/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150306.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 6, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 47 Headlines ADVENT SOFTWARE: Being Sold for Too Little to SS&C, Suit Claims ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Chao" Suit Alleging Securities Violations ANTHEM INC: Faces "Blain" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach APOTEX INC: Recalls Apothecare (APC) Bisacodyl Tablets APPLE INC: Beach Road Files Class Action Over Pre-1972 Recordings APPLE INC: 2nd Circuit to Hear Price-Fixing Suit This Month ARIZONA: Deal Between Corrections Dept. & Inmates Okayed AURORA HUTS: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss "Mielo" Suit AUTO CLUB GROUP: E.D. Mich. Judge Denied Class Certification BRAZOS ROCK: Faces "Lewis" Suit in Texas Alleging FLSA Violations BROWN COMMUNITY: Accused of Illegal Conduct Over Fund Transfer BURBERRY LIMITED: Faces "Citizen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CADILLAC MOTOR: Recalls ATS 2013 Models Due to Injury Risk CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Hires Manager to Deal With Jail Overcrowding CAN-AM: Recalls Spyder RT 2013 Models Due to Burn Risk CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Sued by Minors Over Violations of Housing Act CHRYSLER: Recalls 200 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk CITY FISH: Recalls Candy Smoked Salmon Products Due to Listeria CLEANNET USA: Court Orders "Estrada" Case Parties to Arbitrate COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY: Sued in Florida Over Violations of EFTA COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Veciana" Suit Moved From Florida to Alabama COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims CONNIE GIPSON: Court Dismisses "Brown" Suit With Leave to Amend CVS PHARMACY: Removes "Patel" Class Suit to C.D. California DEEP CANADA: Recalls Masala Mixed Spices Due to Undeclared Sesame DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Frizzell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Frizzell" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ELITE SALADS: Recalls White Fish Duet to Clostridium Botulinum ENDO HEALTH: "Mahaffay" Suit Moved From California to Illinois FOREST RIVER: Recalls XLR 2015 Models Due to Safety Hazard FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS: Recalls 2015 Models Due to Safety Hazard FUEL FOODS: "Gross" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages GENCOR NUTRIENTS: "Ryan" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Removes "O'Brien" Class Suit to S.D. Florida HEIL TRAILER: Recalls 2000 Petroleum Pull Trailers HERBALIFE INT'L: Former Distributors to Oppose Class Action Deal J.P. MORGAN: N.D. Cal. Judge Dismissed RICO Claim in "Ellis" Case JAMES BOMBECK: Removes G&J Suit to Middle District of Florida JAPAN: Survivors of 1945 Hiroshima Bombing File Class Action JUNTOS INC: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Optima Door Lock Problems KMART CORPORATION: Faces First Choice Suit Over Data Breach KMART CORPORATION: Faces Gulf Coast Suit in La. Over Data Breach KNIGHTS' MARINE: "Fairley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime KNUDSEN & SONS: Lies About Blueberry Pomegranate Juice, Suit Says KOREA EXCHANGE: Faces Suit Over Carbon Emissions Quota LABORATOIRE RIVA: Recalls RIVA-Olanzapine Tablets LABORATOIRE RIVA: Recalls RIVA-Olanzapine Tablets LAKE LAND: Recalls Smoked Trout & Arctic Char Products LAND ROVER: Recalls 2015 Range Rover Sport Models LAND ROVER: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Safety Hazard LAND ROVER: Recalls Multiple Models Due Non-Compliance LEIGHTON HOLDING: Conceals Financial Black-Hole, Exec Alleges LENOVO INC: Faces Sterling Int'l Suit Over Preinstalled Spywares LIFE SCIENCE: Recalls Ironkids Gummies due to Missing Labels LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Court Appoints Coyler as Lead Plaintiff MAJOR LEAGUE: Judges Wants Class Members Linked to California MANGOS STEAKHOUSE: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT MARION COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Action Delayed Jail Releases MAXWELL & MORGAN: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act MAYPORT C & C: Faces "Cowen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MEDICAL CAREER: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims MILLPOND FARM: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime MINNESOTA: Trial Begins in Sex Offender Program Class Action MINNESOTA: Class Action Mulled Over Mismanaged Disability Funds MYCOIN: Investors Mull Class Action Over "Ponzi Scheme" NATIONAL CREDIT: IFS et al. Dropped