vehicles to be used by owners and lessees until Chrysler fixes the defect," the complaint said. Mr. Madatyan leased a 2013 Dodge Challenger in April 2013 and said Chrysler hasn't paid for a rental vehicle for him to drive in the meantime. The plaintiff is represented by Hovanes Margarian of The Margarian Law Firm. The suit is Madatyan et al v. Chrysler Group LLC, case number BC571830, in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. CLS TRANSPORTATION: "Iskanian" Case Remanded to Trial Court ----------------------------------------------------------- In August 2011, Arshavir Iskanian took an appeal from a trial court order requiring him to arbitrate claims brought against his former employer, CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (CLS). The order also dismissed class claims. The trial court based its decision granting CLS's motion to compel arbitration on an employment agreement that contained a class and representative action waiver and also provided that "any and all claims" arising out of Iskanian's employment were to be submitted to binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator. Iskanian's operative first amended complaint alleged seven causes of action for Labor Code violations and an unfair competition law claim (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.). Iskanian brought his claims as an individual, as a putative class representative, and (with respect to the Labor Code claims) in a representative capacity under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (the PAGA, Labor Code section 2698 et seq.). The Supreme Court in Iskanian, having concluded that Iskanian's representative claim was not waivable but that the agreement between Iskanian and CLS was otherwise enforceable according to its terms, found that Iskanian must proceed with bilateral arbitration on individual damages claims, while CLS must respond to representative PAGA claims. The court then raised a number of questions to be decided following remand: "(1) Will the parties agree on a single forum for resolving the PAGA claim and the other claims? (2) If not, is it appropriate to bifurcate the claims, with individual claims going to arbitration and the representative PAGA claim going to litigation? (3) If such bifurcation occurs, should the arbitration be stayed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2?" In addition, the court stated: "The parties may also address CLS's contention that the PAGA claims are time-barred, as well as Iskanian's response that CLS has forfeited this contention and cannot raise it on appeal." In August 2014, pursuant to Government Code section 68081, the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two requested that the parties address in letter briefs "the preliminary question of whether any or all of these issues are best now addressed in the Court of Appeal or in the trial court." In separate briefs, both parties responded that these matters should be addressed in the trial court. As stated in the letter from Iskanian's counsel, "All of these issues will involve fact- specific determinations that the trial court is best-suited to make in the first instance." In an opinion entered February 19, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/aFIpjnfrom Leagle.com, the Calif. Appeal Court agreed that and remanded the case to the trial court so that these issues may be determined. The case is ARSHAVIR ISKANIAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CLS TRANSPORTATION LOS ANGELES, LLC, Defendant and Respondent, NO. B235158. Capstone Law, Glenn Danas -- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com ; Initiative Legal Group, Raul Perez -- RPerez@InitiativeLegal.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant. Fox Rothschild, David F. Faustman -- dfaustman@foxrothschild.com -- Yesenia M. Gallegos -- ygallegos@foxrothschild.com -- Namal Tantula -- ntantula@foxrothschild.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Court Junks Class Suit With Leave to Amend -------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Katherine Proctor reports that a federal judge dismissed with leave to amend a class action accusing an East Bay Lexus manager of payroll fraud and making death threats against an employee. Lead plaintiff Robert Brock Jr., six others and two of their wives sued Concord Automobile Dealership, Lexus of Concord and Toyota Motor Sales in April 2014. Also sued were dealership owner Hank Torian, general sales manager Patrick Miliano and general manager Greg James. Brock et al. claimed that Miliano filed false bonus forms in their names, for more than they actually received, then pocketed the extra cash -- stealing from them and increasing their tax liabilities. They also complained that Miliano used racial slurs, brought guns and swords to work and threatened them with violence. Brock claimed that after he told the general manager about the payroll fraud, Miliano threatened to kill him and his family. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found on Jan. 29 that the plaintiffs' amended complaint was "not a model of clarity." She ruled that the plaintiffs "failed to define properly the relevant parties in all instances," among other muddled details. Rogers said that the court "will not waste judicial resources to analyze in detail all of the legal issues raised by defendants when doing so would require making assumptions." She gave the plaintiffs 14 days to correct the deficiencies. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles Bonner, Esq. BONNER & BONNER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 475 Gate Five Rd., Suite 212 Sausalito, CA 94965 Telephone: (415) 331-3070 Facsimile: (415) 331-2738 E-mail: charles@bonnerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Pott, Esq. PORTER SCOTT 75 Iron Point Cir., Suite 200 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 850-7300 Facsimile: (916) 850-7800 E-mail: mpott@porterscott.com CONSOL ENERGY: To Pay $20MM Portion of CNX Gas Case Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the CNX Gas shareholder settlement was the result of an agreement for resolution of the class actions brought by shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not already own for $38.25 per share in May 2010. The total settlement provided for payment to the plaintiffs of $43 million, of which the Company's portion was $20 million. The CNX Gas shareholder settlement was the result of an agreement for resolution of the class actions brought by shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not already own for $38.25 per share in May 2010. The total settlement provided for payment to the plaintiffs of $43 million, of which the Company paid $20 million. CONSOL ENERGY: 4th Cir. Flips Certification Order in "Hale" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Fourth Circuit reversed the Order certifying the class in the Hale Litigation and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the decision. The class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting claimants, or deemed lessors or paid them less than required because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions. On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the decision. CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. CONSOL ENERGY: 4th Cir. Flips Cert. Ruling in "Addison" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Fourth Circuit reversed the Order certifying the class in the Addison Litigation and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the decision. This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the United States District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class consists of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and damages based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed to either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant lessors or paid them less than required because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post- production deductions. On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On August 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the decision. CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. DAIRY FARMERS: Court Awards Atty. Fees in Antitrust Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC. CHEESE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MASTER FILE NO. 09-CV-3690, MDL NO. 2031, (N.D. Ill.), before the Court were Class Counsel's petition for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, Schreiber Foods, Inc.'s sealed motion for Rule 11 sanctions, and Schreiber's amended bill of costs. Ancillary to these motions are Defendant Dairy Farmers of America's (DFA) motion for leave to file a response to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in further support of Class Counsel's fee petition, and Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motions for leave to file a surreply in further opposition to Schreiber's motion for Rule 11 sanctions and to seal exhibit 1 to that motion. In a memorandum opinion and order entered February 20, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/q2NbLbfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., granted Class Counsel's fee petition, awarding them one-third of the $46 million common fund ($15,333,333.33) with interest thereon at the same rate paid on the Settlement Fund, plus $488,491.24 in costs and expenses. The Court granted DFA's motion for leave to file a response to Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in further support of Class Counsel's fee petition. The Court denied Schreiber's motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The Court granted in part and denied in part Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion to file a surreply and Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion to file exhibit 1 to their surreply under seal, granting Plaintiffs leave to file only the exhibits to their motion to file a surreply, which will remain under seal on the Court's docket as currently filed. Finally, the Court granted Schreiber's bill of costs, and awarded it $32,215.23 plus interest, although enforcement of this award is stayed pending resolution of Plaintiffs' appeal of this Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Schreiber. This ruling relates to direct purchaser actions. DELAWARE MANUFACTURED: Del. Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John H. Noble of the Court of Chancery of Delaware ruled on the parties' motions for summary judgment in the case entitled Ridgewood Manor II, Inc. v. The Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority, C.A. No. 8528-VCN (Del. Ch.) The defendant Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority (DMHRA) collected a monthly assessment of $3 per rented manufactured home lot in Delaware pursuant to a resolution adopted by its board on February 19, 2004. The assessments have been deposited in the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund (the Trust Fund), an account maintained by a co-defendant, the Division of Revenue of the Delaware Department of Finance. Various landlords and tenants who have paid the monthly assessments filed an action seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief and disgorgement of monthly assessments collected under the Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act by the defendants. Plaintiffs contend that defendants' continued collection of the monthly assessments from February 1, 2006, to April 8, 2014, fell beyond their statutory mandate and that the money should be returned. They argue that the Board acted unlawfully, not only by maintaining the dollar amount of the assessment without meaningful analysis, but also by disregarding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements for public bodies and the requirement for notice of fee-related actions in 25 Del. C. Section 7012(f)(1). The Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the Board complied with 25 Del. C. Section 7012(f)(1) on January 31, 2006, because the Board made a reasoned decision to maintain the level of the assessment under the then-present circumstances. They explain that their interpretation of the requirement to adopt an adjusted assessment is correct by invoking the plain language of the statute, legislative intent, a holistic reading, and subsequent legislative acts. The parties have stipulated that there is no dispute of material fact and have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Judge Noble granted defendants' motion for summary judgment except for the possibility that plaintiffs are entitled to some measure of recovery for the assessments collected between the date they filed the complaint and April 8, 2014. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted as to the failure of the Board "to adopt an adjusted assessment on or before January 31, 2006," or eliminate the fee, but it is otherwise denied. A copy of Judge Noble's decision dated December 31, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/ySJ3GNfrom Leagle.com. John W. Paradee Esquire, Joseph C. Handlon Esquire, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. Scott W. Perkins, Esquire 11 North State Street Department of Justice Dover, DE 19901 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 EBAY INC: Defending Against Data Theft Class Action --------------------------------------------------- eBay Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that "In May 2014, we publicly announced that criminals were able to penetrate our network and steal certain data, including user names, encrypted user passwords and other non-financial user data, from eBay's Marketplaces business unit. Upon making this announcement, eBay Marketplaces required all buyers and sellers on the Marketplaces platform to reset their passwords in order to login to their account. In addition to making this public announcement, we proactively approached a number of regulatory and governmental bodies, including those with the most direct supervisory authority over our data privacy and data security programs, to specifically inform them of the incident and our actions to protect our customers in response. Certain of those regulatory agencies have requested us to provide further, more detailed information regarding the incident, and we believe that we have fully cooperated in all of those requests. To date, we have not been informed by any regulatory authority of an intention to bring any enforcement action arising from this incident; however, in the future we may be subject to fines or other regulatory action. In addition, in July 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us for alleged violations and harm resulting from the incident. We are vigorously defending the lawsuit." ENHANCED RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ John Carter Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01081 (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making calls on the Plaintiff and class members' cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC is in the business of consumer debt buying and recovery and collection. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com ENERGY CORP: Court Refuses to Junk Claims Over Oil & Gas Royalty ---------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Corp. of America cannot shake claims that it shorted Pennsylvania landowners out of more than $1.4 million in royalties, reports Erin Mcauley at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal magistrate ruling. The February 2 decision by U.S. Magistrate Robert Mitchell means a trial is possible for the class of landowners led by David Pollock, seeking recovery of deductions for allegedly unlawful marketing fees and invalid interstate transportation charges. As previously certified, the class includes two subdivisions made up of landowners who have oil and gas leases with either Energy Corp. of America or Eastern American Energy Corp., alleging that fees and charges were repeatedly unlawfully applied and taken out of owed royalty payments between November 2006 and March 2012. Though lease provisions are not identical for every member of the class, the court decided that each lease generally provided that the plaintiffs are entitled to a royalty of one-eighth of the net proceeds received from the sale of gas. The class has already secured partial summary judgment regarding deductions for interstate transportation charges that accrued after a title for gas was sold and transferred to third-party purchasers. In that decision, the court decided that, once the gas passes to third party purchasers and is received into the interstate system, the gas is "sold" and "ECA cannot recover costs incurred thereafter." The court has also dismissed various class claims against ECA, including claims that the company used wrong gas prices, took excessive or unauthorized expense deductions and underpaid royalties. The company failed, however, to show that marketing fees are an applicable post-productions cost. In its latest bid for summary judgment, ECA argued that lease holders could not prove any actual damages occurred because there was no evidence that ECA took any deductions from plaintiff's royalties. The energy company pointed to plaintiffs' expert testimony for proof, claiming the expert stated on record that ECA did not take any deductions for marketing and interstate transportations charges from plaintiffs' royalties on the sale of gas. Magistrate Mitchell denied either side judgment on this point February 2, finding that enough material issues of fact exist "to conclude that damages were sustained." "Viewing the evidence of record in its entirety, there is testimony that ECA takes deductions from plaintiffs' royalties with respect to interstate transportation charges and marketing charges," Mitchell wrote. "Accordingly, ECA's motion for summary judgment is denied." The class's unsuccessful cross-motion had asked the court to "adopt [plaintiffs] 'rendition of the facts' over ECA's and award them a principal amount of $920,000." On this point, the court found that issues of material facts preclude this judgment as well. The ruling emphasizes the previous determination that gas is officially sold to third parties when the gas is received into the interstate pipeline system. Since ECA could not deduct interstate transportation charges from plaintiffs' royalties, remaining issues require a determination of exactly how much ECA deducted from plaintiffs' royalties and exactly when the interstate-transportation charges were deducted. Material-fact issues remain as well with regard to marketing deductions, who incurred the marketing charges, and whether the charges were deducted post-sale, the court found. The case is David F. Pollock, et al. v. Energy Corporation of America, Case No. 2:10-cv-01553-RCM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. ENTERGY CORPORATION: Appellate Court Voids Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Evelyn Keyes of the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, dismissed the appealed case entitled ENTERGY CORPORATION, ENTERGY SERVICES, INC., ENTERGY POWER, INC., ENTERGY POWER MARKETING CORPORATION, ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC., AND ENTERGY TEXAS, INC., Appellants, v. DAVID JENKINS, GEORGE W. STRONG, FRANCIS N. GANS, AND GARY M. GANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, NO. 01-12-00470-CV (Tex. App.) Entergy Corporation is a public utilities holding company with six electric utility operating companies: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., and Entergy Texas, Inc. (ETI). These six companies, which operate in four southern states, provide electrical service to approximately 2.6 million retail customers. On August 5, 2003, David Jenkins, George W. Strong, Francis N. Gans, and Gary M. Gans, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, filed suit against Entergy alleging that it had devised and operated an improper energy-purchasing scheme under which it had selected internally generated, higher-priced electrical power while rejecting less expensive, available third- party power, resulting in theft from Texas retail power customers in violation of the Theft Act. Entergy removed the suit to federal court alleging federal question jurisdiction. The federal court remanded the case to state court, concluding that the suit did not invoke federal law. Entergy filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, contending that jurisdiction of Jenkins's claims were preempted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Texas Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and that the claims were also barred by the filed-rate doctrine. The trial court granted Entergy's motion to dismiss, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Jenkins's claims. Jenkins's appealed the trial court's order dismissing the case, in which the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order dismissing the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Jenkins's filed a motion to certify a class consisting of Texas retail customers served by ETI who were billed and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994, to present. Entergy filed a second motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and three motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and the summary judgment motions. The trial court granted Jenkins's motion for class certification. Entergy timely filed an interlocutory appeal. Justice Keyes voided the trial court's order granting the class certification and reversed the order of the trial court denying Entergy's motion to dismiss and dismisses all claims against Entergy. A copy of Justice Keyes's opinion dated December 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/ZeYEiCfrom Leagle.com. EPLUS INC: Received Payment of $6.2 Million in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- ePlus inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed a claim in a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. "The suit alleged that ten groups of companies conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of certain flat panels used in many flat screen televisions, monitors and notebook computers. On August 6, 2014, the Claims Administrator issued to us a Notice of Claim Final Determination. On October 20, 2014, the court issued an order directing that approved claims be paid, and on October 31, 2014, we received payment in the amount of $6.2 million, which is presented within other income in our unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations," the Company said. The Company said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, that net income was $15.5 million, including non-operating income of $6.2 million relating to the Company's claim in a class action lawsuit. Excluding this class action claim, non-GAAP net income was $11.9 million, up 12.4% from $10.6 million in the third quarter of fiscal 2014. EQUITRUST LIFE: 9th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment in "Eller" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, but vacated the order denying costs to EquiTrust Life Insurance Company, and remanded for the district court either to award costs or explain its refusal. The appellate case is, MARY HELEN ELLER, Plaintiff, and PAUL HARRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUITRUST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. MARY HELEN ELLER, Plaintiff, and PAUL HARRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EQUITRUST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, NOS. 12-17119, 12-17267. Eller filed a putative class action against EquiTrust, alleging violations of federal and state law in the sale of annuities. The district court granted EquiTrust's motion for summary judgment, but, without explanation, declined to award costs to the prevailing party. A copy of the Ninth Circuit's opinion dated February 24, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/AoLnQBfrom Leagle.com. Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- (argued), Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, Washington; Elaine T. Byszewski -- elaine@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Pasadena, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Margaret A. Grignon -- magrignon@reedsmith.com -- (argued), Robert D. Phillips, Jr. -- rphillips@reedsmith.com -- Brandon W. Corbridge -- bcorbridge@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Settlement in "Holman" Suit Wins Final Okay ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California granted final approval to the settlement reached in the case, ROANE HOLMAN, NARCISCO NAVARRO HERNANDEZ and MIGUEL A. ALVAREZ on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV- 0180- CW (DMR) (N.D. Cal.) Roane Holman filed suit in January 2011 alleging that Experian violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by selling credit information to Finex, a debt collector, for its use in collecting towing debts. Miguel Alvarez and Narcisco Navarro Hernandez were subsequently added as named plaintiffs in an amended complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that because Experian knew that Finex's intended use was impermissible, its violation was willful. The parties reached a settlement just before trial. Each side litigated vigorously. The Court denied Experian's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court subsequently denied Experian's motions to decertify the class and for summary judgment. On April 29, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement and the forms for the Notice and Claim Form. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLP was appointed to serve as Settlement Administrator that would mail the Notices to the putative class members and process the Claim forms. After the claim period expired, Class Counsel disputed KCC's rejection of approximately 800 claims that had been submitted. They submitted these disputed claims to the Ombudsman, who approved 112 of the disputed Claims. Because the number of approved claims is relatively low, there is more than enough money under the $8 million cap to pay all approved claims at the rate of $375 and have more than enough money left to pay all of the unopposed amounts for incentive awards and attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs have moved for final approval of a class action settlement, an award of attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel, and service awards to the named plaintiffs. Experian has not opposed plaintiffs' motion. Judge Wilken granted the motion for final approval of the class action settlement, award of fees and costs to class counsel, and the request for service awards to the three named plaintiffs. The Court awards $10,000 to each named plaintiff for his service to the class and for his broad release of all claims, known or unknown, against Experian. The Court awards class counsel reimbursable expenses in the sum of $138,704 and attorneys' fees in the sum of $2,111,296, for a total award of $2,250,000. In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Experian and the Settlement Administrator shall provide the following relief to the class members, class counsel and the named plaintiffs: a. Within 10 days after the Effective Date, Experian will pay the Settlement Administrator sufficient funds to pay $375 for each approved Claim. The Settlement Administrator shall use these funds to pay the approved Claims. b. No later than 20 days after the Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator shall mail checks in the amount of $375 each to all eligible Class Members. The checks will be mailed with instructions that the checks must be cashed within 180 days of mailing. c. No later than 150 days following the mailing of the checks to eligible Class Members, the Settlement Administrator will attempt to contact Class Members who have not yet cashed their payment checks to remind them to do so. d. 180 days following the mailing of the payments to the Class Members, the Settlement Administrator will provide to the parties and file with the Court a list of those Class Members who have not cashed their checks. All uncashed payments will escheat to the State of California. e. Experian will wire $2,250,000 for Attorneys' Fees and Costs to Attorney Andrew J. Ogilvie no later than 10 days after the Effective Date. f. Within 10 days after the Effective Date, Experian will forward to Attorney Ogilvie checks made out to the three class representatives in the amount of $10,000 less any required withholding. A copy of Judge Wilken's amended order dated December 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/j08V2ofrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew J. Ogilvie -- andy@aoblawyers.com -- Carol McLean Brewer -- carol@aoblawyers.com -- Mark F. Anderson -- mark@aoblawyers.com -- at Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP; Balam Osberto Letona -- at Law Office of Balam O. Letona Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Gregory Morgan -- mgmorgan@jonesday.com -- Daniel John McLoon -- djmcloon@jonesday.com -- Haley Melisse Mcintosh -- hmmcintosh@jonesday.com -- Jessica McGahie Sawyer -- jsawyer@jonesday.com-- Mattia Victor Murawsk and Sarah G Conway -- sgconway@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Allows WVAW to Join Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that West Virginia American Water has asked a federal judge to let the company participate in a possible class action lawsuit against Freedom Industries when it is filed. WVAW says it filed the motion so it can protect its right to seek claims. The motion, which was filed Feb. 4 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, asks federal Bankruptcy Judge Ronald Pearson to let it participate in the class action against Freedom that the plaintiffs' attorney intend to file in federal court. The water company is seeking the same relief already afford to the plaintiffs so that in can participate and protect its interest in the class action lawsuit once that lawsuit is filed, according to the motion. "Specifically, WVAWC asks to be permitted to protect its inchoate contribution claims against Freedom that may, under West Virginia law, be extinguished by a settlement between Freedom and the plaintiffs' representatives," the motion states. Freedom's counsel had agreed in principal for WVAWC to have relief from the automatic stay in order to move to intervene and participate in the class action lawsuit, but Freedom's counsel has refused to endorse an agreed order at this time, according to the motion. "It is expected that the Unsecured Creditors Committee will also seek relief from the automatic stay to intervene and participate in the class action lawsuit," the motion states. "Because Freedom's counsel has not consented to an agreed lift stay order, WVAWV moves now for relief from the automatic stay so that it may file an intervention motion and participate in the class action lawsuit as soon as that lawsuit is filed . . ." WVAWC claims it is entitled to be reimbursed all money it would have to pay in any claims plaintiffs have against it and, since the water company is being sued for a problem allegedly caused by Freedom, it wants to have the right to assert claims against the company for whatever it may lose in those lawsuits. The class action will not be filed until there is resolution to an objection by former-Freedom president Gary Southern to the settlement in a previous class action lawsuit against Freedom. Southern's objection was filed in December and is seeking to have Southern's defense costs paid from an insurance policy. Southern's attorneys argued that Southern is insured under a policy because of his position as president of Freedom and that he is entitled to coverage benefits. A preliminary hearing is set for March 4 for WVAWC's hearing. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number: 2:14-bk-20017 GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Obtains Final Approval of Miller Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler issued a final order on February 20, 2015, approving the class action settlement in the case captioned SCOTT MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-04936-LB, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/CQOBxK from Leagle.com. The court found the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable. The court, therefore, certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class and approved the parties' settlement. The court maintained its previous appointment of class counsel and representatives, awarded the plaintiffs $5000 each in incentives, and awarded their attorneys $1,575,000 in fees and $87,572.15 in litigation costs. The settlement class is defined as: "All persons (other than Excluded Persons) who, between August 17, 2008 and October 2, 2014, purchased, in the United States, except for purposes of resale, any of the Products listed in Appendix A to this order." Excluded Persons means: (1) the Honorable Laurel Beeler and any member of her immediate family; (2) the Honorable Edward Infante and any member of his immediate family; (3) any government entity; (4) any of the Released Parties; and (5) any persons who timely opted out of the Settlement Class. The court appointed plaintiffs Scott Miller and Steve Leyton as class representatives, and Gutride Safier LLP as class counsel. Scott Miller, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride -- adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Anthony J Patek -- anthony@gutridesafier.com -- Kristen Gelinas Simplicio -- Kristen@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP & Seth Adam Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP. Steve Leyton, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride, Gutride Safier LLP, Anthony J Patek, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride Safier LLP & Seth Adam Safier, Gutride Safier LLP. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Jefferson Sitter -- BSitter@fbm.com -- Farella Braun & Martel LLP, Deborah Kristina Barron -- dbarron@fbm.com -- Farella Braun and Martel LLP, Thomas B. Mayhew -- tmayhew@fbm.com -- Farella Braun & Martel & Christina Rose Hollander -- chollander@fbm.com -- Farella Braun and Martel LLP. GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Dore" Suit in Fla. Over Product Misbranding ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gretchen Dore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-20618 (S.D. Fla., February 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants' Herbal Plus Gingko Biloba, Herbal Plus St. John's Wort, Herbal Plus Ginseng, Herbal Plus Echinacea and Herbal Plus Saw Palmetto are mislabeled products because they lacks the integral ingredient listed on the product label. Instead, each contains contaminants, substitutes and fillers that are not identified on the product label. GNC Holdings, Inc. a Pennsylvania corporation that operates the world's leading nutritional-supplements retail chain devoted to items such as vitamins, supplements, minerals, and dietary products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. Monica McNulty, Esq. KOZYAK, TROPIN, & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com tr@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com tjl@kttlaw.com mmcnulty@kttlaw.com - and - Jack Scarola, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 383-9451 E-mail: JSX@SearcyLaw.com - and - Patrick Spellacy, Esq. Thomas Glasson, Esq. KIRWAN, SPELLACY & DANNER, P.A. 200 South Andrews Avenue, 8th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 463-3008 Facsimile: (954) 463-3010 E-mail: Spellacy@kirwanspellacy.com TGlasson@kirwanspellacy.com GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses "Feitelson" Case With Leave to Amend ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted a motion to dismiss a first amended complaint, with leave to amend certain claims, in the case captioned GARY FEITELSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02007-BLF, (N.D. Cal.). "Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend only their Sherman Act and California UCL claims. The amended pleading shall be due within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order," ruled Judge Freeman. Plaintiffs Gary Feitelson and Daniel McKee in this putative class action antitrust case allege that defendant Google, Inc. restrains trade in the market for Internet search through confidential agreements with cell phone manufacturers. A copy of Judge Freeman's February 20, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/gaBLtvfrom Leagle.com. Gary Feitelson, a Kentucky resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, George W. Sampson -- george@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Patrick Howard -- phoward@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, Robert F Lopez -- robl@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Simon Bahne Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Daniel McKee, an Iowa resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, George W. Sampson, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Patrick Howard, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Simon Bahne Paris, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Google Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Michael Stoll -- bstoll@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, Brian C. Rocca -- brocca@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Gregory Forrest Wells -- gregory.wells@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Hill B Wellford, III -- hill.wellford@bingham.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, James Harris Weingarten -- jweingarten@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, John Edward Schmidtlein -- jschmidtlein@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, Jon R. Roellke -- jon.roellke@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Jonathan Bradley Pitt -- jpitt@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, Sujal Shah -- sujal.shah@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Susan J. Welch -- susan.welch@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Has Tricked Consumers Into Buying Free Tax ID ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Pais at Courthouse News Service reports that Govsimplified LLC tricked consumers into buying federal tax identification numbers from its website that are otherwise free of charge from the IRS, a class action claims. In a complaint filed in Miami-Dade County, named plaintiff Kelsey O'Brien claims Govsimplified designed its Web sites with a layout, color scheme and format exactly like that of the Internal Revenue Service to mislead consumers into thinking that they are associated with the U.S. government. A federal tax identification number or EIN is assigned by the IRS to identify business entities. "The EIN allows the IRS to track wages and other payments from businesses to business' employees and owners," the complaint states. O'Brien says that in December 2014 she purchased an EIN through one of defendant's Web sites, and shortly afterward discovered that EINs were available at the IRS website at no charge after completing an online application. According to the complaint, defendant illegally charged consumers $129 for an EIN number delivered within three business days, $147 for delivery within one business day and $197 for one-hour delivery. Defendant tricks consumers into believing that they are being offered a premium service, and that obtaining an EIN through its Web site is faster than through the IRS. The complaint claims that defendant maintains the following deceptive Web sites with "gov.us" domains where it charges consumers for providing them with EIN numbers: www.ein-gov.us, www.1.ein-gov.us, www.taxid-gov.us, www.1.taxid-gov.us. "To lure people to its websites, defendant utilizes deceptive domain names to deceive consumers into believing that it is affiliated with the United States government, the complaint states. During the application process, the complaint says that defendant gathers private information from the consumers, including their Social Security numbers. O'Brien says that defendant's websites do have a purported "disclaimer" at the bottom of the webpage where it states that it is not associated with the United States government. However, the disclaimer is located in an area that the consumer usually overlooks, and it has a small font with a color that it's difficult to read because it blends with the website's background. The complaint claims that Govsimplified misled plaintiff and other class members by making them pay a sum of money for a product that was not as represented. Plaintiff says that defendant violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act or FDUTPA by engaging in the unfair practice of charging her and other consumers for EINs, and making them believe that they were associated with the IRS and the US government. O'Brien seeks unspecified damages on claims of violation of the FDUTPA and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew B. Boese, Esq. 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1975 Facsimile: (305) 437-8158 E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com - and - Jana Eisinger, Esq. THE EISINGER LAW FIRM 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (914) 418-4111 GREENBERG TRAURIG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Facciola" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative Arizona securities and negligent misrepresentation class action. The case is captioned ROBERT FACCIOLA, Lead Plaintiff on behalf of Mortgages Ltd. Investor Class; ROBERT MAURICE FACCIOLA TRUST DATED 12/2/94, Lead Plaintiff on behalf of Mortgages Ltd. Investor Class; HONEYLOU C. REZNIK, Lead Plaintiff on behalf of Mortgages Ltd. Investor Class; MORRIS REZNIK AND HONEYLOU C. REZNIK TRUST, Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of Mortgages Ltd. Investor Class; JEWEL BOX INCORPORATED, Lead Plaintiff on behalf of Mortgages Ltd. Investor Class; JEWEL BOX LOAN COMPANY INCORPORATED, Lead Plaintiff on behalf of Mortgages Ltd. Investor Class; H-M INVESTMENTS LLC, Lead Plaintiff on behalf of Mortgages Ltd. Investor Class; FRED C. HAGEL AND JACQUELINE M. HAGEL REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATES 3/15/95, Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of Radical Bunny Investor Class, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Defendant, And CBIZ, INC., a Delaware corporation; CBIZ MHM, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MAYER HOFFMAN McCANN P.C., a Missouri professional corporation, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-17761. "Absent a cognizable claim for primary liability against Mayer Hoffman, Appellants cannot successfully allege a claim for statutory or common law secondary liability against CBIZ," ruled the Ninth Circuit in its memorandum dated February 23, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/dFObLcfrom Leagle.com. GROUPME INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- David Krueger, Esq. -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in Glauser v. GroupMe, Inc., the Northern District California granted summary judgment in favor of GroupMe, Inc. in a putative class action alleging that GroupMe sent text messages via an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. GroupMe offers a "group messaging" application, which allows individual users to create a "group" and to transmit text messages to all members of the group at the same time. In April 2011, the plaintiff, Brian Glauser, received a text message, reading, in part: "Hi Brian Glauser, it's Mike L. Welcome to GroupMe! I just added you to "Poker" w/Richard L. Text back to join the conversation." After receiving several messages from other "group" members, in May 2011, Mr. Glauser filed a putative class action against GroupMe under the TCPA. The TCPA prohibits using an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS") to make a call, including sending text messages, to a mobile phone without the prior express consent of the called party. An ATDS is statutorily defined as equipment that "has the capacity (A) to store or produce numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers." GroupMe moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the platform it used to send text messages does not qualify as an ATDS under the TCPA because it lacks the capacity to function as an ATDS. GroupMe argued that liability under the TCPA requires the dialing platform to have the "present capacity" (or "actual capacity") to function as an ATDS, which the GroupMe platform did not have. Mr. Glauser opposed, arguing that a device that has the "potential capacity" to function as an ATDS qualifies as an ATDS under the TCPA, even if the device was not actually used as an ATDS in sending the message at issue. The District Court rejected Mr. Glauer's argument and also distinguished two prior decisions from the Ninth Circuit holding that dialing equipment may quality as an ATDS when it has the "capacity" to act as an ATDS, even if it was not used as an ATDS in sending the offending messages. Specifically, the District Court held that there was a distinction between the issues of "present vs. potential capacity" (i.e., which asks whether the dialing platform presently could be used as an ATDS) and "capacity vs. actual use" (i.e., which assumes that the dialing platform presently could be used as an ATDS and instead asks whether the offending messages were in fact sent via an ATDS function). The court concluded that "the relevant inquiry under the TCPA is whether a defendant's equipment has the present capacity to perform autodialing functions, even if those functions were not actually used." The court also noted that under the plaintiff's "potential capacity" test, everyday devices such as smartphones could be misconstrued as an ATDS under the TCPA. The District Court also held that GroupMe's messaging system did not have the capacity to send text messages "without human intervention" (another requirement of an ATDS according to FCC interpretations). While Mr. Glauser argued that the messages were sent "automatically" after group member information was put into GroupMe's system, the Court noted that messages were only sent "as a direct response to the intervention" of the individual group creator who input group members' information, and in response to other messages written individually by group members. Accordingly, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of GroupMe and denied (as moot) Mr. Glauer's motion for class certification. GRUMA CORPORATION: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Matos Hernandez, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b) v. Gruma Corporation - Pueblo a/k/a Mission Food Pueblo, Case No. 3:15-cv-00541 (N.D. Tex., February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Gruma Corporation - Pueblo owns and operates grocery stores in Dallas County, Texas. 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 HARBINGER GROUP: Continues to Defend Haverhill Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Harbinger Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that HGI is a nominal defendant, and the members of its Board are named as defendants in a purported class and derivative action filed in March 2014 by Haverhill Retirement System in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and certain of its affiliated funds ("HCP") and Leucadia National Corporation ("Leucadia"), each a stockholder of HGI, are also named as defendants in the complaint. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with transactions involving Leucadia. The complaint seeks, among other things, an unspecified award of compensatory damages and costs and disbursements. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this matter. HARBINGER GROUP: Class Settlement in "Cressy" Case Has Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Harbinger Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court entered the Final Order and Judgement, finally certifying the class for settlement purposes, and finally approving the class settlement in the class action filed by Eddie L. Cressy. On July 5, 2013, a putative class action Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty Life Insurance Company, et al. Case No. BC-514340. The state court Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies. On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 million to settle the claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions, of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive. As part of the settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An amended Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on June 5, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the Court granted final approval for the class settlement, subject to entry of a Final Order and Judgement. At December 31, 2014, FGL estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action would be $9.0 million and established a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $3.4 million. Based on the information currently available, FGL does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. FGL is seeking indemnification from OMGUK under the F&G Stock Purchase Agreement between FGL (formerly, Harbinger F&G, LLC) and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and state courts. FGL has established an amount recoverable from OMGUK for the amount of $4.4 million, the collection of which FGL believes is probable. The actual amount recovered from OMGUK could be greater or less than FGL's estimate, but FGL anticipates that the amount recovered will not be materially different than its current estimate. The settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action and the amount recoverable from OMGUK is presented net on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in the caption "Benefits and other changes in policy reserves." On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Order and Judgement, finally certifying the class for settlement purposes, and finally approving the class settlement. According to the class settlement, the final settlement date means the date on which the Final Order and Judgement becomes final for all purposes, including appeal. HOME LOAN: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., William C. Erbey, John P. Van Vlack, and James E. Lauter, Case No. 1:15-cv-01063 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 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. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. is headquartered and incorporated in the Cayman Islands and engages in the acquisition of mortgage servicing assets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian G. Isaacson, Esq. ISAACSON LAW FIRM PLLC 701 5th Ave. Ste. 4200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 448-1011 Facsimile: (206) 448-1022 E-mail: briani@isaacsonlawfirm.com - and - Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. Jennifer Traystman, Esq. C. William Margrabe, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212)490-9550 Facsimile: (212)986-0158 E-mail: Ctrinko@trinko.com jtraystman@trinko.com Cmargrabe@trinko.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiffs Won't Appeal 9th Cir. Decision ------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed August 6, 2010, declined to seek any further review of the decision of the Ninth Circuit and the matter is now at an end. On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed against 7 of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 1, 2008, and January 7, 2009. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in filings with the SEC. On February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis was appointed lead plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially similar to the allegations. On May 23, 2011, a motion was filed to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 10, 2011, that motion was granted and the action was dismissed; the plaintiffs were given 30 days to file an amended complaint. On September 12, 2011, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. The allegations contained therein were substantially similar to the allegations in the prior complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 13, 2011. A hearing occurred on February 16, 2012, and on May 22, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice and a final judgment was entered in the Company's favor on June 1, 2012. On June 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was styled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. et al., No. 12-16430. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on September 28, 2012. The Company filed an answering brief on November 13, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a reply brief on December 17, 2012. Oral argument was held on March 14, 2014, and the matter was taken under submission. On July 16, 2014, the Ninth Circuit published an opinion affirming the district court's order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs declined to seek any further review of the decision and the matter is now at an end. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: "Adel" Class Action Lawsuit Ends ---------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Adel class action case is now at an end. On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against several of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013. The matter is now at an end. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: No Trial Date Yet in "Abrams" Case ------------------------------------------------------ Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Abrams class action case will move forward on the claims that remain, and no trial date has been set. On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against several of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC. On November 18, 2013, the Court appointed Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs have elected not to further amend their complaint. On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August 21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration on November 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition on November 19, 2014, and the Company filed its reply on November 26, 2014. The court denied the motion for reconsideration on December 15, 2014. The case will move forward on the claims that remain. No trial date has been set. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 102 Product Liability Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is currently named as a defendant in approximately 102 individual product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some cases, death as a result of such surgery. The Company has also received a large number of product liability claims from plaintiffs' attorneys that are part of certain tolling agreements. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a multi- plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court. On November 26, 2014, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add three additional plaintiffs. In total, plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of 20 patients who had da Vinci Surgeries in 13 different states. The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying degrees, that plaintiffs' injuries resulted from purported defects in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company's part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare professionals who performed plaintiffs' surgeries. The cases further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in many cases, punitive damages. The Company has reached confidential settlements in many of the filed cases. With certain exceptions, including the Taylor case, the remaining filed cases generally are in the early stages of pretrial activity. The Company previously reported that it was named as a defendant in a purported class action filed in Louisiana state court, and removed to federal court, seeking damages on behalf of all patients who were allegedly injured by the da Vinci Surgical System at a single hospital in Louisiana. The Company settled this case and it was dismissed with prejudice on October 20, 2014. The settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or results of operations. Plaintiffs' attorneys have engaged in well-funded national advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with da Vinci surgery. Among the allegations, a substantial number of claims relate to alleged complications from surgeries performed with certain versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor ("MCS") instruments that included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the subject of a recall in 2013. The Company has received a significant number of claims from plaintiffs' attorneys that it believes are as a result of these advertising efforts. In an effort to avoid the expense and distraction of defending multiple lawsuits, the Company entered into tolling agreements to pause the applicable statutes of limitations for these claims and engaged in confidential mediation efforts. The attorneys for the patients agreed to collect and supply medical records, operative notes and other necessary information from these patients to the Company. Each claim was individually investigated. The collection and evaluation of the patients' medical information was laborious. For hundreds of the asserted claims, the Company has never received medical records. As patient records related to these claims were received, the Company, assisted by independent medical consultants, reviewed and analyzed the large volumes of medical information that began to arrive in the fall of 2013. The completion of the legal and medical evaluation of a significant number of these claims occurred during the first quarter of 2014 and continued throughout the remainder of 2014. After an extended confidential mediation process with legal counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling agreements, the Company determined during the first quarter of 2014 that, while it denies any and all liability, in light of the costs and risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims may be appropriate. During the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company recorded pre- tax charges of $82.4 million to reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the product liability claims covered by the tolling agreements. The Company's estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving these claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for patients who have participated in the mediation process. To date, approximately 4,800 claims have been added to the tolling agreements and/or submitted into the mediation program. Of those, however, over 3,100 claims have voluntarily been removed from the tolling agreements and/or mediation program and plaintiffs' counsels have indicated to the Company that they no longer intend to pursue these claims. Nonetheless, the claimants that have been removed from the tolling agreement remain free to pursue lawsuits against the Company and it is also possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals who have undergone da Vinci surgery and allege that they suffered injuries. It is further possible that the claimants who participate in the mediations, as well as those claimants who have not participated in negotiations, will choose to pursue greater amounts in a court of law. Consequently, the final outcome of these claims is dependent on many variables that are difficult to predict and the ultimate cost associated with these product liability claims may be materially different than the amount of the current estimate and accruals and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, and future results of operations. Although there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time. As of December 31, 2014, a total of $49.5 million of the charges recorded during 2014 was included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiff in "Taylor" Case to Appeal Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiff in the "Taylor" case has filed a notice of appeal. In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a product liability action that had originally been filed in Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the healthcare providers and hospital involved in plaintiff's decedent's surgery (Josette Taylor, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on behalf of the Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2- 03136-5). In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and product liability claims against the Company, generally alleging that the decedent died four years after surgery as a result of injuries purportedly suffered during the surgery, which was conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The plaintiff in Taylor asserted that such injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by the Company's purported failure to properly train, warn, and instruct the surgeon. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium as well as punitive damages. A trial commenced in the action on April 15, 2013. On May 23, 2013, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered in the Company's favor on June 7, 2013. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. JACK IN THE BOX: Dismissal of "Pratt" Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------- Presiding Justice William R. McGuiness of the California Court of Appeals, First District, Division Three, affirmed the judgment of dismissal of the trial court in the appealed case, captioned as KENNETH PRATT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. A139960 (Cal. App.) Kenneth Pratt and Cleo Dixon filed a putative class action complaint against Jack in the Box, Inc., for overcharging them for a small combination meal that was upgraded to include large fries and a large drink. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for a violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200), violation of the false advertising law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17500), fraud, deceit, and unjust enrichment. The Defendant filed a demurrer and motion to strike, in which the court rejected the pleading on the ground that it was filed on behalf of entities that were not named as defendants in the complaint. Before any further activity occurred, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in early December 2012. Among other things, the plaintiffs named as the defendants the entities that owned particular restaurant franchises, omitted the cause of action for unjust enrichment, and added causes of action under the California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, Section 17500 et seq.) and for a breach of the "duty of care" under the UCL. On January 3, 2013, the defendants filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint or, in the alternative, moved to strike class allegations contained in the first amended complaint. The trial court granted the motion to strike and sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. After noting that the plaintiff is not qualified to represent others and cannot adequately represent a class, the court agreed to strike class claims and allegations from the first amended complaint. The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. Despite the court's ruling that the plaintiffs would not be permitted to pursue class claims until they had obtained legal representation, they once again included class-wide allegations and sought relief on behalf of a putative class. The second amended complaint includes causes of action for (1) violation of the UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200), (2) violation of the CLRA (Civ. Code, Section 1750 et seq.), (3) violation of the false advertising law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17500), (4) fraud, (5) deceit, (6) negligence, and (7) declaratory relief. The Defendants filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint or, in the alternative, a motion to strike class and punitive damage allegations. The court dismissed the entire action with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed the judgment of dismissal. Presiding Justice McGuiness affirmed the judgment of the trial court and concluded that plaintiffs' contentions lack merit. A copy of Judge McGuiness unpublished opinion dated December 31, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/cZpKtWfrom Leagle.com. The panel for the Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division Three, consists of Presiding Justice William R. McGuiness, and Justices Peter J. Siggins and Martin Jenkins. KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge Rejects Bid to Remand "Estrada" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- ESTRADA ET AL., Plaintiff(s), v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS ET AL., Defendant(s), NO. C-14-04465 DMR (N.D. Cal.), stays in federal district court following a ruling by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs are California employees of the defendants Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (KFH), The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG), Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (KFHP), and Southern California Permanente Medical Group ("SCPMG"). In 1996, 26 union locals representing Kaiser employees agreed to engage in coordinated national collective bargaining and for that purpose formed the Coalition of Kaiser Unions. Several months after the formation of the Coalition, labor leaders and Kaiser executives formed the Kaiser Permanente National Labor Management Partnership (LMP), which is governed by the Labor Management Partnership Strategy Group (Strategy Group), which in turn appoints trustees to control the Kaiser Permanente Labor Management Partnership Trust (Partnership Trust). Plaintiffs allege that the employee contributions contemplated by Section 1.B.3 of each National Agreement are illegal payroll deductions from the putative class members' agreed-upon gross wages which were not individually authorized in writing by the members of the putative class. According to Plaintiffs, this amounts to a violation of California Labor Code Section 222. Furthermore, the putative class members' wage statements did not include an itemized disclosure of the deduction of $.09 per hour, and were therefore inaccurate and in violation of California Labor Code Section 226. In addition to these two causes of action for violation of California Labor Code Section 222 and Section 226, plaintiffs also allege a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), codified at California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. Plaintiffs filed the action in California state court. Defendants later removed the suit to the federal district court, asserting that the district court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because some or all of plaintiffs' causes of action arise under and are completely preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Section 185. Plaintiffs move to remand the case back to California state court. Plaintiffs contend that none of their claims are substantially dependent on the terms of the CBA, and as such they are not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Defendants, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss. Judge Ryu denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand because the plaintiffs' claims are preempted by Section 301, and the claims as alleged cannot survive. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) establishes that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. Therefore plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint to re-allege their claims as Section 301 claims. Kaiser's motion to dismiss, held in abeyance during the determination of this motion, is denied as moot. A copy of Magistrate Judge Ryu's order dated December 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/cLfga7from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Charles K. Seavey -- seavey@corpjust.com -- at Law Offices of Charles K. Seavey Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Defendant, represented by Erin Jean Holyoke, Nixon Peabody LLp, Michael Rao Lindsay, Nixon Peabody LLP & Michael Paul Curtis, Nixon Peabody LLP Permante Medical Group, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Defendants, represented by Erin Jean Holyoke -- eholyoke@nixonpeabody.com -- Michael Rao Lindsay -- mlindsay@nixonpeabody.com -- Michael Paul Curtis -- mcurtis@nixonpeabody.com -- at Nixon Peabody LLP KINRAY INC: Court Okays Amendment to "Velasquez" Overtime Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold of the Eastern District of New York ruled on the parties' motions in the case FREDDY FERNANDEZ, LUIS VELASQUEZ, and GIOVANNY GONZALEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, and v. KINRAY, INC. and CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., Defendants, NO. 13-CV-4938 (ARR) (E.D.N.Y.) Kinray, Inc. and Cardinal Health, Inc. are two large wholesaler and distributor of pharmaceuticals, but the former was purchased by the latter. Freddy Fernandez, Luis Velasquez, and Giovanny Gonzalez are drivers and helpers who helped pharmaceutical products sold by Kinray, Inc. and Cardinal Health, Inc. to defendants' customers. They bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and New York Labor Law (NYLL), alleging that they and other similarly situated employees of the defendants were misclassified as independent contractors, earned but were not paid overtime wages, and had expenses improperly deducted from their wages. Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint. Defendants both oppose plaintiffs' motion and cross-move for judgment on the pleadings. Magistrate Judge Gold granted plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and denied defendants' cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. A copy of Magistrate Judge Gold's memorandum order dated December 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/tNpJMJfrom Leagle.com. Freddy Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP, Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Matthew David Kadushin, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum Luis Velasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP, Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Matthew David Kadushin, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum Giovanny Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP, Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Matthew David Kadushin, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum Andres Mora, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Angelo Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Arturo Coello, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Carlos Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Carlos San Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Carlos Santamario, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Cesar Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Claudia Coll, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Donald Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Edgar Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Eduardo Renferia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Eguberto Silva, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Esmeralda Amaya, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Franky Dorado, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Gerardo Correa, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Hamerson Orozco, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Henry Narvaez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Henry Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Javier Munoz, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Jessica Gia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Jorge Henao, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Juan Carlos Meneses Escobar, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Juan Daniel Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Julio Lozada, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Kevin Tarfur-Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Ligia Becerra, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Lucy Villamarin, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Luis H. Arbolero, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Luis Navarrete, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Maria Elena Romero, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Maria Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Marian Puerto, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Mario Tello, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Martha Pena, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Martha Totore, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Maximino Pique, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Midia Quiceno, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Miguel Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Norma Amaya, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Ramon Buitrago, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Rigoberto Villalvir, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Roberto Calero, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Rubeu Espinoza, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Sosimo Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Victor Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP William Orozco, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Maria Lozano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Alejandro Huidobro, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Alexis Franco, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Amin Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Angel Guifarro, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Angel Robles, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Carlos Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Cristian Solorzano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Cristobal Solorzano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP David Villareto, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Douglas Montano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Edgar Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Edilberto Funes, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Edwin Villamarin, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Fabian Mendoza, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Feliciano Tello, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Fred Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Freddy Vasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Gabriel Navarette, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Harold Arboleda, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Henry Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Hugo Reyes, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Iliana Femero, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Jorge Gamarra, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Jorge Mena, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Jorge Veraga, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Jose Robalino, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Juler Solozano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Marcos Posada, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Maria Lonzano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Milton Quinouez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Nevil Bazurto, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Osvaldo Betancourt, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Perry Hutchins, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Pompeyo Moreno, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Raquel Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Roberto Amaya, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Roger Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Roger Tinoco, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Santiago Escobar, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Solanda Sornoza, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Wilson Mesia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Nevil Bazurto, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Myriam Paredes, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Digna Lupacchini, Plaintiff, represented by Digna Lupacchini Alvaro Salazar, Plaintiff, represented by Alvaro Salaza Andres Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Andres Lopez Angel Yndigoyen, Plaintiff, represented by Angel Yndigoyen David Coello, Plaintiff, represented by David Coello Edison Paz y Mino, Plaintiff, represented by Edison Paz y Mino Guillermo Galondo, Plaintiff, represented by Guillermo Galondo Hector Araya, Plaintiff, represented by Hector Araya Jaime A Burneo, Plaintiff, represented by Jaime A Burneo Jaime L Burneo, Plaintiff, represented by Jaime L Burneo James Hamilton Regan, Plaintiff, represented by James Hamilton Regan Jared Fernandes, Plaintiff, represented by Jared Fernandes Jesus Villamizor, Plaintiff, represented by Jesus Villamizor Jose Arias, Plaintiff, represented by Jose Arias Jose Insuela, Plaintiff, represented by Jose Insuela Julian Suaza, Plaintiff, represented by Julian Suaza Luis F Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Luis F Perez Maria A Huidobro, Plaintiff, represented by Maria A Huidobro Marjorie Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Marjorie Gutierrez Miguel Bautista, Plaintiff, represented by Miguel Bautista Natalia Sauza, Plaintiff, represented by Natalia Sauza Neil Guzman, Plaintiff, represented by Neil Guzman Omar Lordono, Plaintiff, represented by Omar Lordono Pauta A Dorado, Plaintiff, represented by Pauta A Dorado Rafael A Casasola, Plaintiff, represented by Rafael A Casasola Rafael Casasola, Plaintiff, represented by Rafael Casasola Roberto Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto Gomez Rocio Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Rocio Gonzalez Rolando Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Rolando Gonzalez Sandra Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Sandra Ramirez Segundo H. Diestra, Plaintiff, represented by Segundo H. Diestra Temistocles Disla, Plaintiff, represented by Temistocles Disla. William R Sanchinelli, Plaintiff, represented by William R Sanchinelli Antonio Mite-Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Antonio Mite-Cruz Frank Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Frank Rodriguez Franklin Castro, Plaintiff, represented by Franklin Castro Luciano A Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Luciano A Cruz Michel Guevara, Plaintiff, represented by Michel Guevara Isabel Berkel, Plaintiff, represented by Isabel Berkel Fernando Borges, Plaintiff, represented by Fernando Borges Piedad Aristizabal, Plaintiff, represented by Piedad Aristizabal Enrique Valencia, Plaintiff, represented by Enrique Valencia Jose Malagon, Plaintiff, represented by Jose Malagon Carlos Lazo, Plaintiff, represented by Carlos Lazo Diana Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by Diana Diaz Arthur Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Fernandez Julio Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Julio Gomez Kinray, Inc., Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C. Cardinal Health, Inc., Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C. Stewart Rahr, Defendant, represented by Harris Michael Mufson, Proskauer Rose LLP, Joseph Baumgarten, Proskauer Rose, LLP, Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C. Howard Hirsch, Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C. William Bodinger, Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C. Kerry Clark, Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C. Kinray, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C. Roberto Amaya, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Luis H. Arbolero, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Nevil Bazurto, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Ligia Becerra, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Ramon Buitrago, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Roberto Calero, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Arturo Coello, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Gerardo Correa, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Donald Cruz, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Santiago Escobar, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Rubeu Espinoza, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Carlos Fernandez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Cesar Fernandez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Alexis Franco, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Henry Garcia, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Jessica Gia, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Carlos Gomez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Victor Gomez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Giovanny Gonzalez, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP, Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Matthew David Kadushin, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum Alejandro Huidobro, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Perry Hutchins, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Juan Daniel Lopez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Maria Lopez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Fred Martinez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Jorge Mena, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Fabian Mendoza, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Wilson Mesia, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Pompeyo Moreno, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Javier Munoz, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Luis Navarrete, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Myriam Paredes, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Martha Pena, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Maximino Pique, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Marcos Posada, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Eduardo Renferia, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Hugo Reyes, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Jose Robalino, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Edgar Rodriguez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Maria Elena Romero, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Carlos San Martin, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Amin Sanchez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Angelo Sanchez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Carlos Santamario, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Cristian Solorzano, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Juler Solozano, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Kevin Tarfur-Gonzalez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Feliciano Tello, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Mario Tello, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Miguel Torres, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Martha Totore, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Freddy Vasquez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Luis Velasquez, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP, Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Matthew David Kadushin, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum Jorge Veraga, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Rigoberto Villalvir, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Edwin Villamarin, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP Lucy Villamarin, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP KNOCKOUT LOCKOUTS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hinderliter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Knockout Lockouts, Inc., James E. Battleson, Jason Battleson, and Krista Kindelan, Case No. 1:15-cv-00146 (W.D.N.Y., February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Knockout Lockouts, Inc. provides roadside tire changing, jump starts, fuel delivery, lockout services with its principal place of business located in Walnut Creek, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com LAREDO PETROLEUM: April 30 Final Hearing on $6.65MM Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of the Western District of Oklahoma granted preliminary approval of a settlement reached in the case, Chieftain Royalty Company, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Laredo Petroleum, Inc., Defendant, CASE NO. CIV-12-1319-D (W.D. Okla.) Chieftain Royalty, on behalf of itself and as representative of a class of royalty owners, filed a class action lawsuit against Laredo for alleged underpayment of gas royalties. Plaintiff and the settling parties have reached an agreement to settle the action for a total cash payment of $6,651,997.95. On November 20, 2014, the Settling Parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, finalizing the terms of the Settlement. The Settlement Agreement, together with the exhibits thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed Settlement of the claims alleged in plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify the Settlement Class for Settlement Purposes, Preliminarily Approve Class Action Settlement, Approve Form and Manner of Notice and Set Date for Approval Hearing. Judge DeGiusti preliminarily finds (i) the proposed Settlement resulted from extensive arm's-length negotiations; (ii) the proposed Settlement was agreed to only after Class Counsel had conducted legal research and discovery regarding the strengths and weakness of Class Representative and the Class' claims; (iii) Class Representative and Class Counsel have concluded that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (iv) the proposed Settlement is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant sending notice of the proposed Settlement to the Class. The Court appoints Rust Consulting, Inc., as Settlement Administrator to receive and process any Requests for Exclusion or inquiries submitted by Class Members and such other matters as the Settling Parties may call upon the Settlement Administrator rather than other personnel to perform in connection with the proposed settlement and, if the Settlement is finally approved by the Court, to supervise and administer the Settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Plan of Allocation Order(s) authorizing distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Class Members. The Settling Parties and their counsel shall not be liable for any act or omission of the Settlement Administrator. The Court appoints Wells Fargo, N.A., as the Escrow Agent. The Escrow Agent is authorized and directed to act in accordance with the Escrow Agreement to be entered into by the Settling Parties. The Settling Parties and their counsel shall not be liable for any act or omission of the Escrow Agent or investment loss for the funds placed in Escrow. A Final Fairness Hearing shall be held on April 30, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, before Judge DeGiusti. Class Members wishing to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(4) must submit to the Settlement Administrator a valid and timely Request for Exclusion. Requests for Exclusion must include: (i) the Class Member's name, address, telephone number, and notarized signature; (ii) a statement that the Class Member wishes to be excluded from the Class in Chieftain Royalty Company v. Laredo Petroleum, Inc., Case No. CIV-12-1319-D; and (iii) a description of the Class Member's interest in any Class Well(s), including the name, Laredo and/or the Settling Parties' well number, and legal location of such Class Well(s). Requests for Exclusion must be mailed to and received into the hands of the Settlement Administrator no later than 5 p.m. CDT on April 9, 2015 at: Chieftain Royalty Co. v. Laredo Petroleum, Inc. Settlement c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., Settlement Administrator P. O. Box 2211 Faribault, MN 55021-1611 Requests for Exclusion may not be submitted through the website or by phone, facsimile, or email. Any Class Member that has not timely and properly requested exclusion from the Class shall be included in the Settlement and shall be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement in the event it is finally approved by the Court. Copies of all Requests for Exclusion, including supporting documentation submitted therewith, if any, that are submitted to and received by the Settlement Administrator shall be delivered to Class Counsel and Laredo and Settling Parties' Counsel within one business day of receipt. Written objections must be filed with and received by the Court and served into the hands of Class Counsel and Laredo and Settling Parties' Counsel no later 5 p.m. CDT on April 9, 2015. Any Class Member who does not timely file and serve a written objection shall be foreclosed from raising any such objection to the Settlement, and any untimely objection shall be barred absent an Order from the Court. Class Counsel and/or Laredo and the Settling Parties' Counsel may file any reply or response to any objections no later than 5:00 p.m. CDT on April 23, 2015. The procedures set forth in this paragraph do not supplant, but are in addition to, any procedures required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No later than 5:00 p.m. CDT on March 26, 2015, Class Representative and Class Counsel shall file any requests for approval of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and a Case Contribution Award. Any objections to Class Representative's and Class Counsel's requests for approval of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and a Case Contribution Award shall be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. CDT on April 9, 2015. A copy of Judge DeGiusti's order dated December 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/b3wkc4from Leagle.com. Chieftain Royalty Company, Plaintiff, represented by: Bradley Earl Beckworth, Esq. NIX PATTERSON & ROACH LLP 205 Linda Drive Daingerfield, TX 7563 Telephone: 903-645-7333 Facsimile: 903-645-5389 - and - Mark D Christiansen, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT Tenth Floor Two Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7103 Telephone: 405-552-2235 Facsimile: 405-228-7435 Email: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com - and - Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq. Robert N Barnes, Esq. BARNES & LEWIS LLP 720 NW 50th St #200B Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: 405-843-0363 Laredo Petroleum Inc, Defendant, represented by: Mark D Christiansen, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT Two Leadership Square, Tenth Floor 211 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7103 Telephone: 405-552-2235 Facsimile: 405-228-7435 Email: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com - and - Bradley Earl Beckworth, Esq. NIX PATTERSON & ROACH LLP 205 Linda Drive Daingerfield, TX 7563 Telephone: 903-645-7333 Facsimile: 903-645-5389 LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Court Allows Debt FDCPA Class Suit to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a divided federal appeals court in New York allowed more than 100,000 potential plaintiffs to pursue class action litigation accusing Leucadia National Corp and a law firm of fraudulently cutting corners to win default judgments in debt collection cases. The Feb. 10 2-1 decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came after the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission warned that a contrary ruling could undermine the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a 1977 law designed by Congress to police unscrupulous debt collectors. The lawsuit focused on "sewer service," a long-running practice where debt collectors fail to serve complaints on debtors, and later falsely certify to courts that service was made and that the cases have merit. Sewer service often ends in default judgments because debtors do not know to appear in court. It can lead to bank account seizures, wage garnishments and ruined credit scores. Four New York City residents, led by Monique Sykes of the Bronx, challenged lawsuits filed from 2006 to 2009 in New York City civil courts on behalf of Leucadia, which like rivals buys consumer debt at pennies on the dollar and tries to collect in full. Leucadia was represented in more than 99 percent of the collection lawsuits by the Mel S. Harris law firm, a debt collection specialist that the plaintiffs called a "default judgment mill." A process server, Samserv Inc, was also sued. In September 2012, Circuit Judge Denny Chin certified class actions arising from the Harris firm's lawsuits. Writing for the 2nd Circuit majority, Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler agreed that the plaintiffs' claims had enough in common to allow a class action. Pointing to allegations that one Harris employee supposedly certified the merits of 20 lawsuits per hour, Judge Pooler said it was "undisputed" that he did not review the underlying documents. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs dissented. He said there were too many individual issues to justify a "unwieldy" class action where "hungry lawyers" might earn a big payday. "This is class litigation for the sake of nothing but class litigation," Judge Jacobs wrote. Leucadia also owns the Jefferies Group investment banking and securities firm. The company, its lawyer Miguel Estrada, the Harris firm's lawyer Paul Clement, and a Samserv lawyer did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The plaintiffs' lawyer Matthew Brinckerhoff welcomed the decision. "The problem of unscrupulous debt collectors is nationwide," he said in an interview. "This class action provides a framework to obtain relief for a large number of victims." In a brief supporting the debtors, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and FTC said the 1977 debt protection law was meant to curb abuses that could cause bankruptcies, marital instability, job losses and privacy invasions. They said "the act's purposes would be disserved" by accepting defense arguments that debtors could not recover because any false statements were directed at the civil court, not the debtors themselves. The AARP and the National Consumer Law Center also supported the plaintiffs. The case is Sykes et al v. Mel S. Harris and Associates LLC et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-2742. LG ELECTRONICS: Suit Over Defective Plasma and LCD TVs Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge dismissed with prejudice a March 2012 class action accusing LG Electronics of selling defective plasma and LCD televisions. The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 8 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405)235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Dennis L. Kennedy, Esq. Joseph A. Liebman, Esq. 8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89148-1302 Telephone: (702) 562-8820 Facsimile: (701) 562-9921 E-mail: dkennedy@baileykennedy.com jliebman@baileykennedy.com The Defendant is represented by: Pat Lundvall, Esq. Kristen T. Gallagher, Esq. McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP 2300 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 1000 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 873-4100 Facsimile: (702) 873-9966 E-mail: lundvall@mcdonaldcarano.com kgallagher@mcdonaldcarano.com - and - Sandra C. McCallion, Esq. S.C. Sohn, Esq. Thomas E. Bezanson, Esq. Christopher M.P. Jackson, Esq. Matthew V. Povolny, Esq. COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 957-7600 Facsimile: (212) 957-4514 E-mail: smccallion@cohengresser.com scsohn@cohengresser.com tbezanson@cohengresser.com cjackson@cohengresser.com mpovolny@cohengresser.com The case is Kevin Drover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv- 00510-JCM-VCF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. MARION, FL: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Bailiff Intrusion ------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Deshayla Strachan reports that a federal judge refused to dismiss claims connected to a Florida court bailiff who allegedly accessed the confidential records of 42,000 people. Kellean Truesdell hopes to represent a class allegedly owed damages by Marion County Sheriff Chris Blair and Clayton Thomas, a former bailiff. Truesdell says Thomas used the county's Driver and Vehicle Identification Database, nicknamed DAVID, to access information on residents of Marion County. From 2010 to 2013, Thomas allegedly accessed DAVID to view more than 42,000 people's personal information, "out of personal curiosity." Truesdell says she received a letter from Blair in August 2013, coming clean about the breach. All of the individuals whom Blair contacted are women, and Thomas allegedly "only accessed information on DAVID relating to female citizens," the court noted. Blair's letters emphasized that the unidentified employee who inappropriately accessed DAVID did not sell the information he found, and did not use it for identity theft or other criminal purpose, according to the complaint. The letters further explained that the employee had been fired and they could call the sheriff's office with any questions. Truesdell says Thomas' duties as a bailiff did not encompass any function or investigative police work, yet he had full access to DAVID. She says the database gave Thomas access to each person's home address, color photograph or image, Social Security number, date of birth, state of birth, detailed vehicle registration information and description, prior and current home and mailing address, driving record, insurance carrier, emergency contacts, and the personal information of those contacts. Truesdell also alleged that other unnamed employees illegally accessed information along with Thomas. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hodges refused on Jan. 30 to dismiss the claims against Blair and Thomas under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, or DPPA, which regulates the disclosure and use of certain personal information contained in state motor vehicle records. Truesdell claims the sheriff's office had full control of the DAVID system and should have ensured it was not being accessed for improper purposes. She also alleged that Blair knew of the employees' improper use but took no steps to prevent it. The defendants failed to sway the court that the DPPA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce powers because Thomas' alleged conduct did not include an economic event. Citing precedent, Hodges likewise saw no violation of the 10th Amendment. "The DPPA does not violate the Tenth Amendment because it does not mandate the states in their sovereign capacity to regulate their own citizens, to enact laws or regulations, or to enforce a federal regulation," the ruling states. "Instead, the DPPA regulates states as 'owners of data bases.'" Hodges also decided Truesdell pleaded a sufficient claim against Blair. "Contrary to Sheriff Blair's arguments, the court finds that Ms. Truesdell's complaint alleges more than enough factual detail of both purported customs, policies, and practices by the Marion County Sheriff's Office concerning the regulation (or lack thereof) of access to the DAVID database, as well as a known and obvious failure to train employees on how and when to access DAVID," Hodges wrote (parentheses in original.) The case is Kellean K. Truesdell v. Clayton Thomas, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-00552-WTH-PRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. MATANUSKA-SUSITNA: Bid to Strike Jury Demand Gets Partial OK ------------------------------------------------------------ In Andrea Richey, Plaintiff, v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Defendant, NO. 3:14-CV-170 JWS, (D. Alaska), Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) moved to strike the jury demand filed by plaintiff. The case was originally filed January 17, 2014, in state court. In July 2014, plaintiff moved to file an amended complaint adding, for the first time, a claim arising under federal law. The state court judge granted the motion in an order signed August 11, 2014. Thereafter, MSB timely removed the case to the District of Alaska court. The plaintiff did not file a demand for a jury trial in federal court after removal. Thus, the issue presented in the defendant's motion is whether the plaintiff properly filed a jury demand under state law before removal. In an order and opinion dated February 20, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/dRcUYzfrom Leagle.com, Senior District Judge John w. Sedwick granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike. "Factual issues related to the immunity defense and the exhaustion of remedies defense will be tried by a jury. All other issues will be tried by the court," ruled Judge Sedwick. Andrea Richey, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald A. Offret -- raoffret@yahoo.com -- Aglietti, Offret & Woofter. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Defendant, represented by Sarah Jane Shine -- SShine@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP & Thomas M. Daniel -- TDaniel@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP. MICHIGAN: Mag. Judge's Recommendation Adopted in "Wayne" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Terrance Wayne, currently a Michigan Department of Corrections' prisoner, filed a lawsuit against Defendants Daniel Heyns, Brad Purves, and Lloyd Rapelje claiming violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based on the diet provided to inmates. The matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation(R&R) on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 26, 2014. The motion has been fully briefed. The parties have filed additional pretrial motions which currently remain pending. On January 16, 2015, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued an R&R in which she recommends that the Court grant Defendants' summary judgment motion and deny the remaining pending motions as moot. Magistrate Judge Majzoub concluded that the diet provided to inmates does not violate Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights because the evidence shows that it affords adequate nutrition to maintain normal health. She found Plaintiff's assertion that he cannot "exercise vigorously off" the calories provided insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. And while Plaintiff claims that the diet is high in sodium and sugar which causes high cholesterol and is dangerous to diabetics, the magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff is not diabetic and provides no evidence to suggest that he has high cholesterol or that the foods on the menu are high in cholesterol. At the conclusion of her R&R, Magistrate Judge Majzoub advised the parties that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon them. She further specifically advised the parties that "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal." Neither party filed objections to the R&R. After carefully reviewing the R&R, District Judge Linda V. Parker concurred with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Majzoub. Judge Parker ordered that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. The Defendants' outstanding motion and Plaintiff's outstanding motions are denied as moot. A copy of Judge Parker's February 20, 2015 ruling is available at http://is.gd/qoAotwfrom Leagle.com. The case is TERRANCE WAYNE, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL HEYNS, BRAD PURVES, and LLOYD RAPELJE, Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 13-14495, (E.D. Mich.). Terrance Wayne, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Daniel Heyns, Director, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros, Michigan Department of Attorney General. Brad Purves, Food Service Program Manager, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros, Michigan Department of Attorney General. MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arie Halberstam, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, An Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 00807 (E.D.N.Y., February 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' abusive, deceptive and unfair practices of collecting debt. The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting or attempting to collect debts, doing business in San Diego, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MISSOURI: Sued for Retaliating Against Medicaid Challenger ---------------------------------------------------------- A dentist claims in a class action that Missouri retaliated against him for challenging its denial of Medicaid claims for dentures -- and that one state official claimed that "teeth are not necessary to eat," reports Deb Hipp, writing for Courthouse News Service. James Dye, DDS, sued Missouri Department of Social Services Director Brian Kinkade, the director of its Medicaid Audit and Compliance Unit Jessica Dresner, and Dresner's "subordinate," Cindy Lenger, on February 4 in Federal Court. Dye sued Kinkade in his official capacity, Dresner and Lenger as individuals and as officials. Dye claims he incurred "massive legal bills and expenses" after an audit of 500 patient files conducted with less than 24 hours notice. He claims, among other things, that Lenger "made up the term 'adults with limited benefits'" to reject Medicaid claims for dentures; that there are "no exceptions" to this; that Lenger said "teeth are not necessary to eat," and that she said all this in "sworn testimony in a deposition and at an administrative hearing." He claims that Langer and/or Dresner also stated that "letters from the physicians stating that dentures were a medical necessity for plaintiffs' patients were not 'letters from a physician stating the medical necessity of the dentures.'" Dye claims he was forced to close two of his dental offices as a result of the denials and retaliation. Dye says that Lenger referred him for investigation of unethical billing when he submitted Medicaid denture claims which were ineligible under rules of a "new," unauthorized manual Social Services uses to determine Medicaid benefits. He claims that Social Services is using the new manual instead of an earlier, state-authorized version so that it can deny Medicaid reimbursement for adult dentures as a way to trim costs. Dye claims the new manual contains inconsistent provisions on dental services and has a "chilling effect" on dentists, who will choose not to provide denture services to qualified Medicaid recipients out of fear that the state will deny "all medically necessary denture claims, no matter what." Under federal Medicaid laws, states must provide dental benefits to children covered by Medicaid but individual states can choose whether to provide dental benefits to adults. Missouri provides dental services to adult Medicaid recipients under "limited circumstances" outlined by the Missouri Department of Social Services. Dye calls the defendants' actions arbitrary and capricious and claims that he and other Missouri dentists have been denied more than $1 million in claims. Dye seeks class certification, declaratory judgment that the unauthorized dental manual cannot be used to determine Missouri denture claims, and an injunction. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Heidemann, Esq. DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN P.C. 111 West Broadway Bolivar, MO 65613 Telephone: (417) 326-5261 Facsimile: (417) 326-2845 E-mail: cheidemann@bolivarlaw.com MOHAMMAD AFRAKHTEH: Faces "Zelaya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Zelaya, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Mohammad Afrakhteh t/a Sina Tile, Case No. 8:15-cv-00438 (D. Md., February 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendant sells and installs tiles for residential and commercial customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto N. Allen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN LLC 11002 Veirs Mill Rd Ste 700 Wheaton, MD 20902 Telephone: (301) 861-0202 Facsimile: (301) 861-4354 E-mail: rallen@robertoallenlaw.com MONTEREY, CA: Class of Inmates in Overcrowded Jail Certified ------------------------------------------------------------ A federal judge certified a class of inmates at the Monterey County Jail who claim the jail is unconstitutionally unsafe, overcrowded and understaffed, reports Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service. In a 135-page amended complaint, lead plaintiff Jesse Hernandez and 20 other named inmates sued Monterey County, the sheriff's office and the California Forensic Medical Group, which provides medical services at the jail. The inmates claim that the jail houses 1,100 prisoners -- more than 33 percent above its rated capacity. The inmates make numerous claims about the inadequacies of the jail's safety infrastructure, its medical and mental health care and its disability accommodations. It refers to thousands of pages of documents, including interviews with current and former inmates, inmates' medical and custody records and incident reports from the sheriff's office. Among the issues listed are understaffed facilities that are difficult to monitor, causing regularly occurring violence; insufficient health care staff; failure to provide adequate, clean and confidential clinical spaces; failure to eliminate suicide hazards; and failure to accommodate inmates with disabilities. In his Jan. 29 order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal defined the class as "all adult men and women who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in Monterey County Jail." James Egar, the county's public defender, represents the plaintiffs. "We never wanted to bring this case to begin with," Egar said in a telephone interview. "We have been making these problems known to county officials for many years and had hoped during the course of the progression of the case that it could be resolved with a federal consent decree. "But the county has chosen to litigate rather than remediate and provide a means of enforcement." But the Monterey County Sheriff's Office said in a statement that "plaintiffs' counsel has chosen to force the county to spend extensive resources on litigation rather than work collaboratively." The sheriff's statement said the county has spent $8.9 million on its "Jail Housing Addition Project" and that "the county has welcomed constructive criticism on how to improve its facilities in a fiscally sound manner." Egar said the inmates have not received the remediating plans that the county said it would provide a year and a half ago. "Egar hope that the county will save its money and use it to remediate the problem," he said. A trial is set for Sept. 8. The case is Jesse Hernandez, et al. v. County of Monterey, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-02354-PSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. MWI VETERINARY: Faces Class Suit Over Sale to AmerisourceBergen --------------------------------------------------------------- Winners Circle Investment Club, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc., James F. Cleary, Jr., Bruce C. Bruckmann, Keith Alessi, A. Craig Olson, William J. Robison, Robert Rebholtz, Jr., D. Mark Durcan, Amerisourcebergen Corporation, and Roscoe Acquisition Corp., Case No. 10608-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct., February 4, 2015) is brought on behalf of public stockholders of MWI to enjoin a proposed transaction, pursuant to which MWI will be acquired by AmerisourceBergen Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Roscoe Acquisition Corp. The Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process and deprives MWI's public stockholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects, the Plaintiff alleges. Founded in 1976, MWI and its subsidiaries distribute animal health products to veterinarians in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Company offers pharmaceuticals, vaccines, diagnostics, parasiticides, micro feed ingredients, supplies, and other products used to enhance the health and performance of companion and production animals. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: denright@zlk.com Defendant MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc., and the Individual Defendants are represented by: P. Clarkson Collins, Jr. Meghan A. Adams, Esq. MORRIS JAMES LLP 500 Delaware Ave., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-6990 Facsimile: (302) 571-1750 E-mail: pcollins@morrisjames.com madams@morrisjames.com Defendants AmerisourceBergen Corp. and Roscoe Acquisition Corp. are represented by: Gregory P. Williams, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 Facsimile: (302) 651-7701 E-mail: williams@rlf.com werrett@rlf.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Accused of Giving 'Sham' Classes to Athletes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Denise McAllister at Courthouse News Service reports that the NCAA and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill fail to provide a meaningful education to scholarship athletes who attend UNC, two former student-athletes claim in a class action. Lead plaintiff Rashanda McCants attended UNC from 2005 to 2009 on an athletic scholarship and played for the women's basketball team. Co-plaintiff Devon Ramsay attended UNC from 2007 to 2012 on an athletic scholarship and played on UNC's football team. Both students say they took classes in the African and Afro- American Studies Department (AFAM) that have been determined by independent investigators to be academically unsound. They claim that UNC and the NCAA broke their promises to provide student-athletes a meaningful education by steering them into "sham 'paper classes' that they were not required to attend, that required little to no work, that were not taught by a faculty member, and that involved no interaction with a faculty member." These "sham" classes were provided to hundreds of students over two decades, McCants and Ramsay say. AFAM Student Services Manager Deborah Crowder, an administrator who was not a member of the faculty, created the paper classes under the supervision of AFAM Chair Julius Nyang'oro, according to the 100-page complaint. Crowder is not named as a defendant; only the NCAA and UNC-Chapel Hill are. Around 1989, Crowder initiated a series of independent studies courses and invited student-athletes to enroll. Unlike traditional independent studies classes, however, no faculty member was involved in the courses nor did any faculty member supervise students' research and writing, according to the lawsuit. Student-athletes only interacted with Crowder, who graded their papers with inflated grades, the complaint states. According to the lawsuit and independent investigations, Crowder did not work alone. Academic counselors steered student-athletes, many of whom were African-American, into these sham classes. The counselors -- many of whom were aware that there was no faculty involvement in the classes -- "were under constant pressure to maintain eligibility of student-athletes," the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs claim that UNC women's basketball academic counselor Jan Boxill also helped steer student-athletes into paper classes. "During the Class Periods, Boxill would email Crowder with specific grade suggestions for women's basketball payers," the lawsuit states. The AFAM paper classes were so important to keeping football players eligible that "the UNC Athletic Department outlined the crisis posed by Crowder's retirement in an internal slide presentation" that was presented to the coaching staff, the plaintiffs say. They claim that this "academic debacle" could have come as no surprise to the NCAA. "It had ample warning, including empirical evidence from numerous academic experts, that many college athletes were not receiving a meaningful education, including -- disproportionally -- African- American college athletes in revenue-producing sports," the lawsuit states. "Although the NCAA's rules prohibit academic fraud, the NCAA knew of dozens of instances of academic fraud in its member schools' athletic programs over the last century, and it nevertheless refused to implement adequate monitoring systems to detect and prevent these occurrences as its member institutions." But the NCAA allowed college sports programs to function as "diploma mills that compromise education opportunities and the future job prospects of student-athletes for the sake of wins and revenues," the students say in the complaint. They seek class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages for breach of contract, breach of faith, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. Their lead counsel is Robert Orr, Esq., in Raleigh, North Carolina. NEW DOMINION: Faces Class Action Over Earthquake Damage ------------------------------------------------------- Ziva Branstetter, writing for Tulsa World, reports that a Prague earthquake victim has filed a lawsuit against two energy companies seeking class-action status for people in nine Oklahoma counties whose homes have allegedly been damaged by frequent earthquakes. Jennifer Lin Cooper filed the suit in Lincoln County District Court on Feb. 10 against New Dominion LLC, a Tulsa-based energy company, and Spess Oil Company, based in Cleveland, Oklahoma. The suit also lists up to 25 John Doe defendants, apparently in anticipation of additional corporate defendants. The suit seeks class-action status for residents damaged by earthquakes in Lincoln, Payne, Logan, Oklahoma, Cleveland, Pottawatomie, Seminole, Okfuskee and Creek counties. The suit states the class would consist of people in those counties who have owned homes or business properties since Nov. 5, 2011, when the first of three large earthquakes struck Prague. The suit states that Cooper's home sustained more than $100,000 in damage from the 2011 Prague earthquakes. She purchased the home in 2010 for $117,000 and spent about $15,000 improving it, the suit states. Attorney Scott Poynter, who represents Ms. Cooper, said she is a single mother who is unable to pay for repairs on the home. "She can't sell it, she can't repair it and she's just living in ruins with her son. One of the quakes warped her door so bad she couldn't get out of her house." Frequent earthquakes have also caused a loss of property value in some areas, Mr. Poynter said. "There's a stigma on the properties that will exist for time to come. Properties just don't have the same value now," he said. Common issues among the class would be whether the defendants' operations have caused earthquakes, amount to a nuisance and are an "ultra-hazardous activity," the suit states. An employee of Spess Oil declined comment on Feb. 10 on the lawsuit. Representatives of New Dominion LLC could not be reached for comment. Its president and CEO is Kevin Easley, a former longtime state lawmaker and former president of the Grand River Dam Authority. The company operates the largest injection well in the state, according to records supplied by the state for 2013, the latest year available. The well in Oklahoma County disposed of an average 1.7 million barrels per month last year. In filings that are part of a similar lawsuit over the Prague earthquake, attorneys for New Dominion and Spess have denied the companies are responsible for triggering earthquakes. Last year, Oklahoma surpassed California in the number of reported earthquakes, making it the most seismically active state in the continental United States. Oklahoma recorded 585 earthquakes last year of 3.0 magnitude or greater, more than in the previous 35 years combined. The lawsuit cites several scientific studies linking earthquakes in Oklahoma with wastewater injection wells. A 2013 study in the journal Geology found a correlation between wastewater injection wells operated by New Dominion and Spess and the Prague earthquakes. On Nov. 5, 6 and 8, three earthquakes of magnitude 5.0, 5.6 and 5.0 shook the town. According to the Oklahoma Emergency Management Agency, 178 homes sustained damage of some kind. Six homes were destroyed and 20 homes sustained major damage averaging $80,000 each. Oklahoma has about 3,200 active disposal wells and combined, pumping 1.1 billion barrels of wastewater into the ground in 2013, records show. That figure represents an increase of about 35 percent over 2010. Since the 1970s, numerous scientific studies and the U.S. Geological Survey have linked wastewater injection wells to "induced" earthquakes. The wastewater is a mixture of saltwater and toxic chemicals that surface during oil and gas production. Wastewater injected deep into faulted zones can cause pressure to build up, triggering earthquakes. A spokesman for the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association has said there is no broad consensus linking injection wells and earthquakes. The industry is assisting the state with improving its fault maps and supplying other information to help agencies respond to the earthquake increase, the spokesman said. In a three-part investigative report on Oklahoma's earthquakes, the Tulsa World reported that the Oklahoma Geological Survey has failed to finish studies on the 2011 Prague earthquake and other significant earthquakes. In one presentation, a state seismologist compared the value of a closed injection well in Love County to damage to homes caused by an earthquake there. A preliminary report from the OGS indicates a correlation between the injection well and earthquakes. However, that report was never completed. Gov. Mary Fallin and other key state leaders continue to recommend more study of the problem, rejecting conclusions of scientific studies linking injection wells and earthquakes. A state committee appointed by Gov. Fallin is coordinating responses by state agencies. However, those meetings are closed to the public and the committee plans to issue no reports or written recommendations. The U.S. Geological Survey and Oklahoma Geological Survey warned last year that chances had increased for a damaging 5.5 or greater earthquake in central Oklahoma. The lawsuit is the second filed by Mr. Poynter, an Arkansas-based attorney, on behalf of another Prague earthquake victim. A lawsuit by Sandra Ladra, who was injured in the earthquake, is currently pending before the state Supreme Court. An attorney for New Dominion has said such lawsuits, if successful, would cause energy companies to abandon wastewater disposal wells across the state. "These wells will become economic and legal-liability pariahs," attorney Robert Gum told a Lincoln County judge during an October hearing in Ms. Ladra's lawsuit. The lawsuits are among dozens filed in the past several years across the country alleging oil and gas companies are responsible for earthquakes. Similar lawsuits seeking class-action status have been filed against energy companies in Arkansas and Texas. In Ms. Ladra's lawsuit, a Lincoln County judge dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction in October. The Supreme Court opted Dec. 2 to decide her appeal instead of referring it to the state Civil Appeals Court. Attorneys for both sides view that as a sign the court wants to weigh in on issues raised by the lawsuit. Mr. Poynter also represented plaintiffs in lawsuits against energy companies for earthquakes in Arkansas. Those lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in March. Court records show the eight Arkansas plaintiffs were in settlement talks with the defendants, which included Chesapeake Operating Inc., before they dismissed the case. While noting earthquakes can be triggered by fluid injection, the Oklahoma Geological Survey has been less willing to link oil and gas operations to specific earthquakes. It found the Prague earthquake was likely the result of natural causes and urged more study. "We consider a rush to judgment about earthquakes being triggered to be harmful to state, public and industry interests," the Survey states on its website. NEW YORK: Gov. Cuomo Asked to Immediately Replace Rep. Grimm ------------------------------------------------------------ Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that about 750,000 New Yorkers lack representation in Congress after last month's resignation of U.S. Rep. Michael Grimm, a federal class action alleges. Grimm tendered his resignation to Speaker of the House John Boeher last month after pleading guilty to a federal tax-evasion charge. About 750,000 people live in the 11th Congressional District that Grimm previously represented, encompassing Staten Island and the southern tip of Brooklyn. Rosie Rossito-Canty and others filed suit February 5 against Gov. Andrew Cuomo, claiming that his failure to issue the proclamation of election that, under state law, would have triggered a special election within 80 days. "Cuomo failed to exercise his constitutional duty" and left New Yorkers without representation, the complaint alleges. The governor's refusal is a "violation of the right of suffrage," they say. They want the governor to issue the proclamation in order for there to be a special election. Also named as plaintiffs are Rosie Rossito-Canty, Diana Sepulveda, Frank Morano, Matthew Mari, Erik Pistek, Lawrence Gilder, David Pascarella and Michael Reilly. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald Castorina, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD CASTORINA, JR. 4308 Richmond Avenue Staten Island, NY 10312 Telephone: (718) 701-3100 PAE GROUP: "Yocupicio" Wage & Hour Suit Stays in Dist. Court ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge George H. Wu of the Central District of California denied plaintiff's motion to remand in the case Porfiria Yocupicio v. PAE Group, LLC. et al., Case No. CV 14-8958-GW (JEMX) (C.D. Cal.) Plaintiff Porfiria Yocupicio worked for Arch Resources Group LLC (Arch), a staffing company as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from October 18, 2012 until September 30, 2013. Plaintiff filed a putative class action in state court against Arch asserting claims for: (1) missed meal periods, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7, 512; (2) missed rest breaks, Sections 226.7; (3) unpaid minimum wages, Section 1194; (4) unpaid overtime, Sections 1194, 1198; (5) unpaid vacation time, Section 227.3; (6) failure to timely pay temporary employees, Section 201.3; (7) waiting-time penalties, Sections 201-03; (8) inaccurate itemized wage statements, Section 226; (9) unfair competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200; and (10) related penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Cal. Lab. Code Section 2698 et seq. Arch removed the case to the federal district court under authority conferred by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Shortly after removal, plaintiff filed a motion to remand and request for attorney's fees. Judge Wu denied plaintiff's motion to remand request for attorney's fees and costs. The Court said Arch has carried its burden to support removal. A copy of Judge Wu's decision dated December 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/NRtBVHfrom Leagle.com. Until April 2014, Arch was known as PAE Group, LLC. In April 2014, PAE filed a certificate of amendment, changing its name from PAE Group, LLC to Arch Resources Group, LLC. Justin F. Marquez -- justin@rastegarlawgroup.com -- at Rastegar Law Group, APC, Attorney for Plaintiff Michael E. Chase -- mchase@boutinjones.com -- at Boutin Jones Inc., Attorney for Defendants PF CHANG'S: Celiac Disease Foundation Won't Back Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a national organization that advocates for sufferers of celiac disease does not seem to agree with a recent class action lawsuit filed by one such individual. Anna Marie Phillips sued P.F. Chang's in December in a California state court, alleging that extra charges on the restaurant's gluten-free menu violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Celiac disease is a disability, Phillips claims, and it is unlawful for a restaurant to force her to pay higher prices for gluten-free dishes. Marilyn G. Geller, the CEO of the Celiac Disease Foundation, was asked by Legal Newsline if she had a comment on the claim. "Celiac Disease Foundation recognizes that restaurants bear a financial burden for the employee training and other accommodations that are required to serve meals that are safe for those with celiac disease," Ms. Geller said. The class action suit states that because a gluten-free diet is medically necessary for individuals with celiac disease, gluten- free patrons have no choice but to order at the higher price. Surcharges for gluten-free items are claimed to occur even where the items at issue may naturally be gluten free, such as vegetable dishes, the complaint says. Asserting arbitrary and unequal treatment, the plaintiff contends that P.F. Chang's discriminates against consumers with celiac disease and gluten intolerance; and that by adding a surcharge, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ms. Phillips brings suit on behalf of persons with celiac disease or gluten intolerance who ordered items from P.F. Chang's gluten- free menu in California within four years prior to the suit. In response to the lawsuit, P.F. Chang's removed the case to federal court in San Jose, Calif., under the Class Action Fairness Act. Under CAFA, a defendant may remove a class action to federal court if it can argue the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. P.F. Chang's wrote that there are approximately 36 of its restaurants in California, and the plaintiff's attorneys have requested a penalty of $4,000 for each violation. The company estimates there are 3,833 class members, with only 1,250 needed to reach the $5 million figure. Ms. Phillips is represented by Anthony J. Orshansky and Justin Kachadoorian of Counselone, P.C. in Beverly Hills, Calif. The defendant is represented by Jon P. Karbassakis and Michael K. Grimaldi -- Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, of Los Angeles. PGA TOUR: Faces Class Suit by 83 Caddies Over Antitrust Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that 83 caddies sued the PGA Tour in an antitrust class action, seeking some of the $50 million in ad revenue the Tour makes from the corporate logos caddies must wear without being paid for it. Lead plaintiff William Michael Hicks has caddied for more than 30 years, and has worked for Payne Stewart, Greg Norman, Steve Stricker and Justin Leonard. In the Feb. 3 federal lawsuit, Hicks claims that the PGA Tour makes caddies wear bibs with ads on them, and keeps the approximately $50 million in revenue generated by the ads annually. "Caddies receive none of the revenue and never have consented to (the PGA Tour's) commercial use of their likenesses and images," Hicks says in the lawsuit. While PGA Tour regulations permit caddies to endorse their own sponsors' products and services, caddies continue to wear the bibs because of threats, Hicks says. He claims the Tour has threatened to prohibit caddies from working, and contacted golfers to see if they'd be willing to fire caddies who refuse to wear the bib. The PGA Tour also said it would prohibit caddies from receiving endorsement money from any sponsor that competes with the tour's sponsors, Hicks says. He claims that caddies are treated poorly in general. "Despite the caddies' contribution to professional golf, (the PGA Tour) has treated caddies as second-class participants of the game," and has denied caddies "basic health care coverage and access to pension plans," Hicks says. He adds: "During tournament play, defendant forces caddies to use portable lavatories that lack running water and denies caddies access to areas of tournament venues necessary for caddies to perform their duties fully. The list goes on." The plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction and punitive damages for antitrust violations, misappropriation of likeness and right of publicity, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, trademark violations, duress, and unfair competition. The caddies are represented by: Lee Cirsch, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA Telephone: (310) 277-5100 E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com PHH MORTGAGE: NJ Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Finch" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Noel L. Hillman of the District of New Jersey denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case KEVIN FINCH, MARC WERNER, and DONNA WERNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, CIVIL NO. 14-1694 (NLH/KMW) (D.N.J.) Kevin Finch, Marc Werner and Donna Werner filed a putative class action suit against PHH Mortgage Corporation, claiming that if a borrower fails to carry hazard insurance on the mortgaged property and to provide evidence of insurance to PHH, PHH is authorized to force place insurance on the property, whereby PHH independently obtains insurance and then charges borrowers amounts to purportedly pay for such insurance by diverting the borrowers' monthly mortgage payments or debiting the borrowers' escrow accounts. The Plaintiffs claim that this practice violates numerous federal and state laws because, among other things: borrowers have no say in the selection of the force-placed insurance carrier or the terms of the force-placed insurance policies; such policies provide less coverage and are substantially more costly than the borrowers' original policies, while providing improper, undisclosed and lucrative financial benefits to PHH which are unrelated to the provision of force-placed hazard insurance; borrowers are charged retroactively for coverage before the borrowers are notified of the force-placement of the coverage; and such policies often provide unnecessary or duplicative coverage in that they are improperly backdated to collect premiums. PHH moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, arguing, among other things, that recent decisions in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Central District of California, which are applicable in this case because Finch's property is located in Illinois and the Werners' property is located in California, have dismissed identical claims as advanced in this case. Judge Hillman ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss/amended motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. The Court was slated to hold a hearing on the motion for February 11, 2015, at which time the motion to dismiss was to be reinstated. A copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/N67HySfrom Leagle.com. PETER A. MUHIC -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- SAMANTHA E. JONES -- sjones@ktmc.com -- TYLER STEPHEN GRADEN -- tgraden@ktmc.com -- at KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, On behalf of plaintiffs PETER J. LEYH -- pleyh@braverlaw.com -- at BRAVERMAN KASKEY P.C., On behalf of defendant PROMPT MEDICAL: Faces "Cross" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Cross, on behalf of herself and all other similarly-situated employees, known and unknown v. Prompt Medical Transportation, Inc. d/b/a Prompt Ambulance Service and Indiana EMS, Gary Miller, Shar Miller, and Joseph Merry, Case No. 2:15-cv-00058 (N.D. Ind., February 16, 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 private, for-profit ambulance service that contracts with municipalities in Northwest Indiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul E. Luka, Esq, LAW OFFICE OF PAUL LUKA PC 120 S State St Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 971-7309 Facsimile: (312) 236-9826 E-mail: paul@lukapc.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sued for Monopolizing Medical Testing in NoCal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics monopolizes medical testing in Northern California by paying kickbacks to doctors and paying insurers to get rid of competition, a class action claims in Federal Court, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Colleen Eastman sued Quest Diagnostics on Jan. 29, claiming it overcharges patients for inferior service. Eastman claims Quest dominates two markets: medical testing billed directly to health insurance plans and patients, and testing billed directly to medical providers. It controls at least 70 percent of both markets in Northern California, according to the complaint. Quest built the monopoly by discounting the price of tests billed to medical providers by 50 percent or more, in exchange for commitments by physicians to exclusively refer patients to Quest, Eastman says. She claims Quest also paid major insurers Blue Shield of California and Aetna to exclude competitors. "Quest induced Aetna to kick 400 of Quest's competitors out of the Aetna network nationwide," the complaint states. "In 2008, Quest gave California Blue Shield a 10 percent discount on test pricing in exchange for its agreement to kick two of Quest's competitors out of the California Blue Shield Network." Quest also acquires its competitors "aggressively," Eastman says. Quest's 2003 buyout of Unilab Corp., its main competitor in Northern California, led the Federal Trade Commission to intervene and force Quest to make "substantial divestitures," the complaint states. But even this did not preserve competition, as the Unilab acquisition tripled Quest's market power, according to the complaint. What's more, Eastman claims, Quest's test results often are flawed. "For example, in April 2009, Quest pled guilty to a criminal felony for incorrect parathyroid test results and paid a criminal fine of $40 million and civil fines of $262 million to the federal government," the complaint states. "For many patients these faulty test results led to unnecessary and life-changing surgeries to remove their parathyroid glands. Further, in January 2009, regulatory agencies forced Quest to issue the largest recall in industry history because of inaccurate Vitamin D test results." Eastman seeks class certification, an injunction, restitution and disgorgement and treble damages for unfair competition, unfair business practices and state and federal antitrust violations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Colleen Duffy-Smith, Esq. MORGAN DUFFY-SMITH & TIDALGO LLP 1960 The Alameda, Suite 220 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 244-4570 Facsimile: (408) 423-8830 E-mail: cduffysmith@mdstlaw.com RADIOSHACK 401(K): Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Workers Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Wolpin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Radioshack 401(K) Plan Administrative Committee, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00117 (N.D. Tex., February 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breached in their fiduciary duties, specifically by allowing and encouraging the imprudent investment of the Plans' assets in RadioShack Corporation equity despite the fact that they knew or should have known that such investment was imprudent as a retirement vehicle and exposed the Plans to unreasonable risk of loss and injury. Radioshack 401(K) Plan Administrative Committee is a defined contribution plan covering approximately 2,632 employees or ex- employees of the RadioShack Corporation and its subsidiaries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. George C. Aguilar, Esq. Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq. Leonid Kandinov, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Richard J. Vita, Esq. VITA LAW OFFICES P.C. 100 State Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 426-6566 Facsimile: (617) 249-2119 E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Reiskin Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE REISKIN, JON JAMIE LEWIS, WILLIAM JOE BEAVER, DOUGLAS HOWEY, COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-03111-REB-KLM, (D. Col.) came before the Court on defendant RTD's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended class action complaint. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix held that "[a]s an initial matter, the Motion to Amend does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1, which requires that a party who either amends as a matter of course or files a motion seeking leave to amend "shall attach as an exhibit a copy of the amended pleading which strikes through . . . the text to be deleted and underlines . . . the text to be added." The Motion to Amend is subject to denial on this basis alone, she said. Accordingly, in an order entered February 19, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/i5CV3hfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Mix denied the Motion to Amend. The Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint is deemed to be the operative complaint as of Feb. 19, 2015. The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file the notice and redline required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(a), and for the Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied as moot. Julie Reiskin, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams -- kwilliams@ccdconline.org -- Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher Montoya -- amontoya@ccdconline.org -- Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. Jon Jamie Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. William Joe Beaver, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. Douglas Howey, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. Diana Milne, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. Tina McDonald, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. Jose Torres-Vega, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. Randy Kilbourn, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. John Babcock, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. Regional Transportation District, Defendant, represented by Jenifer M. Ross-Amato, Regional Transportation District & Mindy Marie Swaney, Regional Transportation District. Regional Transportation District, Counter Claimant, represented by Jenifer M. Ross-Amato, Regional Transportation District & Mindy Marie Swaney, Regional Transportation District. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Defendant, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. Douglas Howey, Counter Defendant, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. Jon Jamie Lewis, Counter Defendant, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. Julie Reiskin, Counter Defendant, represented by Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition. SEARS ROEBUCK: Customer Questions Extra Fee for HVAC Installation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that when Sears customers pay extra for installation, Sears "simply pocket[s] the money" without doing the work, a class action in Los Angeles alleges. Edwin Ruano, who bought an HVAC system from Sears, including installation, for his home in Los Angeles, hopes to represent a class of the thousands of other customers in his position. He filed the complaint against Sears Roebuck & Co. in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Jan. 29. In the action, Ruano outlines eight, allegedly untrue, statements by Sears about its HVAC installation, including the performance of an "installation analysis." Sears charges $195 for this service, which "is purportedly for the installer to assess the equipment that will be needed to complete the HVAC installation on the installation date." "However, the installation analysis is never performed by Sears or its designated installers," the complaint states. "Rather, Sears and the designated installer simply pocket the money with no such installation analysis ever being performed." Ruano also targets the claim that consumers are "required" to buy a UV light in plenum or evaporator coil, which "will be installed during the installation of the Sears HVAC system." "Defendant regularly charges a fee for installation analysis which it never performs and for UV lights which are never installed," the complaint states. Alleging breach of warranty, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and other wrongs, the class seeks an injunction and punitive damages. The Plaintiff is represented by: Terry R. Bailey, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP Engine Company No. 28 Building 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: trb@kbklawyers.com SISTERS OF CHARITY: Prime Healthcare Must Face "Geiger" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Patricia Geiger and Michelle Hunget, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class action suit against defendants Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc. ("SCLHS"), Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System Separation Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System Separation Benefit Plan, Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. ("Prime"), Prime Healthcare Services-Saint John Leavenworth, LLC, and Prime Healthcare Services-Providence, LLC (collectively, the "Prime Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege three counts: (1) claim for benefits against SCLHS, (2) tortious interference with contract and/or tortious interference with prospective business relationship against the Prime Defendants, and (3) punitive damages against the Prime Defendants. The matter before the court is the Prime Defendants' renewed motion to dismiss. The Prime Defendants contend they should be dismissed from this case, arguing that plaintiffs' complaint does not meet the pleading requirements of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Defendants also argued that plaintiffs have not pleaded facts showing malice. Malice is defined as "a state of mind characterized by an intent to do a harmful act without a reasonable justification or excuse." In a memorandum and order entered February 23, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/4tuFb2from Leagle.com, District Judge Carlos Murguia disagreed with the Defendants saying Plaintiffs have pleaded facts supporting several, if not all, of the factors for demonstrating malice in the context of a tortious interference claim. For these reasons, the Prime Defendants' motion is denied, ruled Judge Murguia. The case is PATRICIA GEIGER, and MICHELLE HUNGET, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-2378, (D. Kan.). Patricia Geiger, Plaintiff, represented by Craig F. Simon -- csimon@srwlawfirm.com -- Simon Ray & Winikka, LLP, James J. Cramer -- jcramer@paynejones.com -- Payne & Jones, Chartered, Matthew W. Ray -- mattray@srwlawfirm.com -- Simon Ray & Winikka, LLP & Tyler Peters, Payne & Jones, Chartered. Michelle Hunget, Plaintiff, represented by Craig F. Simon, Simon Ray & Winikka, LLP, James J. Cramer, Payne & Jones, Chartered, Matthew W. Ray, Simon Ray & Winikka, LLP & Tyler Peters, Payne & Jones, Chartered. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrea M. Kimball -- andrea.kimball@dentons.com -- Dentons US, LLP & Carly Diane Duvall -- carly.duvall@dentons.com -- Dentons US, LLP. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System Separation Benefit Plan, Defendant, represented by Andrea M. Kimball, Dentons US, LLP & Carly Diane Duvall, Dentons US, LLP. Plan Administrator of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System Separation Benefit Plan, Defendant, represented by Andrea M. Kimball, Dentons US, LLP & Carly Diane Duvall, Dentons US, LLP. Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carrie E. Josserand -- cjosserand@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Curtis L. Tideman -- ctideman@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah -- jhannah@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP. Prime Healthcare Services-Saint John Leavenworth, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carrie E. Josserand, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Curtis L. Tideman, Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah, Lathrop & Gage, LLP. Prime Healthcare Services-Providence, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carrie E. Josserand, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Curtis L. Tideman, Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah, Lathrop & Gage, LLP. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Andrea M. Kimball, Dentons US, LLP & Carly Diane Duvall, Dentons US, LLP. Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Carrie E. Josserand, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Curtis L. Tideman, Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah, Lathrop & Gage, LLP. Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Carrie E. Josserand, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Curtis L. Tideman, Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah, Lathrop & Gage, LLP. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Andrea M. Kimball, Dentons US, LLP & Carly Diane Duvall, Dentons US, LLP. Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Carrie E. Josserand, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Curtis L. Tideman, Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah, Lathrop & Gage, LLP. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Andrea M. Kimball, Dentons US, LLP & Carly Diane Duvall, Dentons US, LLP. SONY PICTURES: Seeks Dismissal of Hacking Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Ted Johnson, writing for Variety, reports that as expected, Sony Pictures Entertainment is seeking to have the first batch of class action lawsuits over the hacking attack dismissed, arguing that two ex-employees had failed to show that they suffered "concrete injury" from the data breach. In a response to one class action lawsuit filed by former employees Michael Corona and Christina Mathis, the studio called the breach "massive and unprecedented," and even included an FBI press release attributing it to North Korea. But in its effort to have the claim quickly dismissed the studio is not arguing that the attack was unforeseen. Rather, it is arguing that the plaintiffs do not have standing. "There are no allegations of identity theft, no allegations of fraudulent charges, and no allegations of misappropriation of medical information," Sony said in a brief filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. "Instead, the plaintiffs assert a broad range of common-law and statutory cases of action based on their alleged fear of an increased risk of future harm, as well as expenses they claim to have incurred to prevent that future harm." Sony contends that the plaintiffs fall short of the requirement that they suffer "some concrete and particularized injury" before a lawsuit is filed. The studio, represented by David C. Marcus -- david.marcus@wilmerhale.com -- and Christopher Casamassima -- chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com -- of Wilmer Hale, also contends that the plaintiffs' failure to show an injury means they have insufficient grounds to state a claim for negligence. The plaintiffs are seeking to have their lawsuit and six other similar class action claims, all filed by ex-employees in the wake of the hacking attack, consolidated. U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner has scheduled a hearing on Feb. 23. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that Sony failed to take adequate safeguards to protect their personal information from a cyber-attack. STAPLES INC: Delivery Driver Files Wage Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- David Yates, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports that a Texas delivery driver for Staples has brought a proposed national class action against the Fortune 500 Company for alleged overtime and minimum wage violations. Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, James McCutcheon filed suit against Staples Inc. on Feb. 5 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. In his suit, Mr. McCutcheon alleges Staples forces its delivery drivers to show up for work at specific times without having any intention of paying them for time spent waiting for their trucks to be loaded at the beginning of shifts. "Plaintiff James McCutcheon files the instant suit on behalf of all of Staples' Delivery Drivers that have fallen victim to Staples' wrongful payment practices," the suit states. "During the past three years, Staples paid Delivery Drivers on an hourly basis and required Delivery Drivers to report to work at a specific time each working day. Staples, however, regularly did not pay Delivery Drivers minimum or overtime wages for time spent waiting for trucks to be loaded at the beginning of scheduled work shifts. This waiting time occurred frequently and typically ranged from 10 minutes to 1 hour." Mr. McCutcheon accuses Staples of "recklessly" failing to investigate whether its payment practices complied with the Fair Labor Standards Act. He is demanding an issuance of notice to all Staples delivery drivers who were employed the last three years; a judgment awarding unpaid back wages; and all court costs, including attorney's fees. Dallas attorney Jack Siegel of the Sigel Law Group represents him. Case No. 3:15-cv-00365-N SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro R. Fernandez and Pedro J. M. Hurtado, on their own behalf and others similarly situated v. Sun-Tec Installation, Inc. and Richard Treadwell, Case No. 9:15-cv-80197 (S.D. Fla., February 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sun-Tec Installation, Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation that is in the business of home and commercial solar panel installation and repair. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene Dieudonne Cadet, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com TAKATA CORP: ARA Files Class Action Over Defective Airbags ---------------------------------------------------------- The Automotive Recyclers Association on Feb. 10 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Takata Corporation, its subsidiaries TK Holdings, Inc. and Highland Industries, Inc., and numerous automotive manufacturers relating to the massive recall of vehicles containing defective airbags manufactured by Takata. The ARA brought the class action on behalf of all persons and entities who operate professional automotive recycling facilities in the United States who have purchased for resale any of the vehicles containing undeployed and allegedly defective airbags manufactured by Takata. The complaint alleges that Takata and the Auto Manufacturers withheld and/or misled Automotive Recyclers about the safety and reliability of the allegedly defective airbags, which led recyclers to over pay for now worthless airbags. According to the complaint, Takata was aware of the airbag defect as far back as 2004 when it conducted secret tests on several airbags. The complaint further alleges that following the disclosure of the airbag defect, the Automotive Recyclers are not able to sell or trade these airbags because they are valueless. The ARA alleges that it and the Automotive Recyclers had an expectation that Takata and the Auto Manufacturers would disclose known defects in a timely manner pursuant to federal, state and common law. The failure to properly disclose the defect caused the Automotive Recyclers to purchase vehicles containing the Takata airbags for amounts greater than their worth. The ARA is represented by Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP. The complaint was filed in the United State District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Since 1943, the ARA is an international trade association which has represented an industry dedicated to the efficient removal and reuse of automotive parts, and the safe disposal of inoperable motor vehicles. The ARA services over 1,000 member companies in the United States through direct membership and an additional 2,500 other companies in the United States through affiliated automotive recycling organizations. The ARA aims to further the automotive recycling industry through various services and programs to increase public awareness of the industry's role in conserving the future through automotive recycling and to foster awareness of the industry's value as a high quality, low cost alternative for the automotive consumer. For more information about the ARA, please visit http://www.a-r-a.org Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The law firm is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors as well as consumers from the United States and around the world. For more information about the law firm, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit http://www.ktmc.com If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com Alternatively, you may view a list of the vehicles that are potentially affected by Takata-manufactured airbags and request more information about the class action online at http://www.ktmc.com/takata-airbag-recall TRAILER TRANSIT: Court Dismisses "Walker" Case With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- HUBERT E. WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRAILER TRANSIT, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-00124-TWP-DKL, (S.D. Ind.) is before the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Trailer Transit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Plaintiff Hubert Walker filed this breach of contract action against Trailer Transit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging that Trailer Transit failed to pay him and other employees the full amount of compensation due under the terms of equipment lease agreements. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, in an order dated February 19, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/DsQw5bfrom Leagle.com, granted Trailer Transit's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court found that Mr. Walker cannot prove any set of any facts that would support his claim for relief based upon the allegations set forth in his Complaint. Mr. Walker's Class Action Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. HUBERT E. WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Irwin B. Levin -- ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Richard E. Shevitz -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP & Vess Allen Miller -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP. TRAILER TRANSIT, INC., Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Eckhart -- CECKHART@SCOPELITIS.COM -- SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC, James H. Hanson -- JHANSON@SCOPELITIS.COM -- SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC & Robert L. Browning -- RBROWNING@SCOPELITIS.COM -- SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC. UBER TECH: For-Hire Drivers File Class Action --------------------------------------------- Roger Lohse, writing for Local10.com, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the ride sharing apps Uber and Lyft by a cross section of for-hire drivers who work in Miami-Dade County. An attorney representing limousine, taxi shuttle and tour bus drivers, and their customers claims that when people hop in the backseat of an Uber or Lyft car, they're putting their lives in danger. "We are entitled to get into a car and be safe," said attorney Ralph Patino. At a news conference on Feb. 10, Mr. Patino said his clients -- the traditional drivers for-hire -- can't compete with the ride-sharing apps because they have county licensing, insurance and inspection costs that Uber and Lyft drivers do not. "What happens in a situation where there's an accident and that individual is sitting in the front seat? What recourse do they have?" Mr. Patino said. Uber and Lyft provide an umbrella insurance policy covering its passengers, but Mr. Patino said it's much less coverage than the county requires his clients to carry. Cab driver Robert Puente, who is part of the lawsuit, told Local 10 that he put two kids through college driving a taxi but said the ride-sharing apps have taken a big bite out of his income. "Uber suddenly shows up and destroys my life," Mr. Puente said. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to prohibit Uber and Lyft drivers from providing service in Miami-Dade County and seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Uber driver Carlos Vega told Local 10 News that he makes $650 week. He said he thinks his competitors should focus on improving their service instead of taking his company to court. "You have to compete, adapt to the technology. Do the same and compete," Mr. Vega said. UBS AG: Court Dismisses Class Suit Involving Ex-Indonesian VP ------------------------------------------------------------- Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge dismissed a class action claiming Swiss banking giant UBS made billions of dollars by improperly closing accounts of secret account-holders, including those of a former Indonesian vice president. Lead plaintiff AM Trust, the trust of former Indonesian Vice President Adam Malik, accused Zurich-based UBS in September 2014 of shutting down the accounts of people who died or were absent for prolonged periods, and of "withholding or destroying internal records pertaining to these accounts and converting the proceeds to their own use while wrongfully denying requests for information and accounting." The trust also sued the bank's predecessors, Union Bank of Switzerland and Swiss Bank Corporation. UBS was formed in 1998 from the merger of the other two banks. Before his death in 1984, Malik, who was also the 26th president of the United Nations General Assembly, had more than $5 million in cash and gold in Union Bank of Switzerland and UBS bank accounts, the trust said. Defendant UBS submitted a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in November 2014. In her Jan. 29 order, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that the court has no general jurisdiction over a bank that is incorporated and primarily does business in Switzerland. "The claims asserted by AM Trust have no connection to the United States, let alone this forum," the judge said, adding that an attempt to perform jurisdictional discovery would "be nothing but a fishing expedition." She found that the claims of the unnamed class members "are irrelevant to the specific jurisdiction analysis." The case was dismissed with prejudice. The case is AM Trust v. UBS AG, Case No. C 14-4125 PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. UNION PACIFIC: Supplemental Expert Report Due April 1 ----------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit may file a supplemental expert report to support their motion for class certification on or before April 1, 2015. The Company said, "20 rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against us and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently, UPRR and three other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuit. The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007. The number of complaints reached a total of 30. These suits allege that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic. In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail transportation services, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation and sought to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers of rail transportation services that paid fuel surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Following numerous hearings and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers, which the indirect purchasers appealed. On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various state laws. With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude evidence of interline communications. On April 7, 2011, Judge Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Wal-Mart employment discrimination case. On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision, which certified a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff representatives. The decision included in the class all shippers that paid a rate-based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling, which did not affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not affect the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the allegations made by the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2012, the defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court review the class certification ruling. On August 28, 2012, a panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred the petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues in the petition and to address whether the district court properly granted class certification. The Circuit Court heard oral arguments on May 3, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class certification decision and remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the class certification decision in light of a recent Supreme Court case and incomplete consideration of errors in the expert report of the plaintiffs. On October 31, 2013, Judge Friedman approved a schedule agreed to by all parties for consideration of the class certification issue on remand. On October 2, 2014, the plaintiffs informed Judge Friedman that their economic expert had a previously undisclosed conflict of interest. Judge Friedman ruled on November 26, 2014, that the plaintiffs may file a supplemental expert report to support their motion for class certification. The plaintiffs must file their supplemental expert report on or before April 1, 2015. The defendant railroads will then have the opportunity to respond to the plaintiffs' supplement report. Judge Friedman has not yet set a new date to hear oral arguments on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. UNITED STATES: FDA Failed to Act on Risperdal Effects, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Thompson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that regulators failed to act on signs that the popular antipsychotic Risperdal causes teenage boys to grow breasts, a federal complaint from the law firm Sheller PC alleges. Sheller notes in the Jan. 29 action that it represents hundreds of children suing Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen in Pennsylvania over serious side effects attributed to the use of Risperdal, or its generic versions, as well as the newer schizophrenia treatment Invega. Claiming that the drugs can cause adolescent males to grow abnormal breasts, a condition known as gynecomastia, and other adverse effects on sexual maturation, the law firm says it petitioned the Food and Drug Administration in 2012 to remove the pediatric approval of Risperdal or apply a black-box warning about on the drugs. Sheller notes that, during the course of its representation of consumers suing the makers of Risperdal, it acquired certain confidential documents that establish the drug's danger. It allegedly cannot produce these documents to the FDA, however, "because they are subject to confidentiality and protective orders in those cases." Sheller said its citizen petition to the FDA implored the agency to obtain those confidential documents directly from Johnson & Johnson and Janssen, or to have the drugmakers release Sheller from the confidentiality orders. The firm wanted the FDA to hold a hearing in 2013 on the confidential documents, but the agency shot down that request in June 2013. Sheller said the answer "fundamentally" misunderstood the relief that the firm requested since "the FDA invited Sheller to submit the Confidential Documents to the FDA by filing them on the public docket." In November 2014, after having never given Sheller a reason about why it would not provide a hearing, the FDA denied the petition for removal of pediatric indication or a black-box warning. Sheller says the FDA's arbitrary actions amount to a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. It wants a federal judge to issue one injunction that either revokes the pediatric indication of Risperdal or requires the addition of a black-box warning to the drug's labeling. The firm wants another injunction granting it relief with respect to the confidential documents. Sheller notes that side effects associated with Risperdal cause pediatric patients to "avoid peers, miss school and forego social opportunities." "Having to change clothes for gym class becomes a regularly schedule torture session," the complaint says. The sealed documents "describe the risks associated with the Risperdal Drugs and contradict, complicate, and/or substantially call into question safety data provided by J&J and/or Janssen to the FDA," Sheller says. "The documents are in J&J and/or Janssen's possession and control, and in many instances were generated by J&J, Janssen and/or J&J's predecessor or subsidiary companies." Risperdal was approved in 2006 for treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in children and adolescents. In a November 2013 guilty plea, Janssen agreed to pay the Justice Department more than $2.2 billion over its promotion of Risperdal, Invega and another prescription drug, Natrecor, for uses not approved as safe and effective by the FDA. Of that amount, $1.391 billion resolved Risperdal-Invega claims, Sheller notes, adding that the drugmaker also faced a $400 million criminal fine. Johnson and Johnson and Janssen also paid $327 million to South Carolina 2011, and $158 million to Texas, Sheller says. The firm is represented in it federal action by Robert Palumbos, Esq. Andrew Sperl, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 Telephone: (215) 979-1111 Facsimile: (215) 689-4940 E-mail: RMPalumbos@duanemorris.com ARSperl@duanemorris.com VERITY PARTNERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Edward Barrido, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Verity Partners, Inc. and Robert J. Friezo, Case No. 9:15-cv-80202 (S.D. Fla., February 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount in liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing computer network technological services including building, servicing and maintaining computerized networks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Logan Birken, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN L. BIRKEN 100 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: (954) 990-4459 Facsimile: (954) 990-4469 E-mail: sbirken@birken-law.com W.W. GRAINGER: E.D. Cal. Judge Approves Deal in "Torchia" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the Eastern District of California granted the parties' motion in the case KATHY TORCHIA, Plaintiff, v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:13-CV- 01427-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.) Kathy Torchia initially filed the action in Kern County Superior Court but the case was removed by W.W. Grainger, Inc., to this court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, because the parties are diverse and the matter in controversy exceeded $5 million. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, in which she asserts that defendant is liable for (1) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 1197, 1194 and 1194.2; (2) failure to pay overtime in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 510; (3) failure to provide meal periods or additional wages in lieu thereof; (4) failure to provide rest periods or additional wages in lieu thereof; (5) failure to issue accurate wage statements in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 226; (6) failure to reimburse employees for business related expenses in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 2802; (7) failure to timely pay wages due to upon termination in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 201, 202 and 203; (8) and violations of California's unfair competition laws, as set forth in Cal. Bus & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq. Further, Plaintiff sought penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for the alleged Labor Code violations. The parties engaged in private mediation, which resulted to the filing of plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement and conditional certification of the settlement class. The Court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement, appointed plaintiff as the Class Representative, and authorized plaintiff to seek an award enhancement up to $20,000 for her representation of the class. In addition, the Court appointed S. Brett Sutton and Jared Hague as the Class Counsel, and authorized Class Counsel to seek fees that did not exceed 33 1/3% of the gross settlement amount and costs up to $10,000. The parties seek certification of the Settlement Class and final approval of the settlement terms. In addition, plaintiff seeks an award of attorney's fees from the Settlement fund; costs in the amount of $10,000; and a class representative enhancement. Defendant does not oppose these requests, and no objections were filed by class members.. Magistrate Judge Thurston granted final approval of the settlement. The plaintiff's request for attorney fees is granted in the modified amount of 20% of the gross settlement and her request for an incentive payment is granted in the modified amount of $7,500. A copy of Magistrate Judge Thurston's order dated December 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/lFUGNafrom Leagle.com. Kathy Torchia, Plaintiff, represented by Jared Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com -- S Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- at Sutton Hague Law Corp. W.W. Grainger, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Ahearn -- chris.ahearn@odnss.com -- Douglas J. Farmer -- douglas.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC; Henry F. Galatz -- at W.W. Grainger, Inc. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.c., Douglas J. Farmer, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC & Henry F. Galatz, W.W. Grainger, Inc. WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Herbal Supplement False Advertising -------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that two women filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on Feb. 4, alleging unfair competition, false advertising and unfair trade practices related to the sale of herbal supplements. Mercedes Taketa, of Livermore, Calif., and Michelle Fine, of Cooper City, Fla., alleged the labeling on the generic brand name Spring Valley Brand Gingko Biloba and St. John's Wort supplments, which are sold at Walmart, do not improve emotional balance and "mood" health as advertised on their labeling. The plaintiffs also alleged that the supplements do not actually contain any Gingko Biloba or St. John's Wort, and are adulterated with harmful substances. The suit was filed during the same week that the New York Attorney General's Office requested that Wamart stop selling the supplements. Arguing that the herbal ingredients' supposed benefits are unproven, Taketa and Fine seek a corrective advertising campaign, restitution, damages in the amount of the actual cost to consumers, attorneys fees and costs. The plaintiffs and proposed class are represented by Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- and Skye Resendes -- skye@consumersadvocates.com -- of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC, in San Diego. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case No. 4:15-cv-00542 WAL-MART STORES: Sued for Not Paying Assistant Store Managers' OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart stiffs its assistant store managers for overtime, a class action claims in Alameda County Court. WEISS & WEISS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Turner" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Shari Turner and Stuart Turner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Law Offices of Weiss & Weiss and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:15-cv-01070 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' abusive, deceptive and unfair practices of collecting debt. Law Offices of Weiss & Weiss is a law firm with its principle place of business located at 1 Barker Ave, Third Floor, White Plains, NY 10601. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq. Joseph Karl Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 555 Fifth Avenue 17th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com jkj@legaljones.com WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------ World Acceptance Corporation is awaiting a decision from the Court on its motion to dismiss a shareholder class action, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received CID from the CFPB. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in the matter. On June 25, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 12, 2014, lead plaintiff Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint contains similar allegations to the original complaint, but expands the class period and includes additional allegations that the Company's loan growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in the Company's internal controls relating to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 16, 2014. On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss on November 17, 2014 and is awaiting a decisions from the Court on its motion to dismiss. WYANDOTTE, KANSAS: Dist. Court Approves Deal in "Jackson" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Tyrell Jackson, Randall Chapman, and Mable Estes filed a class action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant Donald Ash, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Wyandotte County, Kansas. Plaintiffs, individually and respectively on behalf of other inmates or their outside correspondents similarly situated, allege that Defendant's postcard-only mail policy violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree. After notice to class members and a fairness hearing, District Judge Eric F. Melgren considered the Agreement for final approval and entry. Because the Court found the Agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, Judge Melgren approved and adopted the Agreement. The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice, Judge Melgren further ruled. A copy of the Court's February 20, 2015 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/QtG7qKfrom Leagle.com. TYRELL JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD ASH, in his official capacity as Sheriff for Wyandotte County, Kansas, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-2504-EFM-JPO, (D. Kan.) Tyrell Jackson, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A. Glickman -- josh@sjlawcollective.com -- Social Justice Law Collective, PL & Stephen D. Bonney -- dbonney@aclukswmo.org -- ACLU Foundation of Kansas. Randall Chapman, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A. Glickman, Social Justice Law Collective, PL & Stephen D. Bonney, ACLU Foundation of Kansas. Mable Estes, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A. Glickman, Social Justice Law Collective, PL & Stephen D. Bonney, ACLU Foundation of Kansas. Donald Ash, in his official capacity as Sheriff for Wyandotte County, Kansas, Defendant, represented by Henry E. Couchman, Jr., Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Patrick M. Waters, Unified Government of Wyandotte County & Ryan Patrick Haga, Unified Government of Wyandotte County. YAVONE LLC: Sued in D. Oregon Over Illegal Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Kassie Merritt, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yavone LLC, Healthy Choice Labs, LLC, and Global Pro System, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00269 (D. Or., February 16, 2015), arises out of the Defendants deceptive practice of enrolling consumers in a monthly subscription their supplement so that they can impose recurring and sometimes endless monthly charges onto their credit card or bank statements. The Defendants manufacture and distribute nutraceutical supplement under the name Simply Garcinia Cambogia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darian A. Stanford, Esq. R. Hunter Bitner II, Esq. SLINDE NELSON STANFORD 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1940 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 417-7777 Facsimile: (503) 417-4250 E-mail: darian@slindenelson.com hunter@slindenelson.com ZIPCAR INC: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Excessive Late Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge refused to dismiss a class action accusing Zipcar of charging excessive late fees of $50 an hour, reports Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service. Gabriela Bayol claimed that the company's late fee of $50 per hour, up to $150, violates the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law because it sets liquidated damages in a consumer contract. She claims that the fees are unconscionable and unfair, because "they are included in a contract of adhesion and are unreasonably favorable to Zipcar." She also claims that "it would not be impracticable to calculate Zipcar's actual damages when a car is returned late, that Zipcar did not conduct a reasonable endeavor to estimate its actual damages, and that the late fees imposed bear no reasonable relation to Zipcar's actual damages." U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson on Jan. 29 denied Zipcar's motion to dismiss. Zipcar claimed that its late fees are not liquidated damages and that Bayol's factual allegations are insufficient. But Henderson found that Bayol had demonstrated that the late fees are liquidated damages and said that "it will be Zipcar's burden, going forward, to demonstrate the validity of these fees." Henderson said that Bayol's allegations are "plausible enough to proceed to discovery." The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: William P. Donovan Jr., Esq. COOLEY LLP 1333 2nd Street, Suite 400 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 883-6435 E-mail: wdonovan@cooley.com The case is Gabriela Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv- 02483-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. * New York Court Allows Debt Collection Lawsuits to Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that lawsuits aimed at stopping debt collectors from using fraudulent means to collect money can proceed on behalf of a larger class of potential victims, a federal appeals court said on Feb. 10 in a case watched closely by consumer groups. The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan came on a 2-to-1 vote. Judge Dennis Jacobs dissented, saying class-action status will benefit lawyers but leave trivial benefits for consumers. The lawsuits pertain to consumers who were subjected to nearly 50,000 default judgments from a New York City court during a three-year period. The lawsuits claim that a debt collection company, a law firm and a process-serving company created a "default judgment mill" that relied on fraud to obtain favorable court rulings. Lawyers for defendants did not immediately comment. Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, an attorney for plaintiffs, called the ruling a "significant victory for our clients and for all low- income New Yorkers victimized by abusive debt collection lawsuits." He said the appeals decision would provide "a blueprint" for others who bring similar lawsuits nationwide. Meanwhile, Mr. Brinckerhoff said, attorneys in New York were looking "forward to securing real relief for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who have suffered as a result of defendants' unscrupulous practices." The appeals decision stemmed from a series of lawsuits brought by individuals who were sued by debt collection businesses in New York City Civil Court between 2006 and 2010. The 2nd Circuit noted that the plaintiffs said the defendants obtained default judgments even though none of the defendants was ever notified that a debt was being pursued in court. The lawsuits maintained that default judgments were obtained through false claims that the plaintiffs were notified of a pending court case and fraudulent documents submitted to back up the claims. A lower-court ruling had found common injuries to plaintiffs -- including the freezing of personal bank accounts and the incurring of legal costs to challenge default judgments -- supported their right to proceed as a class on behalf of others who might come forward to say they were victimized. Among legal papers supporting the plaintiffs filed with the 2nd Circuit were arguments by AARP, the National Association of Consumer Advocates and the National Consumer Law Center also submitted arguments. AARP said it was "greatly concerned about fraudulent and abusive practices being used to collect stale and invalid debt, to which older people are especially vulnerable." "Many older people believe they will go to jail if summoned to court on an alleged debt," the group's lawyers wrote. "Older people are more easily distressed by the threat of a court judgment against them, and many believe that they will lose their homes, pensions or bank accounts if they are sued by a debt collector. As a result, older people often feel coerced into paying debts they had already paid in full or never owed in the first place, such as debts of a deceased loved one," they added. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Football Hero Fears Cancer Due to Fibro -------------------------------------------------------- Warren Manger, writing for Mirror.co.uk, reported that football hero Stuart Pearce fears he may get lung cancer from asbestos exposure when he worked as an electrician. The ex-England star spent four years re-wiring homes, schools and factories before turning pro. But he was never told asbestos, then common in buildings, can cause incurable mesothelioma if inhaled. "The chances I worked with asbestos while an apprentice are high," said the Nottingham Forest manager, 52. "We were briefed on safety hats and boots but I don't recall asbestos mentioned once. It's chilling to think of the risks we were exposed to. Sending workers into a building with asbestos without warning of the dangers was asking for trouble." On average 20 workers die from asbestos-related diseases each week, yet 1.3 million tradespeople are still at risk of exposure to the dust. Pearce was an apprentice electrician with Brent council, London, in the early 1980s before he became a professional footballer at 21. He is now backing the Health and Safety Executive campaign Every Job Beware Asbestos. "It's shocking that people are still being exposed to asbestos today without realising it," he said. "Many people think it's a thing of the past. It's not -- it's still here. There's no excuse for that." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loose-Fill Fibro Home Identified in NSW Testing ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reported that the first house to test positive for potentially deadly loose-fill asbestos as part of the New South Wales Government's free testing program has been identified. The house is located in the southern Riverina, within the Berrigan Shire Council area. In a statement, the NSW Government said a free independent technical assessment by a licensed asbestos assessor had been offered to the property owners. "[This] will advise if living spaces are well sealed and the asbestos pathways appropriately controlled," the statement said. More than 1,000 houses across Canberra, and an unknown number of properties in NSW, were pumped with loose-fill asbestos by up to three companies, including the operator known as Mr Fluffy. The NSW Government has been offering free asbestos testing for homeowners across 26 local government areas, with more than 630 properties tested. Another 1,100 properties have been registered to be tested. Between 300 and 1,000 homes in New South Wales were thought to have been contaminated with loose-fill asbestos. The Queanbeyan City Council has estimated about 60 houses in the area could contain loose-fill asbestos. Late last year the NSW Government followed the ACT's lead by announcing it would knock down all buildings insulated with loose fill asbestos. The clean-up cost in the ACT was expected to be around $1 billion, and hundreds of millions of dollars in NSW. The NSW Government has promised financial assistance for affected families, at the same level of assistance available for those in the ACT. The Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Taskforce has also been established to look at the best way of tackling the clean up, and will its findings in May. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Repeat Fibro Warning After Fire ------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Eve, writing for Plymouth Herald, reported that firefighters have repeated their warning about derelict buildings contaminated with asbestos after a fire at a West Hoe hotel, in England. Crews from Greenbank and Crownhill had to force their way into the Quality Hotel after reports of a fire in the escape stairwell. Witnesses said they saw flames on the ground floor and smoke billowing from several floors. Witness Rob Jones said he spoke to two other men who claimed they had heard a loud bang before seeing the flames. Rob, aged 36, from Plymouth said: "I was on the Hoe and I smelled smoke. I thought it was unusual so I came over and saw orange flames. "I saw smoke billowing out the front right hand corner, all the way up to the seventh floor. The bottom windows were boarded up and it took the firefighters a few minutes to smash their way through with sledgehammers. They were then searching the rooms -- you could see the flashlights inside, scanning each room. "It's a worry, because it's derelict. If the firefighters hadn't got in when they did the whole building could have gone up." Station Manager Mark O'Kane, Hazmat (hazardous materials) officer repeated the warning the fire service issued just week about the West Hoe hotel after a 16-year-old girl was stuck on the first floor roof canopy which covers the entrance lobby. It is believed she had got into the building via a broken window. Firefighters from Greenbank fire station had to use a ladder to help her to safety. At the time, a senior firefighter said the girl had been "exposed to asbestos particles which have been released into the atmosphere. Asbestos has a very serious health risks to anyone coming into contact with the substance." At the fire, three fire appliances, plus the aerial platform was deployed along with lighting rigs. Police blocked off both ends of Leigham Street as fire crews carried out their work. Station manager O'Kane said: "We sent in BA [breathing apparatus] teams who searched the premises to make sure there was nobody in there. All of our crews had to be decontaminated afterwards due to asbestos. "When we arrived the fire was going pretty well on the ground floor and had spread to the first floor. There was significant smoke-logging up the centre of the building. "We would strongly advice against entering the building. There's a risk due to the asbestos which we only recently hightlighted." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Clarifies Cutoff for Fibro Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Forward, writing for WisBar.com, reported that Donald Peter was "exposed" to asbestos decades before the exposure manifested itself through mesothelioma. Recently, a state appeals court ruled that Peter's claims for "damages" would be too late under the state's statute of repose, but can continue since the defendant was not engaged in improvements to real property. Donald was a maintenance machinist at Pabst Brewery in Milwaukee and worked at Pabst's Bottle House for more than 36 years, starting in 1959. Until 1979, Pabst contracted with Sprinkmann Sons Corporation to install, maintain, and repair asbestos insulation at the facility. After Donald was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2012, he sued Sprinkmann, alleging exposure to Sprinkmann's asbestos products caused the injury. Donald died in 2013, and his estate added a wrongful death claim. Sprinkmann filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming Sprinkmann's products did not cause the injuries and Wisconsin's construction statute of repose, Wis. Stat. section 893.89, barred the claims because Donald's alleged "damages" accrued too late. Under the construction statute of repose, a plaintiff has 10 years after substantial completion of the real property improvement project to commence an action to recover damages for injuries against persons involved in the improvement to real property. The time bar doesn't apply to "damages" that were sustained before April 29, 1994, the effective date of Wisconsin's construction statute of repose. Donald argued that his "damages" -- exposure to asbestos -- were sustained long before 1994. But in in Peter v. Sprinkmann Sons Corp., 2014AP923 (Jan. 27, 2014), a three-judge panel for the District I Court of Appeals interpreted "damages" to mean "legally actionable damages." The panel ruled that "exposure" to asbestos did not give rise to "damages," his mesothelioma diagnosis did, and that did not occur until 2012. The panel noted that some circuits in Wisconsin have ruled that "exposure" is the triggering event, so pre-1994 exposure, if proven, gives rise to claims that are not barred. But other circuits have ruled that "damages" means "legally actionable damages." The panel adopted the latter interpretation of the word "damages." The panel, in an opinion by Reserve Judge Thomas Cane, explained that "this interpretation may seem harsh to asbestos plaintiffs who will not even know they have a claim until long after the statute of repose has barred their action," but noted that crafting asbestos-related exceptions to time bars is the function of the legislature. Case Lives On: No Improvement to Real Property Although Donald's "legally actionable damages" would be time barred, the panel ruled that summary judgment was not appropriate because Sprinkmann was not engaged in the improvement of real property, which is necessary for the statute of repose to apply. Section 893.89 puts a 10-year time limitation on actions against persons involved in the improvement of real property. The clock starts when the real property project is substantially complete. But the panel explained why the statute doesn't apply here. "Here, the evidence shows that Sprinkmann had an employee working at Pabst on a daily basis doing regular, daily repairs to the insulation on the machinery pipes," wrote Judge Cane wrote for the panel. "These repairs were not permanent additions. Rather, they were maintenance done to keep the pipes in proper condition." The panel noted that the initial installation of insulation may have been an improvement to real property, but Donald claimed exposure to asbestos that was disturbed through daily maintenance of insulated pipes and equipment by Sprinkmann employees. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Strengthens Rejection of Exposure Theory --------------------------------------------------------------- James J.A. Mulhall and Cara N. Parcell, writing for The National Law Review, reported that an en banc panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently rejected a $14.5 million jury verdict because the trial court improperly admitted testimony in support of the so-called "every breath" theory of asbestos exposure. A jury had awarded the $14.5 million verdict to Darlene Nelson, executrix of the estate of James Nelson, in 2010. The defendants appealed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to meet a standard of causation. While the case was on appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the landmark 2012 decision in Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, which rejected the theory that "every breath" of exposure to asbestos was a cause of mesothelioma. Based on Betz, the en banc majority determined that expert testimony in the Nelson case asserting that every exposure to asbestos must be considered a cause of mesothelioma was improperly admitted. The en banc majority ordered a new trial on the question of liability. A dissenting opinion argued that Betz and the Nelson case differed in that the plaintiffs in Nelson could establish exposure even without the "any exposure" theory. The dissent observed that the court's holding in Nelson could spell the end for a considerable portion of asbestos cases involving more than a de minimis exposure. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found by Police Union Clears Office --------------------------------------------------------------- John Nickerson, writing for Stamford Advocate, reported that asbestos tests paid for by the police union membership in Stamford, Connecticut, have led to the evacuation of the first- floor offices of the Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit inside police headquarters. The tests performed earlier in January found asbestos fibers in each of the five locations tested in different parts of the building, according to a report by the testing service Big East Environmental of Norwalk. But none of the other samples compared to the numbers found in the Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit's office, the report said. The report said 88,200 asbestos fibers per square centimeter were found on a five-inch by five-inch area on a shelf behind a television in the drug squad's offices. Assistant Chief Timothy Shaw said after the test results were received, the department voluntarily moved the dozen or so officers in the unit out of their offices, and squad members are using other parts of the building. "Based on results, we are speaking to experts in the state to better understand what they mean and remedy the situation," Shaw said. He added that as long as the results of air testing in the building remain stable, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has deemed the building safe for occupancy. The last round of tests measuring the amount of asbestos in the air showed little if any was airborne. Of the 12 to 15 locations tested, only one area in the firearms room was found to have any particles in the air, and the amount was so low that it did not meet the abatement clearance criteria, Shaw said. OSHA has ordered quarterly testing of the air in the building. For the past couple of months since the severity of the asbestos problem came to light, city officials have begun looking for a new location for the department. A contractor updating the heating and ventilation system in the department found asbestos in May 2014, calling a halt to the project for months. Federal regulators have since fined the city and demanded it clean up exposed debris. Chief Jon Fontneau has said remediation would be "throwing good money after bad," and the department has long ago outgrown the building anyway, regardless of the health and other problems with it. Shaw, who worked in the narcotics and organized crime office for years when he headed the squad, said he is working with the city on a work order so the offices can be professionally cleaned. Stamford police union President Todd Lobraico said that his membership was so concerned about the amount of dust around their work stations and knowing that there was an asbestos problem in the building, they decided to spend $1,200 themselves to get the independent tests completed by Big East. "We were very surprised at the positive test results and even more concerned with how the (particles) got into our work space," Lobraico said. He said that asbestos-containing plaster used to make the ceilings in the older part of the 59-year-old building appears to be flaking off and falling onto the newer drop ceilings below, and some of that asbestos is migrating through the tiles and into the work areas. OSHA has prohibited anyone from raising or getting into any of the drop-ceiling tiles in the older part of the building. Steve DiNapoli, environmental professional for Big East, said the levels of asbestos contamination in the narcotics office is almost high enough to indicate that some asbestos building materials have been disturbed sometime in the past, at least since that area was cleaned last. During a telephone interview, DiNapoli said the area behind the television where the sample was taken did not look excessively dirty or abandoned. In his report on the testing at police headquarters, DiNapoli suggested getting an asbestos abatement contractor into the building to decontaminate the narcotics office. Four other tests in different parts of the building -- Youth Services, the west male locker room, the extra duty office and crimes against persons office -- also turned up asbestos, but not in any alarming quantity, DiNapoli said. The asbestos fiber concentrations in those offices were below state Department of Public Health's guidelines for background concentrations, his report said. "For a building of that age, with known asbestos containing materials in it, it is not a surprise whatsoever," said DiNapoli, adding that the EPA says there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Shaw, said that the department is developing an asbestos management program for the structure, built in 1995. "We are taking this very seriously for the membership, and we are keeping everyone informed as best we can," Shaw said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Forces Closure of Childcare Center --------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Pereyra Garcia, writing for One News, reported that a childcare center in Upper Hutt, New Zealand, has closed and neighbours are concerned after asbestos was discovered in a building being demolished on their street. The 1976 building was sold in December and is being demolished to make way for a five property subdivision. Upper Hutt City Council spokesman Richard Harbord says the demolition did not require a consent and the onus of public safety falls on the building's owner. Owner, Phil Delaney, says his staff checked council records and there was no mention of asbestos. He says he's sorry for what has happened. Parents and staff of the Marlborough Street Childcare Centre next door to Mr Delaney's development are concerned about the asbestos risk. Demolition began on Jan. 25. WorkSafe visited the site on Jan. 29 and issued a prohibition notice. Tests came back positive for asbestos. Work on the site has stopped until the asbestos can be safely cleared away and children from the centre have been sent home. But Jessica Venning-Bryan, whose three-year-old attends the centre, is disappointed this could happen. And she's frustrated it took so long for testing to be done. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Reaches $358-Mil. Fibro Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a $358 million asbestos settlement has been announced by a company that was facing bankruptcy. The settlement involves future asbestos claimants with claims against Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC. Of the amount provided, $250 million will be contributed when the company's reorganization plan is put into effect and $77.5 million will be contributed over the next seven years. The settlement was reportedly negotiated with Joe Grier, who was appointed by the courts to represent future asbestos claimants. According to Forbes (1/14/15), current plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 billion from Garlock. The settlement could represent an issue between current and future asbestos claimants. Current plaintiffs are those who have already become ill and filed a lawsuit. Future claimants -- those affected by this settlement -- are those who may not yet be ill but will be and will file a lawsuit once they are diagnosed. Claims made in the future can be affected by the results of current lawsuits. Money has also been set aside to cover claimants who refuse the settlement offer and file a lawsuit instead. Forbes reports that Garlock has filed a lawsuit against five asbestos law firms, alleging plaintiffs' lawyers hid evidence that their clients were exposed to asbestos from other sources so they could obtain higher awards and settlements from Garlock, especially since the other companies had already declared bankruptcy. According to Reuters (1/21/15), one plaintiff told his lawyer he was exposed to 14 different asbestos products, but presented contradictory evidence in his lawsuit. Plaintiffs' lawyers have denied any wrongdoing. Asbestos litigation is typically long and complicated for a variety of reasons. First, it can take decades for illnesses associated with asbestos exposure -- including mesothelioma and asbestosis -- to develop. Second, plaintiffs who were exposed to asbestos may have been exposed in a variety of settings and situations. Those who worked as plumbers or as mechanics, for example, may have worked a variety of jobs hired by multiple employers where they were exposed to asbestos. They may also have been exposed to different types of asbestos from different manufacturers, making it difficult to pinpoint which exposure was the most significant cause of the asbestos-related illness. Asbestos lawsuits filed by some plaintiffs have named dozens of defendants including employers and manufacturers. The current asbestos claimants' lawsuit is In re: Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, case number 3:10-bk-31607, in US Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrowsmith Business, Supervisor Fined $29,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Recovery Abatement & Insulation Ltd., a Harrowsmith, Ontario, business that conducts asbestos abatement, has pleaded guilty and has been fined $25,000 after workers were exposed to asbestos dust on a job site. A supervisor, Gregory Simpson, pleaded guilty to failing to ensure workers used protective clothing and equipment, and was fined $4,000. On May 15, 2014, three workers were on the site of a single-family home at 150 Harvard Place in Amherstview. The work was an asbestos abatement project and the area where the abatement work was being conducted was enclosed. In the enclosed area, removal of certain asbestos containing materials had occurred and there was an asbestos dust hazard present. That afternoon a Ministry of Labour inspector attended at the location to conduct an inspection. During the inspection the inspector found one of the workers exiting the enclosed area of the project wearing street clothing. The inspector subsequently found another worker inside the enclosed area, securing bags filled with asbestos-containing material; that worker was also not wearing protective clothing. The third worker was also observed in the enclosed area performing clean-up work while not wearing protective clothing. Asbestos can cause respiratory illness and cancers if inhaled or ingested. Asbestos-containing material is not generally considered harmful unless it is disturbed and released into the air. There is potential for harm when workers and others are exposed to even small amounts of asbestos. Recovery Abatement & Insulation Ltd. pleaded guilty to contravening Section 15.14 of Ontario Regulation 278/05 (Designated Substance -- Asbestos on Construction Projects and in Buildings and Repair Operations). The regulation states that only persons wearing protective clothing and equipment should enter a work area where there is an asbestos dust hazard. The business was fined $25,000 by Justice of the Peace Deanne L. Chappell in Provincial Offences Court in Napanee on January 21, 2015. Supervisor Gregory Simpson pleaded guilty to failing as a supervisor to ensure that a worker worked in the manner and with the protective devices, measures and procedures required by the regulation, was fined $4,000. In addition to the fines, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Sentences 5 for Fibro Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- E. Lynn Grayson, writing for Association of Corporate Counsel, reported that U.S. District Judge Ronnie Greer sentenced five people to prison terms in federal court in Greeneville, Tennessee, for conspiring to commit Clean Air Act offenses in connection with the illegal removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials at the former Liberty Fibers Plant in Hamblen County, Tennessee, the Justice Department announced. A&E Salvage had purchased the plant out of bankruptcy in order to salvage metals which remained in the plant after it ceased operations. U.S. District Judge Greer sentenced Mark Sawyer, 55, of Morristown, Tennessee, a former manager of A&E Salvage, to the statutory maximum of five years in prison, to be followed by two years of supervised release. A&E Salvage manager Newell Lynn Smith, 59, of Miami, Florida, was sentenced to 37 months and two years of supervised release. A&E Salvage Manager Eric Gruenberg, 50, of Lebanon, Tennessee, received a 28-month sentence. Armida, 56, and Milto DiSanti, 54, of Miami, Florida, each received sentences of six months in prison, to be followed by six months of home confinement. The judge ordered all the defendants to pay restitution of more than $10.3 million, which will be returned to Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund, which was used to clean up the plant site contamination. According to court documents, all the defendants pleaded guilty to one criminal felony count for conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act's "work practice standards" salient to the proper stripping, bagging, removal and disposal of asbestos. According to the EPA, the individuals engaged in a multi-year scheme in which substantial amounts of regulated asbestos containing materials were removed the former Liberty Fibers plant without removing all asbestos prior to demolition and stripping, bagging, removing and disposing of such asbestos in illegal manners and without providing workers the necessary protective equipment. While managing asbestos in renovations and demolition projects can be challenging from an environmental and worker safety perspective, there clearly is a right way to do it and a wrong way. This case serves as a good reminder that taking shortcuts to save time and/or money has significant consequences. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manager Pleads Guilty in Fibro Removal from Bldg ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anne-Kathryn Flanagan, writing for Myrtle Beach Online, reported that a New Jersey project manager pleaded guilty in federal court in Charleston to lying to inspectors about asbestos removal from a former federal building. Albert Dickson, 61, entered a guilty plea to making a false statement under the Clean Water Act, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Winston David Holliday Jr. Dickson was the project manager overseeing renovation of the L. Mendel River Federal Building in Charleston during the spring and early summer of 2011, Holliday said. SC Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) inspectors visited the site in June and notices asbestos violations, including sweeping asbestos- containing materials down open drains. Dickson indicated that a filtration system had been in place at the time of inspections, according to Holliday. Evidence showed that it had not been installed until after June 6, 2011, when the violations were observed. The maximum plenalty for making a false statement under the Clean Water Act is two year in prison and/or a $10,000 fine. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers to Remove Fibro Tiles at Miller Library ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Ramunni, writing for New Haven Register, reported that as part of the ongoing renovations at Miller Memorial Library, in Hamden, Connecticut, work is expected to begin as to remove tiling that contains asbestos, though it likely won't be done while the library is open and the area will be partitioned off from the public. As part of the renovation project, the town had a firm go in and inspect the floors, Chief Administrative Officer Curt Balzano Leng said, and in that inspection it was found that tiles in a few areas contained the hazardous materials. But the amount is so low that it's not required they be removed, Leng said. Testing put the amount of asbestos in the tiles at about 3 percent, he said. Initially it was found in three areas off the Children's Room, he said, and in two adjacent rooms. More was later found in a custodian storage closet, he said. When the report on the inspections came back, it showed that 97 percent of the vinyl tile material is asbestos-free, he said, while 3 percent showed indications of asbestos. "We will abate these and remove them in a safe and enclosed area," he said. "They have protocols for these things." Though not required, the town decided to do the work now rather than later. Several decades down the line, when more work could be done on the building, it could become a bigger issue, Leng said, so it was decided to remove them now and get it over with. The tiles that are being removed aren't allowed to be used here anymore, but they're not banned everywhere, according to Art Giulietti, the town's risk manager. "In Canada, they're still using these tiles. They still use what isn't allowed here," he said. "We are being proactive and doing more than we have to do." The work is expected to cost a bit over $7.000, he said. "We did the test our of our own choice because we wanted to see what was there," Leng said. The area will be contained and blocked off from the public, Leng said. "We want to do the work before or after library hours," he said. There's already been a lot of work done at the town's flagship library, including a new roof that is almost done, a new Children's Section and renovation of space that the Hamden Historical Society has moved into. Plans for future improvements include redoing the information and checkout areas, Leng said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Plead Guilty to Fibro Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ David Wren, writing for The Post and Courier, reported that saying he was set up by a disgruntled former employee, the project manager for an asbestos removal project at the former L. Mendel Rivers Federal Building, in Charleston, South Carolina, admitted that he lied about whether his company followed strict legal requirements designed to protect the environment. Albert Dickson, 61, pleaded guilty in federal court to a charge of knowingly making a false statement on a document required to be filed under the Clean Water Act. The charge carries a maximum two- year prison sentence and a maximum fine of $10,000. Dickson, who lives in New York, will be sentenced at a later date. According to information filed in the case, Dickson told investigators with the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control that a water filtration system had been installed at the federal building to prevent asbestos from getting into the city's sewer system. Investigators learned that the filtration system wasn't installed until after they had questioned Dickson during a surprise inspection prompted by an anonymous complaint. Investigators, during the surprise inspection conducted June 6, 2011, found open drains to the sewer system filled with asbestos material. DHEC issued a stop-work order to Dickson's employer, Gramercy Group Inc., the next day. Gramercy later was allowed to return and finished the project that fall. Dickson told Judge Michael Duffy that while he lied to inspectors, he ultimately was set up by a subcontractor. "I do believe the job was sabotaged when the inspector was called in," Dickson said during the court hearing. Bart Daniel, Dickson's lawyer, said a subcontractor was fired the same day the anonymous complaint was filed with DHEC and Dickson believes the fired employee made the call. Daniel said that when inspectors showed up to investigate the complaint, Dickson was surprised to find the top floor of the building "looked like a war zone," with asbestos ripped off the walls and stuffed into drains. "That was the first time Mr. Dickson had any knowledge that kind of conduct was going on," Daniel said. "He was sabotaged by a subcontractor. It was a set-up." Duffy said he believes Dickson's story, calling it "an unfortunate situation," and asked whether DHEC took any action against the subcontractors. Daniel told the judge that most of the subcontractors were day laborers with falsified asbestos removal licenses. Once the stop- work order was issued, "they scattered," Daniel said. Dickson said water containing asbestos material previously was handled properly because it was collected and then filtered before being poured down the drain. He admitted, however, that there was no formal filtration process in place until after investigators questioned him. The investigation report in which Dickson made the false statement was included in DHEC's file as part of its oversight of the project. DHEC spokeswoman Cassandra Harris told The Post and Courier that the asbestos project did not pose a public health hazard. "The sewer system where the discharge took place is a closed system that was not accessible to the public," Harris said, adding that "the operators of the sanitary sewer system could implement any necessary precautionary measures." The building at 334 Meeting St., across from Marion Square, was shut down in 1999 after Hurricane Floyd flooded the structure, damaged roofs and disrupted asbestos in the ceilings. Dewberry Capital, a development firm based in Atlanta, bought the seven-story structure for $15 million in a government auction in early 2008, and the city approved plans to convert it into an upscale hotel in early 2010. Construction of the hotel began last fall and is expected to be completed by the end of this year. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Ministry Probes Sudbury Fibro Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Sudbury Star reported that the Canadian Ministry of Labour is continuing to investigate an asbestos complaint at Sudbury Hospital Services that was made earlier in January. The company, which supplies laundry and dishwashing services for Health Sciences North, began removing asbestos from the building that is about 45 years old. The ministry dispatched an investigator and a hygienist to investigate, and work is still being done to make the area safe, said Labour ministry spokesman William Lin. He wouldn't give more details about the incident. The ministry issued a stop work order Jan. 14 to the company, which employs about 60 people, restricting access to the affected area. Jan. 16, it issued an order for the company to establish procedures for training staff on how to deal with the hazards of asbestos. Only workers trained and wearing appropriate personal protective equipment are allowed to enter the affected area to start the boiler as required, it says in a second order. The company was also ordered to inspect material described in the asbestos management plan at reasonable intervals and to update that plan. The company was to complete the orders about procedures and protective equipment by Feb. 13. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Demolishing Plant Fined Over Fibro ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reported that company that's tearing down the former Bryan Foods complex in West Point, Mississippi, is paying a civil fine for failing to control for asbestos. Kohart Surplus and Salvage has agreed to pay $7,500 to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, as well as to hire a certified contractor to remove or abate debris on the site that contains asbestos. The department discovered asbestos problems in a March 2013 inspection at the former meat packing plant, and says Kohart started work without checking for asbestos The agreement says Kohart, based in Paulding, Ohio, can't restart demolition until it takes care of the asbestos. Under the settlement, Kohart asked to have until the end of 2015 to remove the asbestos, saying it couldn't afford to meet the original Dec. 31, 2014, deadline. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims Drag on Insurance Industry Earnings ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Lerner, writing for Business Insurance, reported that outstanding asbestos liabilities continue to drag on insurance industry earnings, although the liabilities are predominantly well-managed. In addition, slow and minor positive changes in the litigation environment have further improved the situation, insurance analysts say. In a recent report covering the insurance industry's outstanding asbestos liabilities, "U.S. Insurers Continue Funding of A&E Liabilities Despite Elusive End Game," A.M. Best Co. Inc. puts its estimate of net asbestos losses for the U.S property/casualty industry at $85.0 billion. The industry has funded just over 90% of its aggregate asbestos and environmental liability exposures, according to Best, leaving an unfunded asbestos liability of $6.7 billion. This jibes with estimates from Fitch Ratings Inc., which said in its 2014 U.S. Asbestos Liability Dashboard that it "estimates U.S. property/casualty industry statutory asbestos reserves to be deficient by $2 billion to $9 billion at year-end 2013, based on estimated ultimate industry losses of $85 billion, total paid losses of $53 billion and current reserves totaling $23 billion." "Industry reserves are inadequate," said Jim Auden, Chicago-based managing director of insurance at Fitch. Mr. Auden added that industry asbestos losses have totaled around $2 billion per year over the last five years and are likely to come in at about that level or a little lower for 2014, although final tallies are not yet available. At that level, he said, asbestos losses remain a drag on company earnings for those with asbestos exposures. Most companies, however, "have the ability to absorb those losses as they flow through," he said. "Most of the larger companies remain strongly capitalized and have the ability to absorb recurring moderate asbestos-related losses," Mr. Auden said. In the early 2000s, there were a few instances of companies reporting charges in excess of $500 million for asbestos liabilities, something unlikely to be repeated in today's market, said Mr. Auden. Tracy Dolin, New York-based director of North American insurance financial services ratings for Standard & Poor's Corp., agreed that the outstanding asbestos liabilities are less of an issue now than a decade or more ago. "A number of years ago we were concerned, but our concern has since subsided," she said. Gerard Altonji, who authored the Best report, pointed out that some companies with major asbestos liabilities had divested much or all of those liabilities to Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s Omaha, Nebraska-based National Indemnity Co. unit, most recently Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. in August 2014 and CNA before that in 2010. He added that with several such deals already done, there may be less room for future divestitures. Howard Mills, chief adviser at the insurance industry group at Deloitte Services L.L.P. in New York and the state's former insurance commissioner, agreed that capital levels are adequate to meet asbestos losses. "The industry is extremely well-capitalized," said Mr. Mills. "Asbestos is still potentially an open-ended issue, but one for which the industry is prepared." Mr. Mills added that while some companies may continue adding reserves, overall capital levels remain good. Additionally, he said, insurers today benefit from more precise modeling, which allows them to more precisely model and thus manage losses. He is less optimistic about tort reform, which he said is not likely to see movement under the Obama administration. However, there has been some positive evolution in the litigation environment for asbestos claims, according to Mark Behrens, Washington-based partner with Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. and co- chair of the firm's public policy group. He pointed to the introduction of the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, H.R. 526, which would require asbestos trusts to file a quarterly report that would disclose the names of parties that filed claims with that trust in that reporting period and what their claimed exposures are, and enactment of state asbestos trust transparency legislation. The legislation "may finally pass in 2015 now that the GOP controls both houses of Congress," Best said in its report, adding that developments in litigation against gasket manufacturer Garlock Sealing Technologies L.L.C. in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Charlotte, North Carolina, may help spur movement toward greater transparency in asbestos litigation. In that case, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges found that plaintiffs attorneys had withheld information in asbestos litigation. "This recent ruling may pave the way for more transparency and fairness in current and future litigation," Best said in its report. Mr. Behrens agrees. "In the last year, there is a greater public awareness about the problems of asbestos bankruptcy abuses," he said, citing both the ruling in the Garlock case and the introduction of the FACT legislation. "The report illustrates that the insurance industry is keeping up with asbestos claims, with individual insurers adjusting reserves as needed," David Golden, senior director of commercial lines policy for the Chicago-based Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said in an email. "Annual industry claim payments have been consistent for several years. While written about asbestos and environmental losses, the information in the report also supports general tort reforms that will help balance the scales of civil justice." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheldon Silver Arrested for Bribery, Kickbacks --------------------------------------------------------------- Rich Calder, Carl Campanile, Aaron Short and Bruce Golding, writing for New York Post, reported that Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver lined his pockets with nearly $4 million in bribes and kickbacks in a stunning abuse of power dating to at least 2000, federal authorities charged. The Manhattan Democrat, acknowledged as the second-most powerful Democrat in the state, was hit with five felony charges involving fraud, extortion and conspiracy that each carry up to 20 years behind bars. Silver, 70, surrendered at FBI headquarters in lower Manhattan at 8 a.m. and later took a ride of shame to the nearby federal courthouse. He sat uncomfortably in the back seat surrounded by federal agents, a black fedora askew on his head and his hands cuffed behind his back. The stunning arrest capped a secret grand-jury probe that began in June 2013, court papers said, and marked the latest in a string of public-corruption cases spearheaded by crusading Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara. Asked how the case stacked up against the many other public- corruption cases he's brought, Bharara summed it up. "Any time you have an allegation -- especially when it's proven -- against a public official, that is disturbing. And when you have an allegation against someone who is a public official -- not just in a random file capacity, but a leader of an entire body who is known in the politics of Albany to be one of the 'three men in a room' -- that is especially disturbing," Bharara said. Among the blockbuster developments: * Silver was accused of collecting more than $3 million in legal fees by steering asbestos-related cancer cases from a leading Manhattan oncologist to the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm. In exchange, Silver allegedly funneled two state research grants of $250,000 each to Dr. Robert Taub, along with other official favors. * Silver was also accused of scheming with his former Assembly counsel, Jay Arthur Goldberg, to split the fees paid to Goldberg's tiny tax firm by two real-estate developers, including one identified by sources as Leonard Litwin, the state's largest single political donor. * Silver pocketed $700,000 from the scam and sold out tenants during the 2011 renewal of New York City rent regulations, the feds say. * The feds seized $3.8 million in allegedly corrupt payments to Silver that were stashed in eight accounts spread out among six banks. * Bharara said the charges against Silver demonstrated "the show-me-the-money culture of Albany has been perpetuated and promoted at the very top of the political food chain." He also warned, "Our unfinished fight against public corruption continues. Stay tuned." * Albany lawmakers were left reeling, with one top Democratic operative telling The Post: "There's a lot of people scared s-- tless because Shelly covered up for a lot of people. Many big players in the political circles are worried the dominos are going to fall hard." * Silver was charged with two counts of honest-services fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit honest-services fraud, one count of extortion under color of official right and one count of conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right. Silver didn't have to enter a plea during his brief, initial court appearance, after which he was fingerprinted and released on $200,000 bond. The charges will be referred to a grand jury. On his way out of the courthouse, Silver told reporters: "The issues will be addressed, and I am confident I will be vindicated." Bharara said Silver's schemes started early in his tenure as Assembly speaker, when "he quietly and cleverly figured out how to monetize his position." Silver was first elected speaker in 1994. At an afternoon news conference, Bharara said, "The greedy art of secret self-reward was practiced with particular cleverness and cynicism by" Silver, who never did "a lick of work" to earn the buckets of cash he claimed were legal "referral fees." "For many years, New Yorkers have asked the question: How could Speaker Silver, one of the most powerful men in all of New York, earn millions of dollars in outside income without deeply compromising his ability to honestly serve his constituents? Today, we provide the answer: He didn't," Bharara said. "For many years, New Yorkers have also asked the question: What exactly does Speaker Silver do to earn his substantial outside income? Well, the head-scratching can come to an end on that score, too, because we answer that question as well: He does nothing. "As alleged, Speaker Silver never did any actual legal work. He simply sat back and collected millions of dollars by cashing in on his public office and political influence," Bharara said. The lawman said Silver tried to cover up his scams with "false and misleading" entries on financial-disclosure forms and public statements in which he claimed to represent "plain, ordinary, simple people." He also said Silver "thwarted" attempts by the state Moreland Commission on Public Corruption to investigate his outside income, first by filing motions to quash its subpoenas and later by negotiating to get the commission shut down by Gov. Cuomo. Bharara said his office "merged" records it subpoenaed from the Moreland Commission into its own investigation of Silver's outside income. He noted that the investigation is ongoing and that the other "people we're looking at" are potentially "very big." According to court papers, the probe of Silver was aided by unidentified cooperating witnesses from previous public-corruption cases. Bharara's office also struck a nonprosecution deal with the doctor in the asbestos-referral case and got grand-jury testimony from the law partner of Silver's former Assembly counsel under terms of an immunity order, according to the complaint. The complaint notes that Silver recently insisted through a spokesman that "none of his clients have any business before the state" -- which the feds called a lie. "In truth and in fact, Silver has obtained millions of dollars in outside income as a direct result of his corrupt use of his official position to obtain attorney referral fees for himself, including from clients with substantial business before the state," Investigator Robert Ryan wrote. Assembly Majority Leader Joe Morelle (D-Rochester) said he continued to support Silver. "The members overwhelmingly, in the conversation we have just had, are continuing their support," he said. Asked if Silver should resign, state Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-LI) said: "The Assembly has to make that decision. He's their leader. They have to make that decision themselves." ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHP Appeals Against $2.2MM Fibro Cancer Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hagemann, writing for Australian Mining, reported that BHP Billiton has begun an appeal against the multi-million dollar payment awarded to a dying mesothelioma victim. Last year the multinational miner was ordered to pay $2.2 million to former employee Steve Dunning after a four year legal battle. Dunning, 54, worked at the Newcastle steelworks from 1979 to 1981, during which time he was exposed to asbestos dust from the blast furnaces. Diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010, Dunning is terminally ill and has had one of his lungs removed. In July 2014 BHP was found negligent by the Dust and Diseases Tribunal, and ordered to pay compensation of $2.2 million to Dunning, including $500,000 for pain and suffering. The two-day appeal began on January 2 in the Court of Appeal. A spokesperson for BHP said the appeal was made on the basis of "legal principles". "After careful consideration of the judgement, the company has concluded that the findings and application of legal principles made by the trial judge are such that review by the Court of Appeal is warranted," the spokesperson said. "As the matter is now before the Court, it is not appropriate for any party to comment further."Slater and Gordon lawyer Joanne Wade represented Dunning and said BHP's decision to appeal was unfair to the Dunning family. "It's really frustrating that BHP filed an appeal in the case of a dying man and one of its ex workers," she told ABC. "The company has argued every available legal point for the duration of this case and it continues to do so but it is not fair for Mr Dunning and his family." Wade conceded it was BHP was legally entitled to bring the appeal, but said the case had been running for a long time. "Mr Dunning is and will continue to suffer from mesothelioma and it will take his life," she said. "It is a very difficult situation for the family and hopefully it will come to an end very soon." An asbestos poisoning case against Rio Tinto was dismissed on the basis of a legal loophole. Former Rio Tinto employee Zorko Zabic, a sufferer of malignant mesothelioma, filed a claim for $425,000 against Rio Tinto after extensive exposure to asbestos contamination at the Nhulunbuy mine in the 1970s. Zabic did not suffer cancer symptoms until January 2014, and was statute-barred from making a claim due to the Worker's Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which stated his claim had to be made before 1987. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Finds Suggest Fibro May be Widespread in Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------- News-Medical.com reported that in 2011, geologists at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, began discovering asbestos where none should be -- in granite rocks with a geologic history not previously known to produce asbestos. The discoveries, in Clark County in southern Nevada and across the border in northwestern Arizona, suggest that asbestos may be more widespread than previously thought; they also raise questions about the potential health hazards of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). In 2012, an epidemiologist analyzing cancer data from Clark County found a higher incidence than expected of mesothelioma -- a fatal cancer of the lining of the chest cavity that is caused by inhalation of asbestos. In response, geologists have discovered a geologically unexpected deposit of asbestos that might be the source. Disagreements on process between the scientists and the state have prevented the traditional publishing of those findings. In Nevada, where some popular off-road recreational vehicle areas cross through these asbestos-bearing formations, the planned construction of the new Boulder City Bypass has spurred debate over how much asbestos is getting into the air, and what that means for public health. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Report Says Up to 6 Tons of Fibro in Finley ------------------------------------------------------------ ABC News reported that an independent report says there is anecdotal evidence up to six tonnes of potentially deadly loose fill asbestos was franchised to a Finley, Australia, business. A house in the Berrigan Shire became the first in New South Wales to test positive for the asbestos, as part of a state government funded inspection program. PricewaterhouseCoopers has been tasked by the government to investigate the extent of Mr Fluffy across New South Wales. Its interim report delivered in November, says a man who owned an insulation business in Finley during the 1960s and 70s recalled a competitor in the region known as 'Asbestosfluf'. The document also quotes a 1987 New South Wales Health report where it was said 'five or six tonnes of insulation' was franchised to a Finley operator. It is estimated that amount of asbestos would insulate '60 houses at most.' The report also identified documents stating a Mr Byer, who owned the Byer Motel in Holbrook provided loose fill asbestos. The report says the insulation may also be known as Amoswool, Asbestosfluf, Byer Asbestos, Holbrook Asbestos and Insulfluf. As of January 22, more than 1,700 premises across the state had registered for a free asbestos check. 630 houses have returned a negative reading. The free testing program will continue until August, and is available in the Albury, Berrigan, Boorowa, Greater Hume, Tumbarumba, Wagga and Young local government areas. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Removes Ex-Worker's Suit to Fed. Court ------------------------------------------------------------ John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a lawsuit brought by a former attorney against a major asbestos law firm has been removed to federal court. Attorneys for Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik removed plaintiff Marc Willick's lawsuit to Los Angeles federal court on Jan. 28, arguing that the complaint crosses a $75,000 amount-in-question threshold and that there is a diversity of citizenship among the parties. Willick's original lawsuit was filed Dec. 12 in Los Angeles Superior Court. It alleges Paul Napoli and Marc Bern owe him a portion of fees obtained from cases he helped prosecute for the firm. After the suit was filed, Napoli told Legal Newsline that he considers the claims made in the lawsuit "nonsense." He also called Willick "an opportunist who is apparently not doing well in his own practice." But Willick claims the firm has not paid him what he is owed. In his complaint, Willick alleges that he was in talks with the defendants regarding the fees he claims to be entitled to before Napoli had a brief setback while battling leukemia. Willick also claims that in November, he learned that millions of dollars in judgments were entered against defendants for the percentage of attorneys fees they allegedly owed to other lawyers in similar situations. "Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that defendants' misconduct, as alleged herein, is part and parcel of a pervasive scheme in which defendants underpaid, refused to account to, and have otherwise mistreated their employees and similarly situated attorneys who entered into similar agreements with defendants and each of them," Willick alleges. The removal notice says Willick made a base salary of $15,000 per month at the time of his termination, plus referral fees and bonuses. In his complaint, Willick mentioned a recent power struggle between Napoli and Bern over alleged irregularities in the firm's operations. In a statement previously provided by Paul and Marie Napoli, he addressed Bern's allegations of irregularities by stating that his partner attempted to humiliate him, his family and his office. "As many of you know, Marc (Bern) for inexplicable reasons, decided once I got sick to try and take over the law firm I have built over the last 20 years. He quietly waited until I went under the knife for my transplant before firing key employees who worked for me in running the firm. At the same time, he fired my 72-year- old father (the biggest earner in the office in personal injury). While in ICU Marie had to leave my side and rush to Court to get the Court to order him to cease," Napoli stated. Willick, who is founder of the Law Office of Marc I. Willick, claims that in March 2011 he entered into a written agreement stating that his law office would act as local counsel for the defendants in asbestos related cases referred by the defendants. They agreed that the fees generated from the allotted cases would be divided 10 percent to Willick and the remaining 90 percent to the firm, he said. Then in May 2011, the parties entered into another written agreement that directed Willick to devote his full time and attention to the business and affairs of the law firm, he said. Willick stated that the defendants led him to believe that he would be provided with full and timely accountings reflecting the necessary compensation. "These representations were knowingly false and were made with the intent of deceiving plaintiff into executing the second agreement, providing services pursuant to the second agreement and introducing defendants to plaintiff's referral sources," the complaint stated. However, Napoli explained that Willick's agreements included a "draw provision," which he was required to meet before getting paid on settlements. Because Willick never met the draw, he was not entitled to the money he claims to have lost, he said. Additionally, Willick alleges the defendants filed and prosecuted multiple cases in his name without his knowledge or consent, indicating to the court that the plaintiff was the counsel on the case. As an example, he claims the defendants affixed an electronic image of the plaintiff's signature on pleadings. As a result of these written agreements, Willick claims he is entitled to an award reflecting the fees the defendants received on cases filed or prosecuted in his name, cases brought to them by the plaintiff and cases Willick referred to the defendants by his own referral sources. The complaint states that Willick ended his employment with the defendants on or about Dec. 14, 2012. However, Napoli said the firm had to let him go after he was frequently absent and continuously missed deadlines. As a result, Willick was asked to resign subsequent to a performance review, Napoli said. The five-count lawsuit also claims the firm misrepresented itself as an LLP, or having a limited liability partnership, and named the "Napoli Bern entities" as defendants. "The Napoli Bern entities are purportedly limited liability partnerships, but, in reality, are names used by Napoli and Bern to conduct their personal business," Willick alleges. Furthermore, Willick takes issue with the number of similar, but different, names the firm has used when filing cases, stating that the firm does business as no less than 11 different LLPs and have a combined 100 bank accounts. Napoli said the allegations regarding the Napoli Bern entities aren't true. He explained that the firm changed names as different partners were employed there over the years, adding that every name change was legal and appropriate. Calling the Napoli Bern entities the "alter egos" of Napoli and Bern, Willick further claims there is a unity of interest, ownership and operation between the defendants and urges the court to treat the actions of the law firm as the actions of the two accused attorneys. According to the complaint, Willick also claims Napoli and Bern used assets of each of the entities and withdrew funds from the bank accounts for their personal use. "The defendants exercised such complete control and dominance of the business assets of the Napoli Bern entities and used and mingled the assets and monies of them such that an individually or separateness of [the defendants] does not, and at all times herein mentioned did not, exist," the complaint states. According to the complaint, Willick urges the court to order the defendants to provide an accounting that reflects all fees and costs received by them for matters in which Willick was named as the counsel of record, asbestos cases Willick brought to the defendants and cases that came to the defendants through Willick's referral sources. He also seeks actual damages, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, costs of suit and any further relief the court deems just and proper. Willick is represented by James L. Goldman of Pircher, Nichols & Meeks. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FACT Act Introduced in House --------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that legislation aimed at reducing fraud in the asbestos bankruptcy trust system has once again been introduced for debate in the House of Representatives. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) introduced the H.R. 526, the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT Act), in the House of Representatives on Jan. 26. In a statement, the legislator said that the "FACT Act reduces fraud in the asbestos bankruptcy trust system through increased transparency measures. These measures ensure that asbestos bankruptcy trusts have the tools to combat fraud, which limits funds available for asbestos victims. ASBESTOS UPDATE: DC Cir. Asked to Rethink Fibro Death Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Field, writing for Law360, reported that the estate of a man who died of mesothelioma asked the D.C. Circuit to rehear its decision upholding that Honeywell International Inc. wasn't responsible for his death, arguing its sanction of dismissal was inappropriate despite not finding willfulness, bad faith or fault. The estate of the late John Tyler, who sued Honeywell in 2010, told the D.C. Circuit on Jan. 29 that it had erred in affirming a lower court's dismissal of the case without finding willfulness, bad faith or fault, contrary to circuit and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The panel had held that such a finding wasn't necessary, according to the rehearing petition, even though that finding is needed before dismissing a case for a discovery violation. "The panel did not make such a finding regarding plaintiff's conduct and instead stated that bad faith or its equivalent were not required under Rule 37," the estate said. "However, because the Rule 37 sanction resulted in dismissal, the panel was required to provide a thorough review of the conduct that resulted in the sanction." The circuit court on Dec. 30 ruled that a lower court correctly excluded a plaintiff's expert declaration claiming that his exposure to Honeywell's brakes was sufficient to cause asbestos- related cancer, saying that the expert's declaration came too late, the late filing wasn't substantially justified and that it was harmful to Honeywell, given that the case was on track to go to trial. Tyler's estate argued in its petition for an en banc review that its filing didn't satisfy the willfulness, bad faith or fault standard as applied by the circuit court. This came after the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in another Honeywell case that plaintiffs in asbestos suits must provide evidence that exposure to a product was enough in and of itself to cause injury. "Indeed, this court has found that a party must act with 'at least gross negligence' to meet the 'willfulness, bad faith or fault' standard," Tyler's estate said. "Here, there was no finding of any misconduct, improper motives or gross negligence." Tyler's estate said that the failure to apply this standard deviates from the case law of several other circuit courts, making it an "issue of exceptional importance" requiring en banc review. The appeals panel had agreed that a D.C. federal judge was right to grant Honeywell summary judgment after excluding new statements from plaintiff's expert Steven Markowitz. In the declaration, Markowitz said that Tyler's exposure to asbestos from brakes made by Honeywell predecessor Bendix Corp. was "sufficient" to cause his cancer, according to court documents.. Initially, a lower court denied Honeywell's motion for summary judgment. But after the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling in two asbestos cases, one involving Honeywell and plaintiff Walter Boomer, Honeywell filed for reconsideration, prompting Tyler's estate to file the new Markowitz document two years after the close of fact discovery, according to court documents. Ultimately, the D.C. Circuit agreed with Honeywell that the lower court didn't abuse its discretion by excluding the declaration and affirmed summary judgment in Honeywell's favor. Tyler and his wife sued Honeywell in 2010, but Tyler died in July of that year from malignant pleural mesothelioma. The representative of his estate, Stephen Wannall, continued the litigation, while Tyler's wife dropped out and didn't participate in the appeal, according to court documents. Tyler was allegedly exposed to asbestos in at least three ways over his lifetime, including when he repaired cars using brakes made by Bendix. Tyler's other alleged exposures to asbestos came while he served in the Navy and worked on an Army base. He was not a professional mechanic but repaired cars in his spare time for family and neighbors. Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Tyler is represented by David Michael Lipman of The Lipman Law Firm and by Daniel Aaron Brown of Brown & Gould LLP. Honeywell is represented by Michael R. Shebeleskie and John D. Epps of Hunton & Williams LLP and Michael A. Brown and Alicia N. Ritchie of Miles & Stockbridge PC. The case is Stephen A. Wannall v. Honeywell Inc., case number 13- 7185, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Man Charged with Illegal Fibro Disposal ----------------------------------------------------------- Lois Clermont and Suzanne Moore, writing for Pittsburg Press Republican, reported that a man from Rouses Point, New York, has been charged with illegally disposing of asbestos-laden debris in a wetland. An investigation by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Police resulted in the arrest of Randy P. Bedard, 57. On Jan. 29, members of the DEC Bureau of Environmental Crimes Investigation charged him with second-degree endangering the public health, safety or the environment, which is a felony. Bedard was also charged with two misdemeanors: unlawful disposal of solid waste and unpermitted activity in a regulated wetland. The investigation stemmed from the collapse of the former Drown Funeral Home on Route 11 in Mooers on Jan. 11, 2014. Bedard allegedly brought a total 150 cubic yards of asbestos-laden debris to the Clinton County Solid Waste Management Facility and to an unpermitted disposal site on North Star Road in the Town of Mooers. The site on North Star Road is a regulated wetland. Town Supervisor Jeff Menard told the Press-Republican last spring that he had no knowledge that Bedard was dumping debris from the building illegally. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Matson Man Receives GBP50,000 for Fibro Illness ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gloucester Citizen reported that the gates are open for a man from Matson, England, to continually sue the Department of Transport if his health deteriorates further after becoming from his exposure to asbestos 70 years ago. Harold White has received GBP50,000 in damages and a court order which means he can make future financial claims against his former employers British Rail. His health deteriorated as a result of asbestos exposure when he worked for the railway firm, now under the control of the Secretary of State for Transport, between 1942 and 1949. His job was to cycle around the Swindon works delivering post to the various shops, where there was extensive asbestos. At the age of 15 he started an apprenticeship where he worked on locomotives which had asbestos bandages over the pipes to stop people burning themselves. Asbestos was mixed in drums and then slapped on like paste over the boilers. He was in good health until he started to develop breathlessness in 2012 and was told it had been triggered from his time with British Rail. His family's solicitor, Brigitte Chandler of Charles Lucas & Marshall said it was important in cases where people developed asbestosis to apply for provisional damages with the right to return to court to seek further legal redress. "This case shows how long it can take for asbestos related illnesses to develop," she said. "He now has the right to return to claim further damages should he develop cancer or other illnesses caused by asbestos. "Anybody who is suffering from breathlessness and has been xposed to asbestos should seek advice from their GP." The Swindon and South West Asbestos Group is a regional charity formed to provide free of charge support groups and information to asbestos sufferers and their partners. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Attys Face Off at Transparency Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------- Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that a K&L Gates LLP partner told House lawmakers that his experience defending Crane Co. and others shows the Republican-backed measure to increase transparency in asbestos bankruptcy trust claims is warranted, while a Caplin & Drysdale Chtd. plaintiffs expert sided with House Democrats' denouncing the bill as a defense-side intimidation tactic to limit liability. K&L Gates partner Nicholas Vari testified in favor of the recently revived asbestos transparency bill to a House panel considering the measure, arguing that its requirement for more disclosure from asbestos trust claimants about their exposure histories will prevent unjust recoveries from solvent defendants in the tort system. The bill at issue is H.R. 526, the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2015, which was reintroduced in January by Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas. Caplin & Drysdale's Elihu Inselbuch, who has worked with the plaintiffs bar in major asbestos bankruptcies since the Johns- Manville Corp. reorganization, echoed arguments by Democrats opposing the measure, saying that the move would needlessly pry into the private information of mesothelioma victims. He argued that defendants exaggerate accounts of plaintiff fraud as a tactic to limit liability, while Democratic lawmakers including Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia argued that defendants would not extend their own calls for transparency to the asbestos settlements the defendants insist on keeping confidential. "You seek increased transparency from victims, but would you, for the purposes of leveling the playing field, support legislation to ban confidentiality in settlements?" Johnson asked Vari at the hearing. "The plaintiffs also often resist the disclosure of settlement information," Vari responded. "Well it seems only fair that if you want transparency from claimants, you would also seek it from defendants, and one thing they do is to insist on confidentiality agreements," Johnson pressed. "But the plaintiffs already possess their own settlement information, so nothing is being withheld from them," Vari said. The tense line of questioning also reflected a sharp partisan divide on the measure, with Republican lawmakers touting it as a long-needed reform to prevent abuses of the trust system that would deprive future mesothelioma claimants of recoveries. Democrats argued meanwhile that despite North Carolina Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges' explosive opinion last January in the Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC case outlining plaintiff fraud, a body of evidence suggests otherwise. They cited a 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office report that reviewed $17 billion in payouts by asbestos trusts, which Johnson argued did not show "a scintilla of evidence" of plaintiff fraud. But experts on the testifying panel disagreed with that reading, arguing that the GAO report was based on interviews with trusts. "The fact that there was no fraud self-reported is not an indication of lack of fraud," said Marc Scarcella, a principal of Bates White Economic Consulting who has worked with defendants and attorneys for asbestos claimants and trustee boards. The bill, a similar version of which died in a Senate committee last year, would require trusts to file quarterly reports with information on claims that were received and paid, including details on the name and exposure history of the claimants and the basis for any payments. "The bill would require the disclosure of sensitive information, which means victims will be revictimized by allowing their personal and sensitive information to be irretrievably released to the public," said Rep. John Conyers, D- Mich. "Just imagine what insurance companies, prospective employers ... could do with that information." ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Man Charged With Illegal Fibro Disposal ----------------------------------------------------------------- WPTZ.com reported that a northern New York man faces felony charges after the Department of Environmental Conservation determined he had illegally disposed of asbestos-laden demolition debris in a wetland. The DEC charged 57-year-old Randy Bedard of Rouses Point with endangering the public health, safety or the environment. In addition to the felony charge, Bedard was also charged with two related misdemeanors. The investigation stemmed from the collapse of the former Drown Funeral Home in Mooers in January 2014. The DEC says Bedard removed 150 cubic yards of debris and dumped it at the Clinton County Solid Waste Management Facility and into a regulated wetland in the town of Mooers, 160 miles north of Albany. Bedard pleaded not guilty in Town of Mooers Court and was released pending a court appearance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Disturb Fibro at Aussie School ----------------------------------------------------------- Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that students at Berridale Public School, in New South Wales, Australia, might have been exposed to asbestos as workers cut into bonded asbestos sheeting during the first week of the new school year. The school is on the NSW Government School Asbestos Register and the room was listed as being presumed to have asbestos present. WorkCover NSW confirmed it visited the school, located between Cooma and Jindabyne, after parents raised concerns. Contractors hired by the NSW Department of Education were installing airconditioning in a demountable building at the school when students returned for their first day. They drilled into the ceiling, which contained bonded asbestos. WorkCover said that according to its investigations, the workmen only "discovered potential asbestos-containing material while drilling into the ceiling". In 2008, the NSW Department of Education launched a $3 million asbestos register to reduce risk of exposure to the toxic substance. It is not known whether the workmen were aware of the asbestos before they began drilling. But WorkCover said they stopped work immediately and attempted to restrict the entry of children to the site. The demountable building is used as a lunch room when it is raining and students were inside that day, because it was raining. WorkCover said the students were moved to another building and access to the demountable building was cut off. Asbestos warning stickers and barriers were then erected. One parent, who did not wish to be named, said she assumed work was only halted because WorkCover had been notified. She said it was not good enough that children had been in and around the area while fibres had potentially been released into the atmosphere. She also questioned why the work was not completed during the holidays. "What I don't understand is how work began on this site when it is listed on a public registry as having presumed asbestos." A spokesman for WorkCover NSW said a licensed asbestos removalist undertook testing on the building and the asbestos was removed. A clearance certificate had been issued by an occupational hygienist. "WorkCover is satisfied that the school and contractor have acted in accordance with work health and safety laws." A spokesman for the NSW Department of Education said "the work to install airconditioning in the school's two demountable classrooms was carried out in accordance with the department's Asbestos Management Plan and WorkCover NSW requirements". "The department has received a clearance certificate for the subject area. WorkCover has inspected the site and will provide a written report to the school when it is ready. The school principal is keeping parents informed about the situation." Meanwhile, work to remediate asbestos contamination at Copper Tom Point on Lake Jindabyne has been delayed by wet weather. Work was due to be completed by the end of February, and members of the public have been asked to avoid the area until the remediation works are complete. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Business Owner Accused of Fibro Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Kriger and Joel Martinez, writing for WWLP.com, reported that a property manager in Springfield, Massachusetts has agreed to pay up to $65,000 for alleged asbestos violations in Springfield and Agawam. According to a news release from the state Attorney General's office, Wei Qiang Ni and his company NI Management improperly removed, transported and disposed of asbestos during the renovation of a multi-family building. "This is a public health issue. Asbestos removal actions should be conducted only by trained professionals, not unlicensed and unqualified individuals, especially where tenants could be exposed," AG Maura Healey said. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection said they found asbestos fragments in the basement of a building where tenants did laundry and their children played. The work was allegedly done without using a licensed asbestos removal contractor, and without following removal procedures required by the asbestos regulations. "Improper handling of asbestos can expose workers, residents and potentially others to a health hazard and poses an unnecessary environmental risk," MassDEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg said. "With this settlement, we are ensuring that the property owners' tenants will be protected and the remainder of the properties safely assessed and abated as necessary." Below is more information included in the news release regarding this case: "Wei Qiang Ni allegedly arranged with his wife Mei Nuan Li and her company, Dragon Paradise LLC, for the asbestos waste to be loosely bagged in trash bags and illegally disposed of in a dumpster at an industrial building on Main Street in Agawam. The bags were allegedly covered by additional construction debris that ripped the bags and allowed the exposure of the asbestos-containing material to the open air. The building and dumpster allegedly are used by Ni and NI Management routinely for construction debris disposal. "Under the settlement, the defendants must pay $40,000 in civil penalties to the Commonwealth, $25,000 of which is suspended pending the defendants' compliance with the terms of the consent judgment "In addition to the industrial property in Agawam, Ni and Li own or have a financial interest in 55 single-family and multi-family residential rental properties in Springfield, Agawam and Holyoke, with a total of approximately 100 rental units. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants must hire a licensed asbestos inspector to evaluate 40 of those properties for asbestos violations. If violations are found, the Commonwealth may require that the remaining properties and any acquired during the next five years also be assessed. After the inspections, the defendants must have a certified asbestos management planner compile a plan for prompt remediation of any asbestos violations. "The regulation of asbestos handling is exceedingly important to protect human health. Airborne friable asbestos taken into the lungs by breathing may over time cause serious lung diseases, including asbestosis, lung cancer, or mesothelioma. Asbestosis is a serious, progressive, long-term, non-cancer disease of the lungs for which there is no known effective treatment. Lung cancer causes the largest number of deaths related to asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that is found in the thin membranes of the lung, chest, abdomen, and heart, and may not show up until many years after asbestos exposure. "This case has been handled by Assistant Attorney General Fred Augenstern of Attorney General Healey's Environmental Protection Division, with assistance from various MassDEP personnel, including: Christine Lebel of MassDEP's Office of General Counsel, Joel Rees, Marc Simpson, Gregory Levins, Robert Shultz, and the late Brian Bordeaux." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in New Mexico Building --------------------------------------------------------- Dan Schwartz, writing for The Daily Times, reported that a contractor found asbestos in the ventilation system of a building in Farmington, New Mexico, on Jan. 30, and officials have shut down the building's air blowers until a third-party expert deems the workplace safe. "All of our buildings have asbestos," City Manager Rob Mayes said. The City Annex building across the street from City Hall where the contractor found the asbestos is 60 years old, he said. Asbestos was used in buildings prolifically prior to the 1989, when it was banned. Normally used as insulation, asbestos is not considered dangerous if it is contained. When disturbed, asbestos can crumble into tiny particles and drift into the air, and it's easily inhaled, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The material is a cancer- causing agent. But Mayes said he is not concerned. The expert is coming to make certain the asbestos lining in the air handler, which feeds the building's air ducts, is intact, he said. Crews shut down the air handler out of an "abundance of caution," he said. Officials met with the building's employees in the council chambers to answer questions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Contractor Ruled Guilty in Abatement Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Kelly, writing for Watertown Daily Times, reported that a Jefferson County Judge Kim H. Martusewicz ruled that a contractor from Watertown, New York, was guilty of a lone misdemeanor in connection with an asbestos abatement project at an Academy Street duplex in 2013. Aaron A. Netto, 37, of 23997 County Route 159, was found guilty following a nonjury trial of fourth-degree endangering public health, safety or the environment, but was acquitted of counts of second-degree reckless endangerment, second-degree making an apparently false sworn statement and tampering with evidence. He later was sentenced to a 90-day conditional discharge and fined $2,000. It had been alleged in an indictment handed up in May that Mr. Netto was responsible for releasing more than 1,000 pounds of friable and nonfriable materials containing asbestos into the environment, potentially endangering workers and neighbors. The charges came amid an October 2013 renovation of rental property owned by Mr. Netto at 222 Academy St. In his ruling from the bench, Judge Martusewicz said "there is no proof" that the amount of hazardous material released totaled the 1,000 pounds required to sustain a felony public endangerment charge under state statute. He said under federal law, the weight of extraneous debris that is included with the hazardous material, such as wood or concrete, can be calculated toward the 1,000-pound requirement, but under state law the additional debris cannot be included in the material's weight. It also had been alleged that Mr. Netto moved a Bobcat skid steer that had been used at the renovation project from the site to his home while knowing that the machine may be evidence in the abatement case and after a state Department of Environmental Conservation officer had told one of Mr. Netto's employees not to move the machine. However, trial testimony showed that Mr. Netto was on a hunting trip in Idaho at the time and no testimony was provided that showed he moved the equipment or ever was told by his employee that it could not be moved. He was later accused of providing an affidavit that indicated he possibly intended to live at the Academy Street property at some point, which would potentially affect asbestos abatement requirements, as guidelines are less stringent for owner-occupied structures than commercial properties. No testimony was provided that refuted his claim that he might choose to live at the property rather than rent it. Mr. Netto was represented at trial by attorneys Eric T. Swartz and Gary W. Miles. Mr. Swartz previously had maintained that Mr. Netto's prosecution was a vendetta against Mr. Netto, a one-time DEC officer, but several witnesses testified they had no animosity toward Mr. Netto and investigated the matter as they would any alleged illegal abatement matter. While Mr. Netto was sentenced to a conditional discharge, he still is serving up to three years' probation imposed in County Court in November 2013 on six misdemeanor convictions stemming from allegations that he possessed items that had been stolen from multiple construction sites. He also resigned his position as a state corrections officer as part of a plea agreement in that matter. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Trusts Continue to Deplete, Witness Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Warner, writing for The Huffington Post, reported that the new Republican-controlled congress rolled up its sleeves and rolled out its agenda, and along with immigration and budget issues it turns out "asbestos litigation reform" is an apparent priority. The powerful House Judiciary Committee held a formal hearing in Washington in what amounts to a national campaign targeted at bankruptcy transparency -- but fueled largely by both a landmark federal case out of North Carolina and the ongoing New York scandal involving the arrest of state assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. If there was a "newsmaker" revelation, it was from an accounting firm witness who documented that, since 2009, some 23 bankruptcy trusts have had to reduce payouts to asbestos disease victims and that claims today are being paid at about 50 percent of the rate they were in 2009. That underscores the urgency of making sure nobody defrauds the funds, say supporters of the "Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency" (FACT) Act. Generally, the measure would require trust funds, created by bankrupt companies to meet their present and future asbestos liabilities, to file quarterly information about claims. The measure would make it easier for corporate defendants to discover exposures that could not be attributed to their client. Opponents of the measure, supported at the hearing by more than two dozen actual victims of asbestos disease, pretty much held their own during the House hearings, but stuck to standard arguments like privacy concerns and asking pro-transparency speakers if they would support similar disclosure for corporations. Perhaps it would be even better to offer provisions that protect cancer victims who who might have become unknowing "perjury pawns" just by signing and saying what the attorney's told them to say and sign. As expected, the "star witness" was a landmark bankruptcy case out of North Carolina that was cited more than 50 times in written and verbal testimony. It involves a gasket maker called Garlock Sealing Technologies and a federal judge ruled that instead of $1.3 million in future payments sought by victim's lawyers, only about $125 million was needed because Garlock's settlement history was inflated by unfair actions from the plaintiff's firms. That strongly worded judgement and details of 15 specific cases, each showing some level of evidence withholding in the eyes of the judge. An NPR report called it a look inside the "murky" world of asbestos litigation. One argument for FACT, say supporters, is that victims and their lawyers can "forget" certain exposures at trial only to file claims for those exposures later, or even before, court trials. The Garlock case outlines some fairly outlandish examples. While the House hearing focused on bankruptcy cases, and as much as "Garlock" is a game-changer in asbestos circles, it is also clear that "tort reform" advocates are energized because the very high-profile arrest of New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver included an asbestos referral scheme. The resulting scandal references Speaker Silvers referral fee arrangement from Weitz & Luxenberg, a major asbestos victims firm, although prosecutors have said the firm did not know about the other alleged actions. We should note that referrals are common practice in asbestos litigation. But the GOP, perhaps showing restraint or perhaps keeping its powder dry, did not follow the advice of Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel, who wrote that "... Republicans reintroduced [FACT] legislation, and if they were savvy, they'd be all over the Silver story. The GOP has long complained about the outsize influence the plaintiffs' bar has on Democrats. What it has failed to do is to make that influence and funding an outright political liability." "It shouldn't be hard," she added. "The left is forever insinuating that corporate America is awash with crooks and thieves, yet you'd be hard-pressed to find a business sector in recent years that has provided more proof of industrywide malfeasance than the tort bar." To be sure, nobody believes this FACT legislation has any chance of becoming law anytime soon. President Obama is not going to sign a bill being passionately opposed by the plaintiff bar. So mostly this is about establishing foundations for looming state battles and courthouse arguments. A key take-away from the hearing is that Democrats must regain the momentum. The GOP will not long ignore the WSJ editorial pages. And also because, with the prosecutor in Speaker Silver's case saying "stay tuned" and witnesses at the House hearing promising more formerly sealed Garlock documents being released in two weeks, the Republican decision to make asbestos reform a priority is a sign of strength, and Democrats cannot afford to become positioned as the main reason that trust funds are paying 50 cents on the dollar. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suffolk Co. in Court for Unsafe Fibro Removal -------------------------------------------------------------- The England Health and Safety Executive said a Suffolk building company has been fined after removing asbestos insulation board without a licence and failing to protect its workers from falls of up to four metres at a farm building in Waltham, Essex. Workers were potentially exposed to dangerous asbestos fibres and only provided with baby wipes or access to a hose for decontamination. Chelmsford Magistrates' Court heard the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was alerted by a member of the public concerned that unsafe work was being undertaken at the farm building. HSE's investigation found LJW Cladding Ltd did not have a licence permitting it to remove asbestos, despite telling the farm owner it held the necessary approvals. None of the workers were trained to work with licensed asbestos and were also placed in danger of falling from height while removing the fragile asbestos boards. HSE found that the work, carried out between 26 and 28 February 2014, was woefully lacking in safety measures. Asbestos insulating boards were broken from their fixings with wholly inadequate attempts to prevent the uncontrolled release of fibres. There was no use of an enclosure and the respiratory protective equipment provided to workers offered insufficient protection. Instead of a full three-stage decontamination unit required for such work all the workers had access to were baby wipes and the farm's cold water hose. Contaminated overalls over normal clothing continued to be worn while the workers took their lunch break on site and also meant they could have taken asbestos contamination home with them each night. The investigation also identified the workers were at risk of falls of up to four metres owing to absent or inadequately installed safety netting and a harness and inertia reel being used inappropriately. LJW Cladding Ltd of Evesham Close, Ipswich, Suffolk, was fined a total of GBP10,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP3365.50 plus a GBP120 victim surcharge after pleading guilty to separate breaches of the Work at Height Regulations and the Control of Asbestos Regulations. After the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector Dominic Elliss said: "LJW Cladding's incompetent actions led to its employees being potentially exposed to asbestos fibres at a much higher level than would have been possible had a competent licensed contractor been used. "In addition there was a serious risk one of them could fall from or through the fragile roof because of the firm failed to provide effective safeguards. Too many workers continue to be seriously injured from falls in exactly this type of refurbishment project." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Snub Appeal From Fibro Claim Limit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shot down an appeal of a decision finding that the state's 12-year statute of repose could nix asbestos claims leveled against contractors and other entities involved in the construction of large-scale property improvements containing the cancer-causing fiber. The justices rejected the appeal in a one-page order that left standing a precedential Superior Court opinion from June which found that personal injury claims leveled by David and Frances Graver over David Graver's on-the-job exposure were barred by a 12-year statute of repose that runs from the point a defendant makes an improvement to real property -- in this case 1955, when an asbestos-spewing boiler designed by Foster Wheeler was completed. The justices did not comment on the case, and an attorney for the plaintiffs did not immediately return a message seeking comment. The Superior Court decision overturned a Philadelphia County judge's conclusion that a 2009 state Supreme Court ruling had created an exception to the statute of repose for asbestos claims. Graver, a former Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. worker, filed suit in June 2010 alleging he developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos from a massive boiler that Foster Wheeler had helped to design and install at a steam plant along the Susquehanna River. A Philadelphia County judge denied Foster Wheeler's bid for summary judgment after ruling that "strong dicta" in the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Eleanor Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp. created an exemption to the 12-year statute of repose that traditionally governs personal injury claims arising against entities involved in the construction of real property or improvements to the property. A jury returned a $4.5 million verdict in favor of the Gravers, which was cut down to $750,000 to account for the fault apportioned to co-defendants who had settled with the plaintiffs. On appeal, Foster Wheeler reiterated its claim that the suit was time-barred under the statute of repose because the relevant improvement to real property -- the completion of the boiler in the Pennsylvania Power & Light plant where Graver worked -- predated the 2010 complaint by more than four decades. Unlike a statute of limitations, which only limits claims once the cause of action accrues, Pennsylvania's statute of repose begins running whenever the real property improvement is complete. Judge Jack Panella of the state's Superior Court ruled that language in the Abrams decision stating that "no statutory right of repose exists with respect to asbestos cases" was not intended to create precedent. In so ruling, the court said that if Pennsylvania is to adopt an asbestos-related exception to the statute of repose in construction cases, it should not come from the courts but from lawmakers, as has happened in Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia. The plaintiffs are represented by Robert Paul and Richard Myers of Paul Reich & Myers PC. Foster Wheeler is represented by Leroy Janiczek of Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC. The case is Frances Graver et al., v. Foster Wheeler Corp., case number 476 EAL 2014, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ipswich Co. Fined for Exposing Workers to Fibro ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Adwent, writing for Ipswich Star, reported that the actions of an Ipswich, England, building company were branded incompetent after it was fined for removing asbestos insulation board without a licence and failing to protect its workers. LJW Cladding Ltd of Evesham Close, was fined a total of GBP10,000 by Chelmsford magistrates. It was also ordered to pay costs of GBP3365.50 and a GBP120 victim surcharge after pleading guilty to separate breaches of the Work at Height Regulations and the Control of Asbestos Regulations at a farm building in Waltham, Essex. After the hearing, Health and Safety Executive Principal Inspector Dominic Elliss said: "LJW Cladding's incompetent actions led to its employees being potentially exposed to asbestos fibres at a much higher level than would have been possible had a competent licensed contractor been used. "In addition there was a serious risk one of them could fall from or through the fragile roof because of the firm failed to provide effective safeguards. Too many workers continue to be seriously injured from falls in exactly this type of refurbishment project." Workers were potentially exposed to dangerous asbestos fibres and only provided with baby wipes or access to a hose for decontamination. Chelmsford Magistrates' Court heard the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was alerted by a member of the public concerned that unsafe work was being undertaken at the farm building. HSE's investigation found LJW Cladding Ltd did not have a licence permitting it to remove asbestos, despite telling the farm owner it held the necessary approvals. None of the workers were trained to work with licensed asbestos and were also placed in danger of falling from height while removing the fragile asbestos boards. HSE found that the work, carried out between February 26 and 28 last year, was woefully lacking in safety measures. Asbestos insulating boards were broken from their fixings with wholly inadequate attempts to prevent the uncontrolled release of fibres. There was no use of an enclosure and the respiratory protective equipment provided to workers offered insufficient protection. Instead of a full three-stage decontamination unit required for such work all the workers had access to were baby wipes and the farm's cold water hose. Contaminated overalls over normal clothing continued to be worn while the workers took their lunch break on site and also meant they could have taken asbestos contamination home with them each night. The investigation also identified the workers were at risk of falls of up to four metres owing to absent or inadequately installed safety netting and a harness and inertia reel being used inappropriately. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Fear Spread of Fibro in Columbia Univ. --------------------------------------------------------------- Catie Edmondson, writing for Columbia Daily Spectator, reported that employees at the Columbia University are petitioning their union, Transport Workers Union Local 241, to facilitate additional analysis on asbestos samples found in insulating pipes leading to an air supply fan in the powerhouse chiller plant in University Hall, which is located behind Uris Hall. The employees are filing the petition because they are dissatisfied with the administrative response following the discovery in the plant, which is currently undergoing renovation. Following a notification of a potential case of disturbed asbestos on Jan. 14, approximately 24 feet of asbestos pipe insulation was removed, and a third-party consultant determined that the post- abatement air monitoring results indicated the containment area was safe for re-occupancy, according to Columbia Facilities. However, employees of the chilling plant are concerned that the location of the asbestos could have led to it being dispersed throughout the facility. "The asbestos was found on pipes in the discharge plenum of a fan that blows air through our plant. So, it could have been blown all over," said a worker in the plant who asked to remain anonymous for reasons of job security. "They removed the asbestos and tested for samples with the fan off. We want sampling done with the fan on to get an accurate reading of what has settled on pipes throughout the plant." Employees in the chiller plant have created and are planning to submit a petition asking that the executive board of Local 241 approve the collection of asbestos air samples through the use of mechanical equipment to stir up settled dust to simulate the environment that the workers were exposed to. "We listened to the feedback from employees and are exploring further options that will best address their concerns," said a spokesman for Columbia Facilities. Sebastian Di Palma, recording secretary of Local 241, said that the union is responsible for notifying members throughout the abatement process. "The University considers the membership notified once the Executive Board is notified. We in turn notify the membership verbally, and only those members that would have been affected. Neither the University and/or the Local posts or distributes anything," Di Palma said in an email. However, another worker in the chiller plant, who also asked to remain anonymous for reasons of job security, said that he only learned about the asbestos abatement from reading the logbook that employees use to document what happens during their shift. "At no time did my supervisor come down here and say, 'We found asbestos, we want to notify you,'" he said. According to the first worker and a third worker in the plant, the asbestos should have been found when they filed a work order on April 4 of last year with Environmental Health and Safety to re- insulate and clean dust off the pipes in question. The workers said that once they learned about the Office of University Compliance in January and contacted the director Geraldine Tan, communication and response time about the asbestos improved dramatically. "She came down and looked at it and said, 'This is not good,'" said the worker. "She was nice enough to come down and talk to me in person. She says, 'We're having the asbestos people come in tonight and it's going to be abated,' and right now, the place is totally cleaned up. But why wasn't this done in April?" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Kills Former Factory Worker ----------------------------------------------------------- Staffordshire Newsletter reported that exposure to asbestos led to the early death of a father from Stafford, England, who worked at one of the town's biggest employers for more than 30 years, an inquest has heard. Leslie Hingerty, of Hartland Avenue, worked at Universal Grinding Wheel Company in Doxey Road from 1969 to 2000, Cannock Coroner's Court heard. His work as a kiln operator exposed him to asbestos. In a statement made before his death he said the ovens he worked with were insulated with asbestos and the closing of the oven doors caused dust to be released into the air. In September 2013 Mr Hingerty was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure. A CT scan in 2014 revealed the disease had progressed. He was admitted to Stafford's County Hospital on November 1, 2014, suffering shortness of breath, problems with a drain which had been put in to tackle pleural effusions (excess fluid in the space that surrounds the lungs) and kidney failure. But his condition deteriorated and he passed away at the hospital on November 27, aged just 66. A post mortem revealed a tumour encasing his right lung, the inquest heard, and Mr Hingerty's cause of death was given as malignant mesothelioma. Richard Hughes, deputy assistant coroner for South Staffordshire, recorded a verdict of death from industrial disease. He said: "It is very unfortunate that someone in their working life was exposed to this condition and has gone on to be diagnosed with this terrible condition." ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1MM Punitive Damages Awarded in NJ Fibro Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Hanlon and Armand Kalfayan of Wilson Elser, writing for JD Supra Business Advisor, reported that a $7.5 million verdict was rendered on January 15, 2015, by a Middlesex County jury in the matter of Condon v. Advanced Thermal Hydronics, et al., Docket No.: MID-L-5695-13AS, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County. In this first asbestos case tried before New Jersey's newly appointed asbestos judge, The Honorable Ana C. Viscomi, only one of the defendants remaining at trial was found liable and the verdict against it was limited to $780,000. The case involved the asbestos exposure claim of 67-year-old plaintiff William Condon, who suffered from mesothelioma primarily as a result of his work with heating and air conditioning systems, including boilers, over an 11-year period from 1973 to 1984. Three defendants, Wallwork, CertainTeed and Pecora, suppliers of building products, defended the case through the month-long trial to verdict. Wallwork and CertainTeed obtained defense verdicts. The jury allocated 2 percent liability to Pecora. The remaining 98 percent of the liability was apportioned by the jury to defendants whose claims had been resolved prior to the verdict. The liability award totaled $6.5 million, $130,000 of which was assessed to Pecora. An additional $1 million punitive damages award was rendered against Pecora in the trial's punitive damages phase. The liability award comprised a $5 million award for pain and suffering ($500,000 past and $4.5 million future) and a $1.5 million award to Mrs. Condon for loss of services ($500,000 past and $1 million future). In support of the punitive damages award, the plaintiffs demonstrated that Pecora took no action to eliminate asbestos from its product or to provide Mr. Condon with warnings, despite Pecora's knowledge of the hazards of asbestos prior to Mr. Condon's work with its asbestos-containing furnace cement. Under New Jersey law, the 2 percent allocation to Pecora protects it from joint and several liability. In addition, the $1 million punitive damages award was reduced to $650,000, as New Jersey law does not permit a punitive damage award to exceed the liability award by more than five times. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro NHS Costs Law Overruled by Supreme Court --------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reported that firms in Wales whose staff are treated for asbestos-related illnesses will not be ordered to reimburse the NHS. The Supreme Court agreed with insurers who claimed an assembly law passed in 2013 was outside its competence. The court said Welsh ministers had no right to impose charges to fund the NHS, and insurers should not be given extra liabilities for asbestos exposure which long predated the bill. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) welcomed the judgement. "The Welsh Bill would have seen increased insurance premiums for Welsh businesses but no extra compensation for mesothelioma sufferers," said a spokesperson. "The insurance industry remains committed to doing all it can to help the victims of this terrible disease and would be happy to work constructively with the Welsh Government on this issue, as it does on other public policy." 'Clarity' call Pontypridd AM Mick Antoniw, who first proposed the bill, said he was "gutted" at the ruling, having predicted the measure could have raised GBP1m a year for the NHS in Wales. The bill had been referred to the Supreme Court by the Welsh government's Counsel General Theodore Huckle following objections from the insurance industry. The Welsh government said it would give "careful consideration to this judgment". Presiding Officer Dame Rosemary Butler called for "greater clarity" so everyone understood what laws the assembly could pass. The Supreme Court has previously ruled in favour of the assembly on changes to local government by-laws and the re-establishment of the Agricultural Wages Board which had been abolished by the UK government. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ni Management to Settle Fibro Allegations ---------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reported that Ni Management, LLC, will pay approximately $65,000 to settle Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's allegations that the company violated the state building code by removing asbestos without a permit, Healey said. The company is owned by Wei Qiang Ni. The violation alleges the company removed and transported asbestos, without a license. "This is a public health issue," Healey said. "Asbestos-removal actions should be conducted only by trained professionals, not unlicensed and unqualified individuals, especially where tenants could be exposed." The company removed asbestos from a residential building and an industrial building, and code guidelines for removal allegedly were not followed, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection said after an investigation. The company also allegedly didn't give notice to the department that the work was being conducted. The investigation found that loose asbestos remained in the basement of the residential building. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lawsuit Granted Reprieve by Appeals Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that Donald Peter worked as a machinist at Pabst Brewing Co. He began working there in 1959 and would have thought nothing of the working conditions beyond basic safety on the job. And then in 2012, he was diagnosed with malignant pleural asbestos mesothelioma. He sued Sprinkmann Sons Corp., alleging that exposure from pipe insulation the defendant was charged with repairing caused his disease. Peter finished his work at Pabst in 1979. His diagnosis for asbestos cancer came 33 years later, in 2012. Such a time lapse is consistent with the incubation period for mesothelioma, which can linger in a dormant state only to emerge decades after initial exposure to asbestos fibers. While it can take decades for mesothelioma to appear, once it presents, the prognosis is usually dire. In Peter's case, he would die about a year following his diagnosis. Peter's widow amended her late husband's asbestos lawsuit to include a wrongful death claim. A lower court granted summary judgment for the defendant, on grounds that in the court's view Pamela Peter's claims were barred by a state's construction of repose given that asbestos exposure was allegedly triggered from maintenance work. While Peter had toiled at Pabst Brewing, Sprinkmann was the entity that carried out maintenance at the plant. Specifically, ongoing maintenance to the insulation surrounding the pipes. Asbestos -- a known carcinogen and a trigger for asbestosis -- is considered to be at a lower risk provided the asbestos is contained and remains undisturbed. Conversely, asbestos fibers disturbed through the process of maintenance or removal can be a health risk unless properly contained. The appeals court reversed the original ruling of summary judgment, noting that Peter was exposed to asbestos through repair work carried out by Sprinkmann Sons Corp. until 1979. Thus, Wisconsin's construction statute of repose did not bar Pamela Peter's claims in her asbestos lawsuit. Sprinkmann argued that its work in the brewery constituted improvement to real property. The defendant noted that pipe insulation was in a state of constant disrepair. There was also at least one full-time employee tasked exclusively with the job of repairing pipe insulation at Pabst. That argument was rejected, with the appeals court sending the asbestos lawsuit back to the lower court for further proceedings. The appeals court did, however, uphold a ruling by the circuit court that a damages exception in the statute did not apply to the case, given that Peter did not have an actionable claim prior to 1994. His asbestos mesothelioma diagnosis was made in 2012, the year before he died. "Although this interpretation may seem harsh to asbestos plaintiffs who will not even know they have a claim until long after the statute of repose has barred their action (assuming it arises from an improvement to real property), [i]t is not our function as the judiciary to construct an asbestos-related exception to the statute of repose in construction cases," the circuit court said. "That role properly lies with the legislature." The case is Peter v. Sprinkmann Sons Corp., Case Number 2014AP923 in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Cuts Award Over Fibro Injuries to $30MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reported that a New York state judge cut a combined $190 million judgment against boiler makers Cleaver-Brooks Inc. and Burnham LLC over claims that asbestos in their boilers caused five tradesmen to develop mesothelioma, ruling the workers were entitled to less than $30 million. A jury found the two companies acted negligently and recklessly in exposing the workers to asbestos-tainted products and equipment and awarded the plaintiffs and their families awards of between $20 million and $60 million each. Three of the plaintiffs died. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Makes $490MM Final Payment to Trust ------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Seltzer, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reported that W.R. Grace & Co. has paid $490 million to close out its obligations to a trust paying the personal injury asbestos claims that helped drive the chemical company into bankruptcy more than a decade ago. Columbia-based Grace disclosed the payment in federal filings. The company still has existing agreements to make payments to a separate property damage trust. The two trusts were created to assume almost 130,000 pending claims after Grace filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2001. Claims the company faced were related to its manufacturing and selling asbestos-laced products like cement, plaster and spray fireproofing. Grace also faced legal action related to the mining and processing of asbestos-rich vermiculite. Its mine in Libby, Mont., became a widely known toxic site after a documentary about it aired on PBS. The trusts were established as part of Grace's nearly 13-year bankruptcy, which it exited last February. Collectively, the company funded them with more than $4 billion, spokesman Rich Badmington said. Funding sources included cash, warrants to purchase Grace stock, deferred payment obligations, insurance proceeds and payments from former company affiliates. The $490 million payment Grace made to close its personal injury trust obligation was technically in exchange for a warrant the trust owned. That warrant was to acquire 10 million shares of Grace stock at $17 per share. The company also recently made a $632 million payment to settle a deferred obligation in September. Grace still has future obligations to the property damage trust. It has accrued $30 million for those payments, it said in federal filings late last year. The $490 million personal injury trust payments came just days after Grace announced plans to split itself up into two companies. It has yet to determine how its remaining trust obligations will be allocated if the split is completed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Bill Would Make it Harder to File Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Sunnucks, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reported that a bill at the Arizona Legislature would make it harder to file asbestos lawsuits. House Bill 2603 requires plaintiffs filing and courts hearing asbestos-related claims to seek out and find various industry trusts set up to deal with such lawsuits. Critics, such as Phoenix attorney Steve Leshner, say that will just delay lawsuits brought by plaintiffs suffering from the adverse side effects of being exposed to asbestos. See Also "It just tends to delay things," Leshner said. He said the bill has been tried but not approved in other states, including Texas. Asbestos is a natural mineral that was long used in various building materials. It causes mesothelioma cancer and is banned in 50 countries, according to the Washington-based Mesothelioma Center. Leshner said asbestos trusts were set up previously by companies being sued to handle lawsuits. But many of those now don't have any money or are dormant and plaintiffs often don't name them in lawsuits. The Arizona bill would change that dynamic. It would also allow for more delays for discovery in asbestos cases. "It changes the rules for asbestos cases," Leshner said. The main sponsor of the bill, Arizona Rep. Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City, did not respond to requests for comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moon Area Fibro Removal Schedule Stirs Ire ----------------------------------------------------------- Tory N. Parrish, writing for TribLive.com, reported that Moon Area, Pennsylvania School District's plan to complete asbestos removal at two schools during spring break is rushed and could be a potential health risk to students and staff, some parents said during a sometimes contentious school board meeting. "Even in the case of a one-family house, that seems like a pretty tall task to undergo in one week," said Dr. Rob Schwartz, a pediatrician and one of several parents who spoke about the planned asbestos removal. As part of its $26.2 million elementary capital improvement plan, the school district plans to remove asbestos tiles from Allard and Brooks elementary schools during spring break, which is March 30 to April 3. The school board has voted 7-2, with Jerry Testa and Michael Hauser opposed, to approve asking the state Department of Education to give its approval to executing contracts -- likely with Professional Service Industries Inc. -- to do the removal work. Board approval is required as part of the education department's Planning and Construction Workbook, or PlanCon, program under which school districts apply for reimbursements for renovation and construction projects. The board voted, 9-0, to approve having Professional Service Industries, which has corporate headquarters in Oakbroook Terrace, Ill. and a local office in Green Tree, conduct an analysis of asbestos and other hazardous materials in Hyde Elementary School. Hyde will close in June, remediation work would be performed this summer, and the building would reopen in the fall as a learning center with a preschool and high school remedial classes. Asbestos is the name of a group of minerals with long, thin fibers that once was used widely as insulation, according to the National Institutes of Health. The fibers are so small that they can't be seen; but, if disturbed, they can float in the air, making them easy to inhale. Breathing in high levels of asbestos over a long period of time can cause internal scarring and inflammation, affect breathing and lead to diseases such as mesothelioma, a rare cancer that affects the lining of the lungs or abdomen. Moon Area parents say they are concerned with the spring break timetable and their children returning to school in a safe building. "There's no guarantee that the project will be completed during the suggested time," parent Shanda Wyatt said. Professional Service Industries has said the timetable for removing the asbestos tiles in the two schools is reasonable, board President A. Michael Olszewski. "They are a highly competent and technical specialist that does this all the time. They've researched the size and scope and nature of the jobs, and they're confident not only in the timeframe given but the nature of the job," he said. Furthermore, the asbestos being removed at Allard and Brooks is in tiles, which is not the traditional asbestos insulation found on pipes or in walls, he said. The work will not take place throughout the buildings, but in phases in several classrooms which will be sealed off, he said. School board member Jerry Testa and Superintendent Curt Baker engaged in a heated debate, with Baker criticizing Testa for suggesting that school board members were cutting corners and jeopardizing students' health by pushing through an unreasonable timetable. "You're trying to force feed a schedule that can't be met," Testa said. The timetable debate is irrelevant, school board Vice Chairman Dennis Harbaugh Jr. said, because the Allegheny County Health Department will independently inspect the schools for safety after the work has been completed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sufferers to Receive GBP54,000 in New Rules ------------------------------------------------------------ Helen Rae, writing for for ChronicleLive.com, reported that asbestos widow Chris Knighton has welcomed new rules for asbestos compensation. The government has announced that asbestos-related cancer suffers are to receive up to GBP54,000 extra in compensation. Under new rules for the government's Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme, compensation will rise to match 100 per cent of average civil claims, up from the current 80 per cent, which could mean an increase of up to GBP54,000 a person, according to Ministers. The change has been welcomed by Chris, who has dedicated her life to campaigning to help those affected by the deadly condition since her husband Mick died from the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma in 2001. The Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund, based in Wallsend, North Tyneside, has raised more than GBP1m for research and supported hundreds of people. Chris, 68, said: "I feel very pleased. It has been a long haul for this to come about and it does give people the opportunity for compensation that would otherwise not have had. "There is still a long way to go and sadly this decision should have been taken a long time ago as those with mesothelioma don't have the luxury of time. "Those with the condition want to know that their family will be financially provided for when they are no longer here and this is why the new rules are so important." Those diagnosed with asbestos-related mesothelioma from February 10 2015 will benefit from the payment increases. Mesothelioma is a cancer affecting the lining of internal organs such as the lungs, which is usually connected to exposure to asbestos. The North East is a blackspot for the disease, because asbestos was used in shipbuilding, construction and the automotive industry. Ministers introduced legislation in 2013 to provide payments to those who cannot trace their former employer's insurer. But the compensation on offer was lower than the average compensation people would expect to receive by going through the courts -- and MPs have been campaigning for the payments to be increased. The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme has already paid out over GBP19m in its first 10 months of operation. Work and Pensions Minister, Lord Freud said: "For years, many victims of this truly terrible disease have been failed by successive governments and the insurance industry. With this scheme we are continuing to help the many victims and families that mesothelioma has left without financial support. "From today we are raising compensation payments to 100% of average civil claims. It is partly thanks to the success of the insurance industry in tracing liable insurers and employers that we are able to make these changes as part of our on-going commitment to support mesothelioma sufferers. "Though the majority of suffers are able to claim compensation through the liability insurance held by their employer, a significant minority cannot. "Due to the length of time between asbestos exposure and cancer diagnosis, many employers and their insurers no longer exist and so the liable successor organisations are often untraceable." Blaydon MP Dave Anderson said: "I'm delighted to hear this news, this is what campaigners have asked for many years. "At last people who were denied justice by dilatory ex-employers and their friends in the insurance industry will be properly compensated, it's long overdue but welcome." Around 2,100 people in the UK are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year. It is almost always fatal with most of those affected usually dying within twelve months of diagnosis. A 'standardised mortality ratio' (SMR) is used to identify blackspots, where a figure of 100 would be the expected number of deaths, given the age of the population. But in North Tyneside the figure is much higher, at 309, and in South Tyneside it is 303, reflecting the high incidence of mesothelioma in those local authority areas. Across the Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County the figure is 235 and in the North East it is 170. Ministers said the number of people claiming compensation under the scheme had been higher than expected. Mesothelioma is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos, a soft material that used to be widely used in building construction as a form of insulation and to protect against fire. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan Fibro Release Leads to 3 Convictions -------------------------------------------------------------- Rex Hall Jr., writing for MLive.com, reported that a woman and two men from Southwest Michigan are facing up to five years in federal prison after pleading guilty in what investigators say may have been the largest release of asbestos in Michigan since the material was declared a hazardous air pollutant in 1971. Cory Hammond, of Hastings, and LuAnne LaBrie and Robert "Mike" White, both of Kalamazoo, each pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Air Act, according to a news release issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Grand Rapids. LaBrie, formerly known as LuAnne McClain, plead guilty to failing to notify federal or state authorities that asbestos material would be stripped and removed at the former Consumers Energy power generation facility in Comstock Township. Hammond and White, meanwhile, each pleaded guilty to failing to adequately wet asbestos material while stripping and removing asbestos inside the facility. The asbestos release, according to prosecutors, led to a $1 million cleanup by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund Division. According to federal authorities, the case against LaBrie, Hammond and White began in 2011 when they agreed to "salvage valuable material from the facility and share in the proceeds." LaBrie controlled and supervised the facility, which was located at 6800 E. Michigan Ave., and visited the site on a regular basis and communicated regularly with Hammond and White about the salvage operation, investigators said. "Despite knowing that Hammond, White, and other laborers were stripping and removing asbestos insulation from pipes and facility components, LaBrie failed to notify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the State of Michigan that the salvage operation would involve the removal of asbestos inside the facility," prosecutors said. Prosecutors said Hammond and White admitted to failing to properly wet asbestos material at the site "that had been stripped and removed until it was collected and sealed in a leak-tight container to prevent the release of asbestos particulates during the salvage operation." LaBrie, Hammond and White have agreed to pay restitution to the EPA for the cost of the cleanup at the site. "Companies and individuals handling regulated asbestos material must follow basic workplace practices designed to protect both the workers who handle the hazardous material and the air we breathe," U.S. Attorney Patrick Miles said. "Those who attempt to evade the law by cutting corners to maximize profits and harm our environment will be held accountable for their actions. The case against LaBrie, Hammond and White was investigated by the EPA's Criminal Investigation Division, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Environmental Investigation Section and the Internal Revenue Service. LaBrie is scheduled to be sentenced April 23 by U.S. District Judge Gordon J. Quist. Hammond and White are scheduled to be sentenced July 6 by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Jonker. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepsi Can't Recoup Payouts From Federal-Mogul -------------------------------------------------------------- Gina Passarella, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider, reported that a Delaware judge has denied PepsiAmericas' attempt to recoup insurance proceeds from bankrupt Federal-Mogul Global over the companies' shared asbestos liabilities. Pepsi argued Federal-Mogul improperly collected insurance proceeds from a comprehensive general liability plan that paid the companies' claims for their shared asbestos liabilities of Abex Corp. A Delaware bankruptcy judge granted Federal-Mogul's motion for summary judgment and U.S. District Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the District of New Jersey affirmed the ruling, finding Pepsi didn't show how Federal-Mogul overbilled on insurance contracts that covered both parties. Pepsi argued Federal-Mogul drew from their shared general liability coverage on Abex matters to cover Federal-Mogul's non- Abex-related asbestos claims and failed to reimburse Pepsi for litigation costs and expenses. Pepsi cited four instances in which Federal-Mogul allegedly overbilled the shared policies for a total of $1.4 million, including one instance in which the plaintiff allegedly did not work with Abex products. Pepsi alleged this was evidence of a "larger scheme" to bill the policies for claims not covered by the policies, according to the opinion in In re Federal-Mogul Global. Pepsi also provided the court with three other insurance settlement contracts signed by both Pepsi and Federal-Mogul that Pepsi argued establish privity between the two companies. Pepsi argued Federal-Mogul breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in those contracts by billing the insurance policies for non-Abex claims. "As the bankruptcy court noted, 'there is a difference between what the facts are and what they mean and [Pepsi's] challenge is to the meaning of undisputed facts,'" Rodriguez said. Federal-Mogul was not a party to the insurance policies in question, but under a 1994 asset purchase agreement, was able to claim proceeds from those policies for compensation for Abex- related claims. Pepsi argued Federal-Mogul was bound by the documents through the doctrine of contract adoption, in which third parties to a contract become parties who are bound by the contract's terms by implicitly or explicitly adopting the agreement, according to the opinion. Pepsi also argued, in part, that Federal-Mogul was bound by the contracts' terms under the doctrine of equitable estoppel in that it enjoyed the benefits of the contracts and therefore was bound by their terms. Pepsi argued the contract that set out the parties' Abex-related liabilities, along with the insurance policies from which Federal-Mogul drew estopped Federal-Mogul from avoiding liability under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. "The term 'good faith' however, has no set meaning, and instead prevents a wide range of forms of bad faith," Rodriguez said. "The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires a party in a contractual relationship to refrain from arbitrary or unreasonable conduct, which could preclude the other party from enjoying the benefit of the original bargain." But Rodriguez noted the covenant has its limitations. "The covenant is not a catch-all to prevent any injustice, and Delaware courts have described invoking the covenant as a 'cautious enterprise,'" Rodriguez said. "The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be applied to provide contractual protections that were not secured at the bargaining table." Rodriguez said Pepsi did not attach its claim of a breach to any specific contract and did not show inappropriate billing by Federal-Mogul in regard to any of the shared settlement contracts. Rodriguez said the covenant of good faith and fair dealing ensures certain conduct does not deprive parties of the original benefit of their bargain. Pepsi "has not established that, as to a particular settlement contract, it was precluded from enjoying the original benefit of its bargain," Rodriguez said. James E. O'Neill of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones in Wilmington represented Federal-Mogul. Ricardo Palacio of Ashby & Geddes in Wilmington represented Pepsi. Neither attorney responded to a request for comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EL Workers Exposed to Fibro, Mercury, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Parker, writing for Lansing State Journal, reported that eight current and one former employee of the East Lansing, Michigan's wastewater treatment plant have sued the city, saying they were repeatedly exposed to mercury and asbestos, and the city delayed notification of that exposure. Lansing-area attorney Neal Wilensky filed the suit last month in Ingham County Circuit Court on behalf of the employees. Wilensky said his clients have several goals in mind. "They want to make sure East Lansing doesn't do the same things over and over, they want money damages, they want better employee training and they want people to know what happened in the city in regard to the exposure to workers of asbestos and mercury," he said. The employees, members of UAW Local 2256, say the results of a 2007 asbestos inspection of the plant at 1700 Trowbridge Road were never shared with them or any of their co-workers. That inspection identified "numerous areas" of asbestos, according to the lawsuit. Some of that asbestos was considered "friable," the lawsuit says, meaning it could be crumbled or reduced to powder. They also say the city never adopted recommendations made by DeWitt-based FiberTec, the company that performed the inspection, and that as a result employees were exposed to asbestos for seven years. A city official confirmed eight of the people are still employed by the city but would not name the former employee. The lawsuit is being brought by: Troy Williams, Allesha Morris, Jose Mireles, Kim Hopkins, Craig Walsh, Josh LaFave, Ryan Ebbinghaus, Mamuda Cham and Kyle Smith. "We received the complaint at the end of last week," city manager George Lahanas said in a statement. "We have assigned it to our attorney and staff for further investigation. It's premature for me to make any comment at this point until I have a full picture of what occurred. When the investigation provides us with more information, I will provide a statement at that time." Among other allegations in the suit: * In December 2011, Williams and "co-employer" Scott Houser asked their supervisor about certain materials hanging from pipes, specifically whether it was asbestos. Their supervisor, identified as Wayne Beede, "told the employees to keep quiet or they would lose their jobs." * In October 2012, LaFave also asked Beede about some material "and was told to keep quiet or he would lose his job." Beede no longer works for the city. The city paid him $26,450 in November in exchange for agreeing to resign and to not sue the city. * Employees said the city acted improperly when about a pound and a half of mercury was spilled at the wastewater treatment plant in November of 2013 and that workers were not notified promptly of the incident. The mercury spill was not reported until March of 2014 when a group of plant workers requested a meeting with city officials and revealed what happened, the city's former public works director told the State Journal last year. The former director, Todd Sneathen, has since resigned. Lahanas said last year Sneathen took advantage of a career opportunity and his departure was unrelated to the mercury incident. The city has since reported a second mercury spill at the Hannah Community Center. Officials said in October that a hose used in the spring of 2014 to clean part of the heating system at the center at 819 Abbot Road might have contained a small amount of mercury. City officials insisted at the time that exposure to employees and the public was limited. The city is being represented by Thomas Fleury of the Southfield law firm Keller Thoma. Fleury said a response to the lawsuit will be filed within the 30-day deadline. The lawsuit seeks in excess of $25,000 in damages. Exposure to asbestos can cause lung cancer or lung disease. High mercury exposure can lead to kidney problems, respiratory failure and death. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GOP Drafting Bill to Let Fibro Cos. Off the Hook ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Gruenberg, writing for People's World, reported that taking advantage of the new Republican rule over Congress, the remaining firms that manufactured items containing asbestos -- the cancer- causing substance that sickened thousands of shipyard workers, factory workers, construction workers, among others, and that still kills 10,000 people yearly -- are pushing legislation to limit if not remove their remaining legal liability to pay workers or their heirs for their illnesses and suffering. Their bill, HR526, in a GOP-run House Judiciary subcommittee, drew opposition from the AFL-CIO and victims' advocates, and protests from one pro-victim attorney who testified on Feb. 4. As might be expected, business representatives denied that avoiding payment was their aim. They also brought in a law school professor who claimed the victims' attorneys inflate damage claims. No workers or workers representatives were invited to testify. The so-called Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency act would allegedly prevent fraud and direct more of the remaining money to asbestos victims, say its sponsors, Reps. Blake Farenthold, R- Texas, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte, R-Va. The legislation would do exactly the opposite, AFL-CIO Legislative Director Bill Samuel counters. "This legislation would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by posting personal exposure and medical information online and create new barriers to victims receiving compensation for their asbestos diseases," he wrote to lawmakers prior to the hearing. "Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have suffered or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease, and the toll continues," Samuel said. Even the pro-business law school professor from Yeshiva University in New York admitted workers could die from past asbestos exposure could continue through at least 2047. "Asbestos victims faced huge barriers and obstacles to receiving compensation for their diseases. Major asbestos producers refused to accept responsibility and most declared bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future liability," Samuel explained. A 1994 law set up asbestos bankruptcy trusts to pay the victims while reorganizing the asbestos-manufacturing firms to stay in business. Though the trusts have $30 billion-$37 billion, they lack enough money to fully pay claims, with the average victim or heirs receiving only one-fourth of the claim's value for medical suffering and treatment costs. "The AFL-CIO is well aware the system for compensating asbestos disease victims has had its share of problems, with victims facing delays and inadequate compensation and too much money being spent on defendant and plaintiff lawyers," Samuel admitted. The fed has "spent years of effort" trying to solve the problem, he added. Though he did not say so, business opposition sank those prior efforts. "HR526 does nothing to improve compensation for asbestos victims and would in fact make the situation even worse," Samuel adds. "The bill is simply an effort by asbestos manufacturers who still are subject to lawsuits to avoid liability for diseases caused by exposure to their products," he said. And it opens individual asbestos victims to "personally identifiable exposure histories" and disease and payment information. "This public posting is an extreme invasion of privacy. It would give unfettered access to employers, insurance companies, workers compensation carriers and others who could use this information for any purpose including blacklisting workers from employment and fightin compensation claims." Not only that, the asbestos trusts would have to give the asbestos makers any claim and payment information the makers demand, Samuel added. "The only party that stands to benefit from this insulting bill is the asbestos industry, who will be able to delay and deny justice for the American families devastated by their deadly products," said Linda Lipsen of the American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers' group. "Meanwhile, victims of asbestos exposure and their loved ones will be forced to shoulder the burdens of this unnecessary legislation through delayed compensation and a loss of privacy. "Do not let the name fool you -- the so-called Fact Act is nothing more than a hand-out to the asbestos corporations that, for decades, knowingly poisoned and killed thousands of Americans," she warned. Elihu Inselbuch, a Caplin & Drysdale attorney who's represented victims and their heirs and worked with the trusts, sounded the same themes, but even more strongly. "HR526 is the latest, but not the first, attempt by asbestos defendants to minimize and ultimately extinguish their liability," he testified. "These defendants -- the only beneficiaries of this bill -- are the same asbestos companies who for decades have been determined liable for recklessly and willfully exposing unknowing workers and their families to the companies' deadly products. "Had these companies shared the information they knew about the dangers of asbestos, or at the very least, provided adequate safety gear, countless lives would have been saved, and you would not be sitting here today" discussing "the longest-running public health epidemic in our history." Samuel summed up the workers' and the AFL-CIO's position: "Congress should be helping the hundreds of thousands of individuals who are suffering from disabling and deadly asbestos diseases, not further victimizing them by invading their privacy and subjecting them to potential blacklisting and discrimination. The AFL-CIO strongly urges you to oppose HR526," he told lawmakers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Record Fibro Payout Cut After Silver's Arrest -------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Marsh, writing for New York Post, reported that a judge who since Sheldon Silver's arrest has come under scrutiny for the sky- high damages that juries in her court have awarded to Weitz & Luxenberg clients recently slashed a record $190 million asbestos- poisoning payout to less than $30 million. Defense attorneys speculated that the 84 percent reduction may be the result of bad publicity in The Post and other news outlets. In a decision dated Feb. 5, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden ordered a new hearing on a 2013 jury verdict in her court that gave five mesothelioma victims represented by Weitz a total of $190 million -- the highest award of its kind at the time. In the weeks before the staggering decrease, The Post reported that Weitz, which US Attorney Preet Bharara says paid former Assembly Speaker Silver $5.3 million for a no-show job, received special treatment from a section of the court that handles asbestos cases. "The timing of the opinion would certainly raise the question: Is this a p.r. stunt?" asked defense attorney and civil-justice reform advocate Mark Behrens. Another advocate for tort reform said, "Defense attorneys think the drastic reduction is a result of new scrutiny of the New York asbestos docket as a result of Sheldon Silver's arrest." A defense lawyer involved in asbestos cases in Manhattan speculated, "Judge Madden is a little scared of some of the adverse publicity she's getting." The award reduction "suggests that some of these articles are making points and she's listening to them," he said. The lawyer, who declined to give his name, fearing retribution from Weitz in settlements with his clients, pointed out that Madden lowered another jury award from $32 million to $8 million in 2012. When the record-breaking asbestos verdict was announced, Weitz lawyer Adam Cooper bragged online about his politically connected firm: "It's a place that is recognized and dare I say feared in the courtroom." A spokesman for Weitz declined to comment. Judge Madden declined to comment on her ruling, but court spokesman David Bookstaver said, "Judge Madden's decision was essentially written, substantively, five to six weeks ago. It wasn't released because she was on trial and she had to review it." ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Expects More State Fines for Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Parker, writing for Lansing State Journal, reported that East Lansing, Michigan, was fined $4,400 last year by state regulators for asbestos-related violations at its wastewater treatment plant, and a second state investigation into asbestos concerns at the facility is ongoing. The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration initially fined the city $11,000 after an investigation that began in March of last year found that the city lacked an emergency plan and did not inform employees of the presence of asbestos. That fine was later reduced through an informal settlement between MIOSHA and the city, according to state officials. State officials confirmed a second asbestos-related investigation was launched in October. The results of that investigation have been completed, but are being reviewed by state officials. City manager George Lahanas said he expects further penalties as a result of the second investigation. "The important thing is to find out what we are doing incorrectly and take the steps to fix it, which we are doing," he said. State officials said the unresolved investigation involves asbestos exposure, lack of air monitoring after asbestos removal and lack of training for employees. The city is being sued by eight current and one former employee for exposure to asbestos and mercury, and employees argue the city was aware of the hazardous materials and did not notify employees. The employees, members of UAW Local 2256, say the results of a 2007 asbestos inspection of the facility at 1700 Trowbridge Road were never shared with them or any of their co-workers. That inspection identified "numerous areas" of asbestos, according to the lawsuit. Some of that asbestos was considered "friable," according to the lawsuit says, which is a more hazardous form that can be crumbled or reduced to powder. They also say the city never adopted recommendations made by DeWitt-based FiberTec, the company that performed an inspection in 2007, and as a result employees were exposed to asbestos for seven years. The MIOSHA investigation that began in March of last year continued through May. Citations were issued July 9, and the settlement agreement was reached July 30. "We accepted the fines and the responsibility, and we paid a reduced penalty because we did that," Lahanas said. "We want to hear if we're doing things incorrectly or if we can do things better in regard to safety. We will continue working to improve to have the safest workplace possible." Tanya Baker, spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, said the investigation resulted in three serious citations, and state regulators found the city did not: * Establish an emergency response plan, conduct asbestos awareness training or implement a written hazard communication program; * Inform employees of the asbestos or materials containing it; * Maintain surfaces "as free as practicable" of waste and debris. A mercury spill in November 2013 was not reported until March 2014, when a group of plant workers requested a meeting with city officials and revealed what happened, the city's former public works director told the State Journal last year. The former director, Todd Sneathen, has since resigned. Lahanas said last year Sneathen took advantage of a career opportunity and his departure was unrelated to the mercury incident. The city has since reported a second mercury spill at the Hannah Community Center. Officials said in October a hose used in the spring of 2014 to clean part of the heating system at the center at 819 Abbot Road might have contained a small amount of mercury. City officials insisted at the time that exposure to employees and the public was limited. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Alert at Leisure Center in Castlereagh ------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News Northern Ireland reported that the mayor of Castlereagh has said he hopes the closure of the Robinson leisure centre in east Belfast is a temporary measure. The centre was closed after asbestos was found in hard-to-access areas. The mayor, the DUP's Jack Beattie, said he did not think people should be alarmed. He said the asbestos had been found in an area that was not open to the public. "The (council) officer from Belfast, who are taking over this facility, had come in and found a small area somewhere not open to the public and he said there was some of this asbestos showing," he said. "Our officers, not wanting to do the wrong thing, had decided in the afternoon that they would close it and further investigate it. "The health and safety people will come in and have a look at it and then a report will come out." In a statement on its website, Castlereagh Council said asbestos had been found "in a previously unrecorded and difficult to access area". The asbestos was discovered during a building management survey. The council said further survey work was ongoing and the Health and Safety Executive NI (HSENI) was working with them. "As a precautionary measure, the council has taken immediate action to close the centre until the full results of the survey is known," the statement said. "It should be noted that materials containing asbestos are commonly found in buildings of a similar age, however with regular monitoring and management the risk is negligible." ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Fines Tigard Firm for Fibro Removal Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hillsboro Tribune reported that a Tigard, Oregon company, AAM, Inc., has been fined $19,200 by the Department of Environmental Quality for two violations related to a residential asbestos removal project in Hillsboro. The Tigard firm did the work at 262 N.E. 18th Ave., Hillsboro on Oct. 22, 2014. The first violation was for "failing to adequately wet friable asbestos material," and ensuring the material remain wet during removal and disposal. The second violation was for failing to enclose the area where the materials were removed. Both violations carry a $9,600 penalty. According to the DEQ press release, the company's violations "could have released asbestos fibers into the air and exposed workers, the public, and residents of the home to asbestos." The company has appealed the penalty. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gran's Disease Caused by Fibro Exposure -------------------------------------------------------- Herne Bay Times reported that a grandmother is appealing to former colleagues after being diagnosed with an incurable disease she believes was caused by exposure to asbestos at her workplace. Shirley Price, who was born in Herne Bay, England, and has lived in the town all her life, was told just before Christmas that she had contracted mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the chest. Shirley, 80, is convinced that the disease was sparked by exposure to asbestos at Brookwood Hospital in Knaphill, Surrey, where she worked in the 1970s. Now she is asking former colleagues, ex- workers and maintenance men who worked at the hospital between the 1970s until the hospital's closure in 1994 for help. She says it is probable that others who worked there at the time were similarly unaware of the dangers of asbestos exposure. Helen Grady, an expert in asbestos disease solicitor at Novum Law who specialises in mesothelioma cases, said: "Mesothelioma is a particularly aggressive and incurable cancer that is extremely debilitating for sufferers, who, like Shirley, were exposed to deadly asbestos simply by going to work every day. "Our research suggests there was a lot of asbestos at Brookwood Hospital and it is hoped that as many ex-workers as possible will come forward with information, including maintenance men who may well remember the asbestos on site. "It is likely that they were also unaware of the dangers of asbestos exposure during the 1970s." Shirley thinks she would have exposed to asbestos -- a fibrous material that was regularly used for building insulation before its dangers became apparent -- on a regular basis during her time at the hospital, from 1974-75. "I worked as a cleaner, constantly dusting, sweeping, mopping and scrubbing," she said. "There were lots of little side wards going off the main ward and many large radiators and lots of pipework to clean. "I dusted the windowsills, pipework and radiators and this was part and parcel of my normal, daily cleaning routines. There was always dust and mess to clear up. "As the hospital was so big, there were permanent maintenance men onsite. They regularly came on to the ward where I was working to carry out their maintenance and repair jobs." Her son Robin said: "It's been traumatic -- going back as recently as November she would still walk from Hampton to Herne Bay with her friends. "But she started getting breathless to the point where she was struggling to breathe. "At hospital a litre of fluid was drained from her lung where it had come away from the chest wall. "She was referred to Guy's hospital, a consultant explained to Mum what could it could possibly be." Sadly, the consultant's suspicion proved correct and in January Shirley's family -- she has three children and two grandchildren - - were told she could have just six to eight weeks to live. "It was a major shock to the family," said Robin. "We all feel very angry because the asbestos seemed to have been used everywhere to lag the pipes -- we've read the survey report." "We're trying to get people who worked any time up till it shut in 1994 and who can back our case to come forward. Of course, there might have been other cases. We want to stress that the government knew asbestos was being used but didn't upon it. "We want to demonstrate the fact it was just a shame people weren't told or warned about it. We want to make people more aware of the dangers -- you can be carrying this in your body for 40-60 years before something triggers it." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Covered Clothes Caused Woman's Cancer ------------------------------------------------------------ James Mayse, writing for Messenger-Inquirer, reported that a former Owensboro, Kentucky, resident is suing a number of companies, including General Electric, Big Rivers Electric Corp. and Alcoa, claiming she contracted cancer when her former husband was allegedly exposed to asbestos at various job sites. Doris White, who now lives in Louisville, filed suit in Daviess Circuit Court against Big Rivers, Alcoa, General Electric, Triangle Insulation and Sheet Metal Co., Domtar Inc., Goodrich, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Indianapolis Light And Power and a number of other businesses. Although the suit was filed in October, the case file has already ballooned to eight volumes as attorneys for White and the various businesses issue reams of requests, counter-requests, responses and depositions. The complaint states White was "exposed to asbestos products from her former husband, Ronald Eades' clothing and person during his career as a insulator. Eades worked "in and around Daviess County," the complaint says. The couple divorced in 1985. "The defendants have for many years manufactured, sold, distributed, installed, removed, specified, maintained properties and/or directed the use of products that contained asbestos," the complaint says. In a deposition given in December, White said Eades was diagnosed with asbestosis and underwent treatment. Eades, a union pipe insulator, worked at multiple locations, and filed suit against Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. in 1996. According to state Supreme Court ruling on Eades' case, Owens- Corning "was in the business of manufacturing several different types of insulation products that contained asbestos" and Eades "breathed in asbestos dust" while handling insulation products. In her deposition, White said she was diagnosed with mesothelioma last summer after she complained of fatigue and shortness of breath, and a chest X-ray indicated fluid in her lungs. According to Medline Plus, a website maintained by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, mesothelioma is a "rare but serious type of cancer" that manifests as tumors in the lining around the heart, lungs and organs. "Most people who get (mesothelioma) have worked on jobs where they inhaled asbestos particles." The disease "can take a long time" to manifest, the website says. White claims in her deposition that she was exposed to asbestos dust from Eades' work clothing. White told attorneys in December she would shake out Eades' work clothes, sometimes outside, but other times in the garage or basement of their various homes when she was doing laundry. The dust from the clothes would be visible and heavy enough to sweep up afterward, White said in her deposition. White underwent major surgery to remove the lining of her lungs at a Boston Hospital in October. During the procedure, two of White's ribs were removed, and her diaphragm was also scraped, White said in her deposition. She had also undergone the first of what was expected to be several rounds of chemotherapy in December. When White's attorney, Joseph Satterley of Louisville, asked how White had been affected by the disease and treatment, White said she'd lost quality of life, such as being able to work or do activities with her family. The court documents from the companies being sued consist of responses to White's complaint. The companies, in turn, deny any liability in White's condition. In her deposition, attorneys for several of the companies inquired as to whether White had ever been around a home that was being remodeled, or around car repair work. White said that some remodeling work was done in a portion of one of the houses where she lived with Eades and her family, but that she was not involved with work beyond doing things like picking colors. White is seeking damages for her alleged injuries, and punitive damages. No hearings on the case are currently scheduled in Daviess Circuit Court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Fibro Victim Appeals to Colleagues ------------------------------------------------------------- Croydon Advertiser reported that the distraught widow of a former Croydon Council, England, painter and decorator who died from asbestos-related cancer is appealing to his former colleagues for help securing justice. Harry Russell, of Addiscombe, died aged 82 in August 2013 from mesothelioma just two days after his diagnosis which his family believes was caused by his exposure to asbestos while employed by the council. His family told lawyers Irwin Mitchell they remember him talking about working on the cooling towers at Taberner House, the former council HQ. He also painted a number of public buildings including schools, old peoples' homes and childrens' homes while working for the council between 1964 and 1995. Mr Russell's wife Gwen, 79 and two children, Sharon and Gary, have asked Irwin Mitchell's industrial disease experts to investigate the working conditions during his time working for the council. Mrs Russell hopes his former workmates will come forward to tell lawyers about the measures put in place to protect workers from inhaling asbestos dust and fibres in this period. She said: "I am still coming to terms with the loss of Harry, but I am determined to get justice for him and make sure those responsible for failing to protect him are held to account." Sarah Wolf, of Irwin Mitchell, said: "The dangers of asbestos have been known for a long time, but sadly we continue to see examples where employers have failed to take responsibility for the safety of their workers. "In this case, Harry paid the ultimate price for going to work every day to provide for his family, and suffered a significant amount of pain and distress in the final months of his life. "We hope that his former workmates will come forward and provide information on how and where he was exposed to asbestos during his work, and what measures, if any, were put in place to prevent tradespeople working for Croydon Council from inhaling the deadly substance." Mr Russell's daughter Sharon, 56, said her dad was an active man who spent lots of time in his garden and allotment growing fresh produce he gave to his family, friends and neighbours. She added: "We are trying to do everything we can for mum and I have given up my career as PA to take care of her. "There's no amount of money that could compensate for Dad's loss, but we want those who were responsible for his exposure to asbestos to be held to account for their lack of preventative measures, and for mesothelioma to be highlighted to employers and workers alike, so no more families need to go through what we have." A Croydon Council spokeswoman said: "We would like to express our condolences to the family of Mr Russell. As this is now a legal matter we are unable to comment further at this time." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waltham Forest Council to be Sentenced ------------------------------------------------------- Zoie O'Brien, writing for This Is Local London, reported that the sentencing of Waltham Forest council for allowing workers to be exposed to asbestos will take place in March. A date of March 30 has been set for the local authority to appear at Southwark Crown Court after a judge decided the matter was too serious for the magistrates court on January 19. The council has already pleaded guilty to four counts of failing staff and contractors by ignoring asbestos warnings. All three kinds of asbestos, including deadly dust, were found in the town hall basement in 2012 after a Freedom of Information Act request was submitted by a member of the public. A warning was given to the council in 2002 after asbestos was found -- but it is not known when it was distrurbed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wales Blocked from Claiming Fibro Costs -------------------------------------------------------- Dan Ascher, writing for The Insurance Insider, reported that the UK's Supreme Court has blocked the Welsh government's attempt to retroactively chase insurers for the cost of the asbestos crisis to the Welsh NHS. In a decision on Feb. 9, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Welsh government did not have the power to instate the Recovery of Medical Costs Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill. The court also found that even if the government did have the power, it would be a breach of insurers' human rights. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Victim Receives Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Laura Woodcock, writing for Gazette Live, reported that the widow of a former chemical plant worker who was exposed to asbestos has secured a settlement after his death. John Gerald McLeod, known to friends and family as Ian, died in August 2011 aged 66 after a long battle with lung cancer caused by exposure to the deadly substance. The Longlands, England, dad-of-two had been exposed to asbestos while employed at Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) Billingham and Wilton plants between 1967 and 1970, and again from 1979 to 1994. And now, following a legal battle, lawyers at Irwin Mitchell have secured Ian's widow Eileen a significant undisclosed settlement. ICI did not admit liability but a number of witnesses came forward with crucial information about the conditions Ian was exposed to and the measures in place to prevent his exposure to asbestos. Eileen, who was married to Ian for 45 years, said: "I am delighted and relieved that our legal battle in Ian's name is over and we have received a settlement after a lot of hard work from our legal team at Irwin Mitchell. "No amount of money will bring Ian back or help us forget the pain and suffering he went through as a result of being exposed to asbestos during his working life, but we feel that justice has now been done. "The whole family would like to thank Ian's former workmates who came forward with the information our legal team needed to secure a settlement. We hope that these proceedings will encourage companies to take the dangers of asbestos dust and fibres seriously and ensure workers are protected from the deadly substance." During his employment with ICI, Ian, a grandad of seven and great- grandfather to two, was exposed to the deadly dust in his role as a rigger, which required him to erect scaffolding to allow colleagues to lag the pipework with asbestos at ICI plants. He was also required to remove asbestos lagging and before his death recalled that scaffolding would become covered in debris and asbestos dust, which he was required to handle on a daily basis. Roger Maddocks, a partner and an expert asbestos lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, said: "Ian worked at ICI's plants for a number of years and a lot of his time working for the company was spent in dusty environments where he would regularly come into contact with and inhale asbestos dust and fibres. "Unfortunately, he was not warned of the dangers of asbestos and was not provided with the equipment required to prevent inhalation of the hazardous substance. It is completely unacceptable that workers were simply not protected or warned of the dangers of the dust which have been known since the 1930s. "I would like to thank those who came forward with information about the working conditions Ian was exposed to at ICI's Billingham and Wilton plants. They played a crucial role in securing a settlement for Ian's wife Eileen and their family." ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Senate Ponders Fibro Trust Claims Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Dickerson, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that a statewide group for trial lawyers says a state Senate bill targeting asbestos bankruptcy trust claims is unnecessary and only will hurt affected residents. A legal reform group, however, applauds the measure, saying it would bring needed transparency to the process and create medical criteria for asbestos claimants. Senate Bill 411 is being called the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act and Asbestos and Silica Claims Priority Act. It currently is before the state Senate Judiciary Committee. The West Virginia Association for Justice urged the Judiciary Committee to table the measure. WVAJ President Anthony Majestro says West Virginia's current case management order for asbestos cases is working well. The current CMO "has a system to prioritize cases so that cancer patients have their cases heard first," he said. "The case management order has been used for all cases filed after September 6, 2001, and should serve as a national model for how these cases are processed." Majestro said SB 411 simply isn't needed. "For more than a decade, West Virginia's asbestos cases have been handled very effectively by our case management order," he said. "It was developed by lawyers for both the injured workers and the manufacturers. They worked together to establish a system that would handle these cases fairly, efficiently and protected the interests of all parties involved. "More importantly, it ensures that very sick people are compensated for their exposure to a deadly product that was kept on the market for decades after its dangers were well known. "West Virginia's case management order is working, and it should be a model for any state that has asbestos claims. If SB 411 is passed, dying West Virginians will not be compensated and billion- dollar manufacturers that kept a dangerous product on the market will not be held accountable and get to keep their profits." Majestro said defendants involved in the creation of the CMO have acknowledged that "the existing CMO was an exhaustive joint effort by the vast majority of plaintiffs and defendants to develop a comprehensive system to address the large number of asbestos claims in West Virginia." He also said that since its implementation, additional changes have been made to improve disclosure requirements regarding bankruptcy payments to clients and that the CMO never has been appealed. Majestro also noted that the proposed bill would eliminate possible claims for secondary exposures for spouses and children who were exposed to asbestos from a worker's body and clothing even in cases of mesothelioma which is caused by inhaling asbestos fibers. West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse says the reform is needed "to stop abuse of the asbestos trust system." "Future legitimate asbestos claimants would benefit greatly from legal reforms to bring transparency to the asbestos claims process and establish medical criteria for asbestos claimants," WV CALA Executive Director Roman Stauffer said. "These reforms are needed to reduce fraud and help ensure the longevity of asbestos trusts. "Abuse of the asbestos trust claims process is widespread, and this legislation will shed much-needed daylight on how trusts are being run and cut down on widespread fraud in trust claims and litigation. Greed and misrepresentation of facts are rampant in the system, and future legitimate victims of asbestos exposure are losing out to those factors in our present system." Stauffer said West Virginia and national personal injury attorneys have abused the asbestos trust filing process for personal gain, citing bogus claims filed by late radiologist Ray Harron and two Pittsburgh asbestos attorneys. They were found guilty of fraud and racketeering. He also mentioned recent events in North Carolina regarding Garlock Sealing Technologies. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges ruled in January 2014 that Garlock would put $125 million into a trust that would pay asbestos claimants. The figure was roughly $1 billion less than plaintiffs attorneys had argued for. Hodges wrote in his ruling that Garlock's history of verdicts and settlements was an unreliable future indicator of the company's liability because that past had been tainted by plaintiffs attorneys who withheld their clients' evidence of exposure to other companies' products in order to maximize recovery against Garlock. Garlock has filed four racketeering lawsuits against the firms Shein Law Center of Philadelphia, Belluck & Fox of New York City, Waters & Kraus of Dallas and Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, also of Dallas. Garlock has since settled with a representative who represents future claimants for more than $360 million. "The Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act would require personal injury lawyers to disclose, in litigation, when they have filed claims with asbestos trusts or plan to do so, which is currently not practiced," Stauffer said. "Additionally, the legislation establishes medical criteria for asbestos claims, which will help eliminate fraudulent trust claims and preserve asbestos trust resources for those with legitimate claims. "Some millionaire personal injury lawyers are not speaking the truth when they say this legislation will 'eliminate asbestos monetary recovery.' This reform legislation will ensure that our lawsuit system is used for justice, not greed. It will ensure that asbestos trusts remain accessible to those with legitimate asbestos claims and will be a giant step toward ending asbestos fraud with trusts and in the courtroom." On its website, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization said it also is opposed to SB 411. "West Virginians suffer some of the worst asbestos exposure with the fourth-highest age-adjusted mesothelioma death rate," an ADAO post states. "Mesothelioma, a name few know until they are diagnosed, is a fatal lung cancer directly caused by asbestos exposure." ADAO says that, if SB 411 passes, "asbestos victims will likely be unable to receive the compensation they rightly deserve from the asbestos companies who unlawfully exposed workers, community members, and families to the carcinogen." "If passed, the bill will take away victims legal right to privacy and rightful compensation needed to pay the unending tide of mesothelioma medical bills and basic costs of day-to-day living," the group states. "In addition, the bill would undercut our right as American citizens to hold asbestos companies responsible for their unlawful and morally reprehensible actions." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Kills Derby Founder Worker ------------------------------------------------------ Martin Taylor, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a former foundry worker from Derby, England, breathed in asbestos and silicon while cleaning out giant furnaces at the place where he worked. A pathologist said parts of Trevor Dunn's lungs were so badly diseased "they were dead". But he added that breathing in the two deadly dusts only half- contributed to the 82-year-old's death, as he also had two forms of heart disease. Mr Dunn's inquest heard that his son questioned why surgeons had chosen not to operate on his father who was suffering from heart disease shortly before his death. But those concerns were allayed by Dr Andrew Hitchcock, who carried out the post-mortem examination. He told the hearing: "From a very simplistic view I would suggest had he had surgery (on his heart), he would have either died on the (operating) table or shortly after. "I think the decision not to intervene was the right one." The inquest, at Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court, heard that Mr Dunn, of Slaney Close, Allenton, was admitted to the Royal Derby hospital on September 26, having suffered a heart attack, and he died less than 40 minutes later. The hearing was told that he started working at the age of 14 at the former Ewarts Foundry, where he stayed for 30 years. After a statement was prepared by son Richard for the inquest, Coroner Louise Pinder said: "During his time there he was a foundry repair man and used to clean the insides of the giant furnaces which were used in the production of molten metal. "Later furnaces were lined with asbestos to which he was significantly exposed." After leaving Ewarts, in 1990, Mr Dunn used to train people to become painters and decorators until he retired at the age of 65. Miss Pinder said: "The question has been raised by the family as to why three different consultants reached a decision not to elect that Mr Dunn had heart surgery." Dr Hitchcock said his post-mortem examination revealed that Mr Dunn suffered from asbestosis, silicosis and naturally occurring combined heart diseases, which he gave as the cause of death. He said: "Both lungs were grossly abnormal in their entirety with blackening and scarring. There were certain parts of the lung that were so abnormal they were dead. "I am going to suggest to the court that all these separate diseases played their part in his death." Miss Pinder reached a conclusion that Mr Dunn died both of industrial disease and natural heart disease. She said: "I suggest he was a very stoic man who did extremely well to cope, both physically and mentally, with the diseases he had." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hailsham Man Suffering From Fibro Poisining Dies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbourne Herald reported that a 75-year old man from Hailsham, England, suffering from asbestos poisoning died a week after being admitted to St Wilfrid's Hospice, an inquest has heard. James Spencer, of Harmers Hay Road in Hailsham, was taken into the Hospice on January 10, 2015 but died a week later, on January 17. At his inquest, held at Eastbourne Magistrates' Court on February 12, the court heard how Mr Spencer was a specialist joiner by trade. In an in-life statement written by Mr Spencer's solicitors, he told how he worked as a carpenter and shop fitter for W.K Nelson King, where he was exposed to asbestos on a number of occasions. Much of his work was done in basements, where pipes would be covered with asbestos lagging. Later, he worked for Turner and Dean, where he was let out as a sub-contractor for Bell and Pearson. The work, which was overseen by East Sussex County Council, involved cutting soffits and boards that were made of asbestos sheets. He said he was never given any information about asbestos, nor any protective mask. He used to sweep up the dust with a dustpan and brush at the end of each day. Coroner Alan Craze recorded a conclusion of death by industrial disease. Mr Craze felt assured that Mr Spencer suffered from asbestos poisoning, which is on the list of industrial diseases, and that he died as a cause of the infection and did not simply have it as a secondary illness. He was also convinced Mr Spencer contracted the disease during many years of exposure at work. While a post mortem was not carried out, a junior nurse at St Wilfrid's Hospice agreed with the cause of death as asbestos poisoning. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Oglebay Norton Unit Can't Dodge Fibro Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that a former division of the shipping operator Oglebay Norton Corp. failed to shake off a lawsuit by the wife of a deceased former employee who allegedly developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure, after arguing to a Pennsylvania state court that the state's Occupational Disease Act hampers the suit. Pennsylvania state judge Michael F. Marmo denied a motion for summary judgment by Ferro Engineering Division of Oglebay Norton Marine Services Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suits Against Crane Co. Time-Barred ---------------------------------------------------------- Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that a crane manufacturer has dodged a quartet of asbestos cases in Cambria County just more than a week after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected an appeal of a decision finding that a 12-year statute of repose barred claims against companies involved in large-scale property improvements containing the cancer-causing fiber. Judge Patrick Kiniry in the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas agreed to dismiss four cases against Reunion Industries Inc. after accepting arguments that the custom crane manufacturer could not be held accountable for any alleged exposure to asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 12,000 Pending Fibro Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Mallinckrodt public limited company had 12,000 pending asbestos- related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 26, 2014. Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of December 26, 2014, there were approximately 12,000 asbestos-related cases pending against the Company. The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its liability for pending and future claims is based on claims experience over the past five years and covers claims either currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years. The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos- related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolution of all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Mallinckrodt public limited company (Mallinckrodt), incorporated on January 9, 2013, is a global specialty pharmaceuticals company. The Company develops, manufactures, markets and distributes both branded and generic specialty pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) and diagnostic imaging agents. The Company uses its API products in the manufacture of its generic pharmaceuticals and also sells them to other pharmaceutical companies. The Company operates through two segments: Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Global Medical Imaging. On June 28, 2013, Covidien plc completed the separation of its Pharmaceuticals business and transferred the Pharmaceuticals business to Mallinckrodt. In March 2014, the Company acquired Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In August 2014, Mallinckrodt Plc acquired Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in its products, 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. The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in certain lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in our products. We are a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The claims are similar to previous asbestos lawsuits that named us as a defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by us for immaterial amounts. As of December 31, 2014, we were subject to the claims, as well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. "Although the outcome of the lawsuits to which we are a party cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made, we do not believe that the outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows." Graham Corporation (Graham) designs, manufactures and sells equipment for the energy industry, which includes the oil refining, petrochemical, cogeneration, nuclear and alternative power markets. The Company also designs and manufactures custom- engineered ejectors, vacuum pumping systems, surface condensers and vacuum systems, as well as supplies and components for use inside the reactor vessel and outside the containment vessel of nuclear power facilities. The Company's products are used in a range of industrial process applications in energy markets, including petroleum refining, chemical and petrochemical processing, power generation or alternative energy, defense and other. The Company's two wholly owned subsidiaries, Energy Steel & Supply Co. (Energy Steel), located in Lapeer, Michigan, and Graham Vacuum and Heat Transfer Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (GVHTT), located in Suzhou, China. ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Technologies Continues to Defend PI Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- United Technologies Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging asbestos-related personal injury, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies in recent years, we or our subsidiaries have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of our products or premises. While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporate it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of our historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, have contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by our insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remaining closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not material individually or in the aggregate." United Technologies Corporation (UTC) provides high technology products and services to the building systems and aerospace industries worldwide. The Company operates in six segments:Otis, Carrier and UTC Fire & Security (collectively referred to as the commercial businesses) serve customers in the commercial, government infrastructure and residential property sectors worldwide. Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand and Sikorsky (collectively referred to as the aerospace businesses) primarily serves commercial and government customers in both the original equipment and aftermarket parts and services markets of the aerospace industry. Hamilton Sundstrand, Pratt & Whitney and UTC Fire & Security also serve customers in certain industrial markets.In April 2014, United Technologies Corp announced that Interlogix, part of UTC Building & Industrial Systems, a unit of United Technologies Corp acquired Ultra High Speed (UHS) from Australian company Hills Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC App. Affirms Compensation Ruling in PI Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Thurman Franklin Patton originally brought a claim for asbestosis against several defendants in 2003. The decedent's claim was resolved through a compromise settlement agreement approved by the North Carolina Industrial Commission on April 27, 2009. On February 10, 2010, the decedent passed away. The decedent's surviving spouse, Artie Patton, passed away on August 29, 2011. As such, the named plaintiff in the action is Michael Ray Patton, the decedent's son and the administrator of his estate. In June 2014, the Full Commission entered an Opinion and Award reversing the Deputy Commissioner's decision and concluding that the decedent's death was compensable under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. The Commission awarded the plaintiff, in relevant part, 400 weeks of compensation benefits at the weekly rate of $400.01 and ordered the defendants to pay plaintiff a burial fee of $3,500. Defendant-employer Sears Roebuck & Co. and Specialty Risk Services appeal from the Commission's Opinion and Award. On appeal, the defendants neither contend that the decedent was not exposed to asbestos at work nor do they deny that he had asbestosis. Instead, they argue that the decedent was not entitled to compensation for this disease because his exposure was not great enough to maintain a claim for benefits and because it is unclear whether his exposure to asbestos caused or significantly contributed to his death. In an opinion dated Feb. 17, 2015, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, affirmed, after concluding that the findings of fact showed that (1) the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos for a minimum of 30 days within a consecutive seven-month period and (2) the decedent's occupational exposure to asbestos was a significant contributing factor in his death are both supported by competent evidence. The case is MICHAEL RAY PATTON, Administrator of the Estate of THURMAN FRANKLIN PATTON, Deceased Employee, Plaintiff, v. SEARS ROEBUCK & CO., Employer, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, Carrier, Defendants, NO. COA14-955 (N.C. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/2Qpmomfrom Leagle.com. Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Edward L. Pauley, for plaintiff. Rudisill White & Kaplan, P.L.L.C., by Stephen Kushner, Esq. -- stevekushner@rwklawfirm.com -- for defendants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants Bids to Vacate PI Suit Verdict --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Burnham LLC, individually, and as a successor to Burnham Corp., and Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., move pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict in favor of plaintiffs in five consolidated asbestos cases, and for judgment in their favor as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, as against the weight of the evidence, or for remitter of the jury verdicts. Judge Joan A. Madden of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated Feb. 5, 2015, issued the following rulings: (1) the motion by Cleaver-Brooks to set aside the verdict with respect to plaintiff Santos Assenzio is granted only to the extent of vacating the awards of $20 million for past pain and suffering, and $10 million to Mr. Assenzio's spouse for loss of consortium and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiff Santos Assenzio stipulates to reduce the awards to $5.5 million for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for his spouse's loss of consortium; (2) the separate motions by Burnham and Cleaver-Brooks to set aside the verdict with respect to plaintiff Robert Brunck is granted only to the extent of vacating the award of $20 million for past pain and suffering and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiff Robert Brunck stipulates to reduce the award to $3.2 million for past pain and suffering; (3) the motion by Cleaver-Brooks to set aside the verdict with respect to plaintiff Paul Levy is granted only to the extent of vacating the awards of $15 million for past pain and suffering, $35 million for future pain and suffering and $10 million to Mr. Levy's spouse for loss of consortium and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiff Paul Levy stipulates to reduce the awards to $4 million for past pain and suffering, $3.5 million for future pain and suffering, and $650,000 for his spouse's loss of consortium; (4) the motion by Burnham to set aside the verdict with respect to plaintiff Cesar O. Serna is granted only to the extent of vacating the awards of $30 million for past pain and suffering and $30 million for future pain and suffering and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiff Cesar O. Serna stipulates to reduce the awards to $4.5 million for past pain and suffering and $3 million for future pain and suffering; and (5) the separate motions by Burnham and Cleaver-Brooks to set aside the verdict with respect to plaintiff Raymond Vincent is granted only to the extent of vacating the award of $20 million for past pain and suffering and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiff Raymond Vincent stipulates to reduce the award to $5 million for past pain and suffering. The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to SANTOS ASSENZIO, ROBERT BRUNCK, PAUL LEVY, CESAR O. SERNA, RAYMOND VINCENT, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NOS. 190008/12, 190026/12, 190200/12, 190183/12, 190184/12 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Madden's Decision is available at http://is.gd/lNI4NYfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hammond" Suit Remanded to Miss. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Wendell Hammond filed suit against Phillips 66 Company and numerous other defendants in the Circuit Court of Marion County, alleging injury as a result of being exposed to asbestos while working in the oil industry from approximately 1968 until 1979. Hammond alleges that he suffers from asbestosis and related lung disease because of his frequent and sustained exposure to drilling mud additives and products containing asbestos that were negligently and defectively designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by each Defendant. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, as successor in interest to Defendant Phillips 66 Company, removed the proceeding to the federal court. In a memorandum opinion and order dated Feb. 12, 2015, at the Plaintiff's behest, Judge Keith Starrett of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division, remanded the action to the state court. The case is WENDELL HAMMOND, Plaintiff, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14CV119-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/XvdQDKfrom Leagle.com. Wendell Hammond, Plaintiff, represented by Laurel Li Harris, PORTER & MALOUF, PA. Phillips 66 Company, Defendant, represented by Lindsey O. Watson, ADAMS AND REESE, LLP. Phillips Petroleum Company, Defendant, represented by Lindsey O. Watson, ADAMS AND REESE, LLP. Drilling Specialties Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Lindsey O. Watson, ADAMS AND REESE, LLP. Conoco Phillips Company, Defendant, represented by Lindsey O. Watson, ADAMS AND REESE, LLP. Montello, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brannon L. Berry, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP, Clare Smith Rush, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP, Laura DeVaughn Goodson, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY & Marcy B. Croft, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alexander Caston Martin, II, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP, Christi G. Jones, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP & Laura DeVaughn Goodson, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY. Oilfield Service and Supply Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason Eric Fortenberry, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP. GEO Drilling Fluids, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tara Strickland Clifford, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 Cos. Obtain Dismissal of "Denton" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled BILLIE DENTON, Individually and as Special Administrator for the Estate of ROBERT F. DENTON, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATIONS, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-1243-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.), issued separate memoranda and orders granting the motions to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by six defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that decedent Robert F. Denton was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers from products manufactured, sold, distributed, or installed by the defendants. Judge Yandle found that the Plaintiff alleges no facts indicating the Decedent's injuries arose from the Defendants' activities in Illinois. A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 17, 2015, with respect to defendant E.I. DuPont De Menours Company's motion is available at http://is.gd/qbouU5from Leagle.com. A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 19, 2015, with respect to defendant NIBCO, Inc.'s motion is available at http://is.gd/2j7YtWfrom Leagle.com. A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 19, 2015, with respect to defendant Exxon Mobile Corporation's motion is available at http://is.gd/b9wuACfrom Leagle.com. A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 19, 2015, with respect to defendant BASF Corporation's motion is available at http://is.gd/QLtma5from Leagle.com. A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 19, 2015, with respect to defendant Clow Corporation's motion is available at http://is.gd/Xk21Rsfrom Leagle.com. A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 19, 2015, with respect to defendant Valero Energy Corporation's motion is available at http://is.gd/lY1YXDfrom Leagle.com. Billie Denton, Plaintiff, represented by Allyson M. Romani, Shrader & Associates LLP, Matthew B. McLeod, Shrader & Associates LLP. Andrew John McEnaney, Shrader & Associates LLP. Bradley N. Ritter, Shrader & Associates LLP & Robert Eugene Shuttlesworth, Shrader & Associates LLP. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Alcoa Inc, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Ameron International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. John I. Schaberg, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. API Heat Transfer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephanie F. Jones, Gordon & Rees LLP. Armstrong International Inc, Defendant, represented by Carla C. Storm, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Armstrong Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Margaret M. Foster, Esq. -- mfoster@mckenna-law.com -- McKenna Storer. Arvinmeritor Inc, Defendant, represented by Dayna L. Johnson, Esq. -- dlj@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker et al.. Atlantic Richfield Company, Defendant, represented by Donald Patrick Eckler, Esq. -- deckler@pretzel-stouffer.com -- Pretzel & Stouffer. Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Baltimore Aircoil Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Kilpatrick, Esq. -- joe.kilpatrick@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP. Beazer East, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Bechtel Construction Company, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Bechtel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. BF Shaw, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erick E. VanDorn, Thompson Coburn. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP. Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP. James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP. Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald Patrick Eckler, Pretzel & Stouffer. Brand Insulations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Mary D. Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Defendant, represented by A. J. Bronsky, Brown & James. Buffalo Air Handling, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Burnham, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Catalytic Construction Company, Defendant, represented by Kenneth M. Burke, Brown & James. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Celanese Corporation, Defendant, represented by Earl B. Thames, Jr., Hawkins, Esq. -- ehawkins@hptylaw.com -- Parnell et al. & Stephen Christopher Collier, Esq. -- ccollier@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Chevron Philips Co, Defendant, represented by Erik L. Hansell, Esq. -- erik.hansell@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP & Mark G. Zellmer, Esq. -- mark.zellmer@huschblackwell.com -- at Husch Blackwell LLP. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Defendant, represented by Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Donald J. Dahlmann, Walker & Williams & Leslie G. Offergeld, Walker & Williams. Cleaver-Brooks, Defendant, represented by Erin Renee Griebel, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. & Meredith S Hudgens, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Coastal Refining and Marketing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Mary D. Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Columbia Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Conwed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Conoco Phillips Company, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al.. Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Mark G. Zellmer, Husch Blackwell LLP. Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Crane Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC. Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith, Jr., HeplerBroom LLC. Crosby Valve, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP & Julia Yasmin Tayyab, Morgan, Lewis et al.. Crown Cork & Seal USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Stephen J. Maassen, Hoagland, Fitzgerald & Pranaitis. Cummins Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong et al.. Dap, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Lynn Weinberger, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Dezurik, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Brown & James. The Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Dravo Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by J. Todd Applegate, Pitzer Snodgrass PC & Brian J. Connolly, Pitzer Snodgrass PC. EEIC, Inc, Defendant, represented by Earl B. Thames, Jr., Hawkins, Parnell et al.. Ethyl Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Exxon Mobile Corporation, Defendant, represented by H. Patrick Morris, Esq. -- morrisp@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell & David F. Fanning, Esq. -- fanningd@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell LTD. The Fairbanks Company, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ferro Engineering, Defendant, represented by A. J. Bronsky, Brown & James. Flowserve US Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP. James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP. Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong et al.. Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong et al.. Fluor Daniel Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong et al.. Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong et al.. FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. Fort Kent Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Foseco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Gardner Denver Inc, Defendant, represented by Amanda Lynn Weinberger, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al.. Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Kendra A Wolters, Heyl, Royster et al.. Goulds Pumps Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Greene Tweed & Co., Inc, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Grinnell Corporation, Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab, Esq. -- ytayyab@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis et al.. Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephanie F. Jones, Gordon & Rees LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC. Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC. Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Howden North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al.. Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Kendra A Wolters, Heyl, Royster et al.. Industrial Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Kanute, Faegre Baker Daniels & Mindy A. Finnigan, Faegre Baker Daniels. ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP. J.A. Sexauer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP. James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP. Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. The J.R. Clarkson Company, Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab, Morgan, Lewis et al.. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Johnston Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Joy Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Lynn Weinberger, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Kennedy Valve Company, a division of McWane, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Kitz Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Brown, Jr., Lucco, Brown et al.. Christopher P. Threlkeld, Lucco, Brown, Threlkeld & Dawson LLP & Debra K. Zahalsky, Lucco, Brown et al.. Kraissel Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Margaret M. Foster, McKenna Storer. Kunkle Valve, Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab, Morgan, Lewis et al.. Kvaerner U.S. Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC. Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC. Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Ladish Valve Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by James A. Telthorst, Esq. -- jim.telthorst@guntymccarthy.com -- Gunty & McCarthy & David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy. Lattner Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al.. Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Kendra A Wolters, Heyl, Royster et al.. Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC. Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Lennox Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Maremont Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ryan T. Barke, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC & John T. Hipskind, Esq. -- jth@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC. McCord Gasket Company, Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. McNally Industries LLC, Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. Metso Minerals Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald Patrick Eckler, Pretzel & Stouffer. Milwaukee Valve Co., Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Mueller Steam Speciality Co., Defendant, represented by James A. Telthorst, Gunty & McCarthy & David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy. Nalco Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Margaret M. Foster, McKenna Storer. Natkin Service Co., Defendant, represented by James V Tomaska, Johnson & Bell LTD.. James K. Toohey, Johnson & Bell LTD & Jeffery G. Chrones, Johnson & Bell LTD. Navistar International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC. Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC. Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Nibco, Inc., Defendant, represented by James V Tomaska, Johnson & Bell LTD.. James K. Toohey, Johnson & Bell LTD & Jeffery G. Chrones, Johnson & Bell LTD. Nooter Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas M. Nieder, Esq. -- dnieder@lewisrice.com -- Lewis Rice LLC. NRG Texas Power, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Oakfabco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy J. Cowan, Hawkins, Parnell et al. & John M. Ward, Hawkins, Parnell et al.. Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark G. Zellmer, Husch Blackwell LLP. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP. Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin LLP & Matthew J. Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. Pecora Corporation, Defendant, represented by James A. Telthorst, Gunty & McCarthy & David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy. Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Voss, Esq. -- amv@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker et al.. Pharmacia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jordan T. Ault, Esq. -- jordan.ault@huschblackwell.com -- at Husch Blackwell LLP. Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook, Segal, McCambridge et al. Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Ref-Chem Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong et al.. Resco Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Mary D. Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Research-Cottrell, Inc., Defendant, represented by James A. Telthorst, Gunty & McCarthy & David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy. Riley Stoker Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. RME Petroleum Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Mary D. Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Sargent & Lundy LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Scott Hood, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. & Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Sherwin Williams Company, The, Defendant, represented by John A. Bruegger, Hawkins, Parnell et al.. Shell Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & James R Shultz, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Spirax Sarco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marcie J. Vantine, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. Superior Boiler Works, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Swindell-Dressler International Co.., Defendant, represented by Keith J. Hays, Hill Fulwider, PC & Christopher N. Wahl, Hill Fulwider, PC. TA Company, Defendant, represented by Margaret M. Foster, McKenna Storer. Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Treco Construction Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Mary D. Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP. Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP. James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP. Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Universal Refactories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC & Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. URS Energy & Construction, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth M. Burke, Brown & James. Valero Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Travis Herbert Campbell, Bryan Cave, LLP . Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al.. Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Kendra A Wolters, Heyl, Royster et al.. Washington Group International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth M. Burke, Brown & James. Watson McDaniel Company, Defendant, represented by John P. Cunningham, Brown & James PC & Tucker Blaser, Brown & James PC. Weil McLain, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP. James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP. Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. The WM Powell Company, Defendant, represented by L. Alexa Newton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP. James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP. Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. Zy-Tech Global Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by L. Alexa Newton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert J. Brummond, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Zurn Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Lynn Weinberger, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. NRG Texas Power, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Clow Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Rohm and Haas Company, Defendant, represented by Mark Alan Smith, Esq. -- mark.smith@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP & Mark G. Zellmer, Husch Blackwell LLP. Flowserve Corporation F/K/A, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Industrial Holdings Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Foseco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP. Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Inmate's Claims for Damages Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff John Brown alleges that, while he was an inmate at the Reception and Medical Center, he was exposed to friable asbestos. Like most inmates at RMC, Brown contends that he suffers from chronic illness and disabilities. Brown alleges that, despite his condition, he was forced to remove floor tile and mastic containing asbestos from the F dormitory where he was housed. Brown further alleges that exposure to asbestos in high concentrations or over extended periods of time can result in asbestosis and mesothelioma, both respiratory ailments. Although the risks of exposure to asbestos are known, Brown alleges that the defendants failed to disclose the danger, provide any training, gloves or masks, or ensure that the area had adequate ventilation. In an order dated Feb. 20, 2015, Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages, and dismissed defendant Michael Crews, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, from the action. To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in Counts One and Two of his lawsuit, those claims are also dismissed. Count Two against Defendant Michael Crews is further dismissed, Judge Howard ruled. The case is JOHN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL CREWS, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-36-J-34PDB(M.D. Fla.). A full-text copy of Judge Howard's Decision is available at http://is.gd/8d7mCgfrom Leagle.com. John Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Karen M. Marcell, Esq. -- kmarcell@likeyourlawyer.com -- Katzman Garfinkel & Berger & Michael O'Brien Colgan, Esq. -- mcolgan@likeyourlawyer.com -- Katzman Garfinkel & Berger. Michael Crews, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, in his official capacity, Defendant, represented by Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney General, Susan A. Maher, Office of the Attorney General & Eric Neiberger, Office of the Attorney General. Bryan Riedl, Warden of Reception and Medical Center, in his individual and official capacities, Defendant, represented by Eric Neiberger, Office of the Attorney General, Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney General & Susan A. Maher, Office of the Attorney General. Ellen Link, Assistant Warden of Reception and Medical Center, Defendant, represented by Eric Neiberger, Office of the Attorney General, Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney General & Susan A. Maher, Office of the Attorney General. Christopher Hancock, Sergeant, Defendant, represented by Eric Neiberger, Office of the Attorney General, Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney General & Susan A. Maher, Office of the Attorney General. Archie W. Clemons, Colonel, Defendant, represented by Eric Neiberger, Office of the Attorney General, Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney General & Susan A. Maher, Office of the Attorney General. Officer Hartley, Defendant, represented by Eric Neiberger, Office of the Attorney General, Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney General & Susan A. Maher, Office of the Attorney General. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Bray" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Bray, executrix of the estate of Edgar St. Jean, and Marilyn St. Jean, brought an action in Connecticut Superior Court asserting claims for product liability, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 52-572m, et seq., loss of consortium, and punitive damages. Defendant Crane Company timely removed the case to federal court under the federal officer and military contractor defenses, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442. At the close of discovery, defendants Aurora Pumps, BW/IP, Inc., Carrier Corporation, Crane, Nash Engineering Company, Warren Pumps, and Weir Valves and Controls USA, Inc., filed motions for summary judgment, principally asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their evidentiary burden on all claims. The decedent, Edgar St. Jean, served in the military from 1953 to December 1956. He then joined Electric Boat Corporation, a division of General Dynamics Corporation, as an outside machinist and later, as a general foreman, from approximately 1956 to April 1980. His worksite was located in Groton, Connecticut, where St. Jean worked on new construction and the overhauling of nuclear submarines for the U.S. Navy. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants manufactured products used in Electric Boat's shipbuilding and repair business, and that St. Jean was exposed to when using or installing those products. On May 19, 2013, St. Jean died of mesothelioma and asbestosis, which the plaintiffs allege was caused by St. Jean's exposure to and inhalation of asbestos fibers throughout his military and shipbuilding career. Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, based on the record and all pleadings, found that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their evidentiary burden on all of their claims and thus granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The case is DEBRA BRAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INGERSOLL-RAND CO., et al., Defendants, NO. 3:13-CV-1561 (SRU)(D. Conn.). A full-text copy of Judge Underhill's ruling and order dated Feb. 19, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/zVFoRpfrom Leagle.com. Debra L. Bray, Plaintiff, represented by Amity L. Arscott, Embry & Neusner & Melissa M. Riley, Embry & Neusner. Marilyn St. Jean, Plaintiff, represented by Amity L. Arscott, Embry & Neusner & Melissa M. Riley, Embry & Neusner. Ingersoll-Rand Co., Defendant, represented by Erminia Amy LaBrecque, Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman and Guekguezian. Aurora Pump, Defendant, represented by Cullen W. Guilmartin, McCarter & English, LLP, Erin C O'Leary, Esq. -- eoleary@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English LLP & John J. Robinson, Esq., at McCarter & English, LLP. BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey Lane Squitiero, Esq. -- squitiero@halloransage.com -- Halloran & Sage LLP. Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Chenchao Lu, Esq. - - clu@conwaystoughton.com -- Conway & Stoughton, LLC & Matthew G. Conway, Esq. -- mconway@conwaystoughton.com -- Conway & Stoughton, LLC. Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Patrick J. Glinka, Esq. -- pglinka@danaherlagnese.com -- Danaher, Lagnese & Sacco, P.C. & Jason Kirk Henderson, Esq. -- jhenderson@danaherlagnese.com --at Danaher Lagnese, PC. Flowserve US Inc., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey Lane Squitiero, Halloran & Sage LLP. FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tara Lynn Trifon, Locke Lord LLP, Andrew J Murray, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Paul E. Dwyer, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP. IMO Indus, Inc, Defendant, represented by Richard M. Dighello, Jr., Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.. Industrial Holdings Corp, Defendant, represented by Tara Lynn Trifon, Locke Lord LLP, Andrew J Murray, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Paul E. Dwyer, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Melicent B. Thompson, Esq. -- thompson@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP. Nash Engineering Co, Defendant, represented by Reed Adam Slatas, Adler Law Group LLC, Jennifer Elaine Wheelock, McGivney & Kluger, P.C., Jonathan P. Ciottone, McGivney & Kluger, P.C. & Mark R. Cramer, McGivney & Kluger, P.C. Safeguard Scientifics Inc, Defendant, represented by Edward N. Storck, III, Esq. -- estorck@morrisonmahoney.com -- Morrison, Mahoney LLP & Robert S. Bystrowski, Esq. -- rbystrowski@morrisonmahoney.com -- Morrison, Mahoney LLP. Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard M. Dighello, Jr., Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.. Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Frank Audemars Sherer, III, Esq. -- fsherer@mdmc-law.com -- McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP. Viking Pump Inc, Defendant, represented by Charles K. Mone, Esq. -- cmone@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Warren Pumps, Defendant, represented by Charles K. Mone, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Elaine Wheelock, McGivney & Kluger, P.C. & Reed Adam Slatas, Adler Law Group LLC. ********* 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 * * *