From "Gerstle" Suit NESTLE PURINA: 7th Cir. Flips Dist. Court Ruling in "Adkins" Case NICKLES BAKERY: Ohio Route Sales Drivers File OT Class Action NORDSTROM INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Ogiamien" Case Denied PARAMOUNT CITRUS: Faces "Peralta" Class Suit in E.D. California PASADENA, CA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Tax Payers Funds PATTIES FOODS: Raspberries Recalled Over Hepatitis A-Link PATTIES FOODS: Class Action Over Frozen Berries Looms PERRY JOHNSON: Court Stays Case Pending Arbitration Result PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Civil Rights PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY: "Bechtloff" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT PIMA COUNTY, AZ: Faces Class Action Over Foster Child Abuses PIZZA HUT: Faces FCRA Class Action Over Background Reports PHARMASCIENCE INC: Recalls PMS-Olanzapine Tablets PHILIPS LIFELINE: Recalls Neck Cords Due to Strangulation Hazard PRO DOC: Recalls Multiple Olanzapine Tablets REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Action Over Landfill Odors Stalls QUADRA GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, New United Suit Claims SANDOZ CANADA: Recalls Polytopic Creams SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Violating Communications Act SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT: Accused of Discrimination by Macedonian Engr. SOBEYS INC: Recalls Compliments Fruit Cocktail in Light Syrup SPRING LAKE PARK, MN: To Implement Traffic Education Program SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Garnishee Orders STRATASYS LTD: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports STRATEGIC PARASECURITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SYNCHRONY BANK: Discovery on Jurisdiction in Gym Suit Ordered TAKATA CORP: 3 Suits From E.D. Louisiana Included in Airbag MDL TAKATA CORP: "Arnold" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: "Considine" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: "Leger" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: Three Suits From Pennsylvania Included in Airbag MDL TATITLEK SUPPORT: Removes "Chalupa" Class Suit to C.D. California TEXAS BRINE: Wants to Halt Evacuation Assistance Check Payments TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2015 Yaris Due to Injury Risk TRINITY UNIVERSAL: Court Tosses Bid to Remand "Burton" Class Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: California Court Rulings Ominous, Atty. Says UNITED COLLECTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act UNITED INSURANCE: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Upheld UNITED KINGDOM: 500 Investors Join Class Action Against FCA UNITED STATES: VA to Help Homeless Vets in L.A. After Settlement VAUGHN ENERGY: "Wedel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages VICTORY CHRISTIAN: "Mauldin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages WA ANGELS: Former Players Mull Wage Suit Against Owner WET SEAL: Appellate Court Dismissed Challenge to Discovery WILLIAM SONOMA: Suit Over Unpaid OT Sent Back to Superior Court YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Shark RAW Helmets Due to Non-compliance * Central European Borrowers Mull Suit Over Swiss Franc Loans * Clinic Launches Registry to Track Illegal Billing Practices * Huge Jury Verdicts Foretell Bad News for Carmakers * Transport Canada Recalls Certain Vehicles Due to Crash Risk * Transport Canada Recalls Certain Vehicles Due to Incorrect Info Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 41,000 AO Respiratory Claimants ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Trezza" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens' Bid to Exclude Testimony in PI Suit OK'd ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Reconsider Fibro Summary Judgment Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fraser's Bid to Dismiss "McCrossin" Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in NY PI Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Can't Annual Eagle & USF&G Settlement ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Laurent" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Humphries" Suit Remanded to La. State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford's Summary Judgment Win in PI Suit Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: 62 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Desimone" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Anco's Insurance Suit ********* ADVENT SOFTWARE: Being Sold for Too Little to SS&C, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Advent Software too cheaply through an unfair process to SS&C Technologies, for $44.25 a share or $2.3 billion, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court. ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Chao" Suit Alleging Securities Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Alibaba founder Jack Ma made $867 million selling shares in its IPO, without disclosing a host of problems, including counterfeit sales, fraud, bribery and inadequate controls, a shareholder claims in a class action. Lead plaintiff Myrtle Chao sued the Alibaba Group, Ma, and three other company officers on Feb. 16 in Federal Court. This is the fifth shareholder class action filed this year in U.S. courts against Alibaba, the Chinese eBay, according to the Courthouse News database. It also faces a welter of previous lawsuits accusing it of selling counterfeit goods. Alibaba created a tizzy on Wall Street when it began offering its stock in September 2014. It calls itself "the largest online and mobile commerce company in the world in terms of gross merchandise volume." Chao claims the defendants made false and misleading statements in SEC filings, news releases and in conference calls with investors. She claims that Alibaba did not disclose that in July 2014, two months before its IPO, China's main corporate regulator, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), had given the company "'administrative guidance' about counterfeit and contraband goods sold over its platforms as well as other illegal activity, including widespread fraudulent transactions, the taking of illegal commercial bribes by Alibaba employees, and inadequate controls to prevent illegal sales and other improper activities." Chao claims that during the IPO, Alibaba, Ma and other insiders sold more than 368 million American Depository Shares at $68, raising more than $25 million. Ma sold 12.75 million shares for $867 million, and defendant vice chairman of the board Joseph Tsai sold 4.25 million shares for $289 million, the complaint states. The SAIC posted a "white paper" on its web page on Jan. 28, with information about the administrative guidance it had given Alibaba in July, including accusations of "grossly inadequate and weak internal controls," commercial bribery and fraud, the complaint states. The SAIC white paper was posted in Chinese. The Wall Street Journal and other financial media published translations from the report before the marker opened on Jan. 28, and Alibaba shares sank by $4.49 that day, or 4 percent, to close at $98.45, the complaint states. Alibaba shares were trading at $87.08 at around 8 a.m. on February 18. Its market high was $120, on Nov. 13, 2014. Chao claims that despite Alibaba's representations, its business model is "dependent upon counterfeit sales, trademark violations, sales made through pyramid schemes, false advertising and taking bribes to give sellers preferential treatment. Chao seeks class certification, damages for securities violations, and costs. Also named as defendants are CEO Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu and CFO Maggie Wei Wu. The Plaintiff is represented by: Long Z. Liu, Esq. THE LIU LAW FIRM 923 E. Valley Boulevard, Suite 110 San Gabriel, CA 91776 Telephone: (626) 927-9009 Facsimile: (815) 331-0657 E-mail: office@theliulawfirm.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Blain" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Francine Blain, Nicholas Kalfa, Corinne Bernstein, and Freda Bein Muldoon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00288 (S.D. Ind., February 20, 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. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, 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 ltoops@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com APOTEX INC: Recalls Apothecare (APC) Bisacodyl Tablets ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 18, 2015 Posting date: February 25, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43829 Non-medicinal ingredients not listed on the label. Affected products: Apothecare (APC) Bisacodyl DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02374943 Dosage form: Tablets (Delayed-release) Strength: 5 mg Lot or serial number: MC8485 Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc. 150 Signet Drive Toronto M9L 1T9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc. 150 Signet Drive Toronto M9L 1T9 Ontario CANADA APPLE INC: Beach Road Files Class Action Over Pre-1972 Recordings ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patently Apple reports that late on Feb. 13, a new Class Action lawsuit was filed by Beach Road Music against Apple and Beats Electronics. Beach Road Music notes in their filing that it manages over 3,000 musical copyrights, recorded music rights, name and likeness rights, trademarks, video assets, and life rights for the estates of Nat King Cole, Peggy Lee, and Bing Crosby. They allege that Apple and Beats unlawfully use pre-1972 recordings in their respective music streaming services without license. Nature of the Action The following is directly from the Class Action document filed with the court by Beach road Music LLC regarding the Nature of their Action: "This putative class action involves all musical performances that were originally 'fixed' i.e., recorded -- prior to February 15, 1972 ("Pre-1972 Recordings") that are subject to California, New York, or Florida law. Since January 21, 2014, Beats has operated a service that streams music to consumers known as Beats Music. Beats Music is available on a consumer's internet browser and applications for computers and peripherals (e.g., iPhones, iPods, iPads, and Android-based devices). Since September 18, 2013, Apple has operated a service that streams music to consumers known as iTunes Radio. iTunes Radio is available on a consumer's internet browser and applications for computers and peripherals (e.g., iPhones, iPods, iPads, and Android-based devices). Beats Music and iTunes Radio will collectively be referred to as Defendants' music services. In order to stream sound recordings on their music services, Defendants have made copies of these sound recordings on their servers. Defendants' music services stream Pre-1972 Recordings that Defendants have not obtained the recordings' owners' permission to stream and that Defendants have not paid royalties or licensing fees to the recordings' owners. Yet, Defendants have profited from its streaming of Pre-1972 Recordings in the form of subscription fees collected from its users and advertising revenue it collects from advertising partners. The Defendants' streaming of Pre-1972 Recordings without a license: (a) violates California Civil Code Sec. 980(a)(2) and California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq., ("UCL"); (b) constitutes misappropriation and conversion under California, New York and Florida law; and (c) constitutes infringement of common law copyrights under New York and Florida law. Defendants' improper conduct also violates Florida's law prohibiting statutory theft (Fla. Stat. Sec. 812.014), which is redressable under Florida's civil theft statute (Fla. Stat. Sec. 772.11); an appropriate pre-filing demand in connection with this claim will be sent to Defendants. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to add a civil theft claim under Florida law if that demand is rejected. Plaintiff Beach Road is the legal owner to a library of Pre-1972 Recordings ("Plaintiff's Recordings"), at least one of which Defendants have reproduced, distributed, or performed on Beats Music and iTunes Radio without payment of royalties or licensing fees to Beach Road. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and all other similarly-situated owners of Pre-1972 Recordings that Defendants have reproduced, distributed, or performed on their music services without paying royalties or licensing fees." The Parties Plaintiff Beach Road is a California-based, international multimedia rights-management firm formed by Raphael Tisdale and Seth Berg, two former senior executives of a major record label. Beach Road has its principal offices located in El Segundo, California. It manages over 3,000 musical copyrights, recorded music rights, name and likeness rights, trademarks, video assets, and life rights for the estates of Nat King Cole, Peggy Lee, and Bing Crosby. Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. In June of 2013, Apple introduced a streaming music service called iTunes Radio, which it makes available both in the United States and abroad. the service allows listeners to access many thousands of songs and permits the user to create customizable "radio stations." Defendant Beats is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 81 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. Beats offers a streaming service with over 20 million songs in its music catalog. Beats has been a subsidiary of Apple since August 1, 2014. APPLE INC: 2nd Circuit to Hear Price-Fixing Suit This Month ----------------------------------------------------------- The Wall Street Journal reports that Apple is developing smart watches as its next tech product, even if the Justice Department is still litigating the iPad tablet. The better development is that the antitrust assault on the company is showing cracks. This month the Second Circuit Appeals Court hears a challenge to the special monitor who was imposed on Apple for its alleged price-fixing violations. In 2013 federal Judge Denise Cote ruled that allowing consumers to read e-books on the iPad was an antitrust conspiracy between Apple and the big publishers. She then commissioned lawyer Michael Bromwich to police Apple's antitrust compliance. Mr. Bromwich has since charged Apple in excess of $2.65 million for his services through January, conducted some 80 interviews with executives and staff, and made 10 fact-finding missions to California. According to billing records and his semiannual reports to Judge Cote, which we reviewed, there are new reasons for the Second Circuit to sack Mr. Bromwich and end what is a major abuse even by the standards of modern antitrust. Companies generally consent to special masters when they reach negotiated settlements, but Apple never admitted liability and Mr. Bromwich was embedded over the company's objections, not least because of his long-time political connections to Judge Cote. The fixer-for-hire had no prior antitrust experience but does have the dubious honor of being the first and only involuntary monitor ever in civil antitrust litigation. Judge Cote justified this unusual arrangement by holding that Apple's alleged price-fixing was so egregious that an in-house monitor was the only remedy. When the Second Circuit heard oral arguments in a separate appeal on the antitrust merits in late December, deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart also argued that Apple's new e-books business model was a "classic" and "per se" -- or inherently illegal -- antitrust infraction. But the three-judge panel didn't think it was obvious at all. They pointed out that Amazon controlled 90% of the e-book market when the iPad debuted and "so what we are talking about is a new entrant providing additional competition that is breaking the hold of a monopolist," as Judge Dennis Jacobs put it. Some of the more amusing excerpts from the exchange are nearby. Pressed further, Mr. Stewart retreated to the mere existence of Judge Cote's ruling. "We would concede that there is no smoking gun email in the record," he said, "but if there had been a smoking gun email the district court wouldn't need to write a 160- page opinion." In fact, Judge Cote cited "powerful direct evidence corroborated by compelling circumstantial evidence" that "leads inextricably to the finding that Apple chose to join forces with the publisher defendants to raise e-book prices and equipped them with the means to do so." She also called this evidence "overwhelming," "abundant" and "voluminous." But if it is all so self-evident, why couldn't Mr. Stewart now say the same? In March, Apple will argue that Mr. Bromwich's appointment is illegal and unconstitutional, and rightly so. Article III judges can appoint agents to carry out judicial duties on their behalf. But these servants of the court must be impartial like judges, and not exceed the powers of the judiciary itself, such as by conducting quasi-prosecutorial investigations. For this reason, both the Justice Department and Judge Cote claim that Mr. Bromwich's role is limited to merely reviewing Apple's antitrust compliance and training measures. But the order also includes a clause "to deal with situations in which the monitor, without looking for violations, stumbles upon one," as Mr. Stewart explained it. The problem is that Mr. Bromwich has been stumbling all around Cupertino to conduct a roving, unfettered inquisition into Apple's business, as his own records show and the details of which have not been previously reported. In one April 2014 document, Mr. Bromwich complains that he is treated by Apple "as an adversary and an interloper, rather than a court officer with a defined mission specified by the Final Judgment." The result is that he lacks "a full understanding of Apple's corporate structure, a specific understanding of the functions of each business unit and sub-business unit, and a sufficient understanding of the division of responsibilities among categories of Apple employees." Mr. Bromwich gains a "much better understanding of Apple's business organization and operations" in an October 2014 update as he is given access to all senior executives with the exception of the design and marketing divisions. He even probes units such as Siri voice recognition, the maps group and hardware engineering. None of this is relevant to antitrust. As for Mr. Bromwich's narrow "defined mission," he finds that the live or online antitrust training sessions that are mandatory for 5,000 employees are insufficient because they do not "acknowledge, dissect, and discuss past cases in which Apple was involved." Apparently he wants these seminars to be encounter groups in which Apple workers come to terms with misdeeds they vigorously deny. Mr. Bromwich believes that "the tone must be established at the top and transmitted throughout the company on a continuing basis by word and deed," and thus he requests to attend in person a June 2014 antitrust workshop conducted by the superlawyer David Boies for the 10 senior-most executives. Citing attorney-client privilege, Apple provides him with a redacted video instead. Mr. Bromwich is displeased. Another grievance is that Apple refuses to provide him the agendas and minutes from the executive team's regular Feb. 16 meeting, or from the Apple board's audit and finance committees. Mr. Bromwich calls it "surprising and disappointing" that members of the board aren't provided with copies of his musings "as something relevant to consider in the discharge of its oversight responsibilities." Mr. Bromwich's main demand is that Apple conduct a rolling "antitrust risk assessment" in order to "identify those businesses and employees that require the most attention and the specific antitrust issues that merit emphasis." The substance of this systematic internal audit would then be turned over to him to decide if the antitrust program is "sufficiently comprehensive and effective for Apple." But Apple has good reason to wonder if Mr. Bromwich can be trusted with such confidential, privileged business information, given his extensive ex parte communications with Apple's litigation adversaries. Those include the Justice Department as well as the plaintiff states and class-action attorneys who are suing Apple for nearly $800 million in antitrust damages. Mr. Bromwich's invoices to Apple, which were initially redacted, show that for at least four months he was closely collaborating with DoJ lawyers and state Attorneys General. He puts in three hours on Oct. 21, 2013, for example, with an entry to "prepare for call w state AGs; Conf call w CT, NY and TX AGs." He notches 5.75 hours on Nov. 15, 2013 on matters such as "conf call w DOJ and States re CA trip," and 2.75 hours on Dec. 29, 2013 on "review DOJ draft brief in opposition to motion to stay." That last one refers to Apple's first attempt to remove Mr. Bromwich; in other words, he wasn't acting as a neutral court officer but as an agent of the prosecution -- and then charging Apple for his trouble. Mr. Bromwich bills at $1,100 an hour. Apple can be forgiven for seeing him as an adversary and interloper, because he is. Apple might have settled long ago as most corporations do, and that option might even have been cheaper than a protracted appeal. But the company is doing a public service by attempting to vindicate a legal principle and brake the growing abuse of court- appointed monitors and a crank theory of antitrust that will harm many more innovators if it is allowed to stand. If Apple prevails in the Second Circuit, it ought to sue Mr. Bromwich and attempt to disgorge the $2.65 million he has soaked from shareholders. ARIZONA: Deal Between Corrections Dept. & Inmates Okayed -------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on February 18 approved a settlement agreement between the Arizona Department of Corrections and inmates in its 10 state-run prisons, which should improve medical care for prisoners. Under the settlement , the Arizona Department of Corrections ask the Legislature for increased funding for health care staffing and institute plans to treat prisoners with chronic diseases. The agency, which admitted no wrongdoing, will also give annual flu shots and provide colon cancer screenings and mammograms to inmates of a certain age. Corrections officers are to refrain from using pepper spray on prisoners unless there is an "imminent threat" present. The settlement comes after a 2012 class action in which inmates claimed they were subjected to "unnecessary pain and suffering, preventable injury, amputation, disfigurement and death" in Arizona prisons. They also claimed prison staffs were ill- prepared and -trained to handle medical emergencies. U.S. District Judge David Duncan approved the settlement, and authorized Arizona to pay class attorneys $4.9 million in legal fees. He also required the settlement to be placed in each prison library. * * * In a prior report, Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service related that, according to the complaint, prison staff were not properly trained to handle medical emergencies, "and as a result of this failure to respond properly and timely to emergencies, prisoners suffer avoidable harm and injuries, including unnecessary deaths." There are more than 33,000 prisoners in the 10 prisons. "Critically ill prisoners have begged prison officials for treatment, only to be told 'be patient,' 'it's all in your head,' or 'pray' to be cured," the complaint stated. "Despite warnings from their own employees, prisoners and their family members, and advocates about the risk of serious injury and death to prisoners, defendants are deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of pain and suffering to prisoners, including deaths, which occur due to defendants' failure to provide minimally adequate health care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment." The Department of Corrections, without admitting wrongdoing, agreed to take a number of measures to improve conditions in the prisons, including petitioning the Arizona Legislature to increase funding for health care staffing, administering annual flu shots, and properly treating prisoners with chronic diseases. Prisoners between the ages of 50 and 75 will receive colon cancer screenings, and female prisoners 50 and older will be offered mammograms every two years unless more frequent screenings are required on the prisoner's medical chart. Under the settlement, pepper spray will be used on "seriously mentally ill" inmates in case of an "imminent threat" to the safety of prisoners or prison security. The prisons must provide inmates who are not fluent in English with interpreters, and accommodations must be made for prisoners who suffer "heat intolerance" reactions to medications by moving them to cells that do not get hotter than 85 degrees. The state will allow the prisoners' attorneys 20 "tour days" of the prisons each year, and they will have access to Department of Corrections' records to help monitor compliance with the agreement. After four years, Arizona can petition to terminate the settlement. The agreement does not provide the prisoners with monetary damages, but Arizona must pay their attorneys $4.9 million in legal fees. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald Specter, Esq. Alison Hardy, Esq. Sara Norman, Esq. Corene Kendrick, Esq. Warren E. George, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com ahardy@prisonlaw.com snorman@prisonlaw.com ckendrick@prisonlaw.com wgeorge@prisonlaw.com - and - David C. Fathi, Esq. Amy Fettig, Esq. Ajmel Quereshi, Esq. ACLU NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT 915 15th Street N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 548-6603 E-mail: dfathi@npp-aclu.org afettig@npp-aclu.org aquereshi@npp-aclu.org - and - Daniel C. Barr, Esq. Amelia M. Gerlicher, Esq. Kirstin T. Eidenbach, Esq. John H. Gray, Esq. Matthew B. du Mee, Esq. Jerica L. Peters, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 351-8000 E-mail: dbarr@perkinscoie.com agerlicher@perkinscoie.com keidenbach@perkinscoie.com jhgray@perkinscoie.com mdumee@perkinscoie.com jpeters@perkinscoie.com - and - Daniel Pochoda, Esq. James Duff Lyall, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA 3707 North 7th Street, Suite 235 Phoenix, AZ 85013 Telephone: (602) 650-1854 E-mail: dpochoda@acluaz.org jlyall@acluaz.org - and - Caroline Mitchell, Esq. Amir Q. Amiri, Esq. Dara Levinson, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-5712 E-mail: cnmitchell@jonesday.com aamiri@jonesday.com daralevinson@jonesday.com - and - John Laurens Wilkes, Esq. Taylor Freeman, Esq. JONES DAY 717 Texas Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 239-3939 E-mail: jlwilkes@jonesday.com tfreeman@jonesday.com - and - Kamilla Mamedova, Esq. Jennifer K. Messina, Esq. JONES DAY 222 East 41 Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 326-3498 E-mail: kmamedova@jonesday.com jkmessina@jonesday.com - and - Kevin Brantley, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 851-3939 E-mail: kcbrantley@jonesday.com - and - Sarah Kader, Esq. Asim Varma, Esq. Brenna Durkin, Esq. ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW 5025 East Washington Street, Suite 202 Phoenix, AZ 85034 Telephone: (602) 274-6287 E-mail: skader@azdisabilitylaw.org avarma@azdisabilitylaw.org bdurkin@azdisabilitylaw.org - and - J.J. Rico, Esq. Jessica Jansepar Ross, Esq. ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW 100 N. Stone Avenue, Suite 305 Tucson, AZ 85701 Telephone: (520) 327-9547 E-mail: jrico@azdisabilitylaw.org jross@azdisabilitylaw.org The Defendants are represented by: Daniel P. Struck, Esq. Kathleen L. Wieneke, Esq. Rachel Love, Esq. Timothy J. Bojanowski, Esq. Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq. Ashlee B. Fletcher, Esq. Anne M. Orcutt, Esq. Jacob B. Lee, Esq. STRUCK, WIENEKE, & LOVE, P.L.C. 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 Telephone: (480) 420-1600 E-mail: dstruck@swlfirm.com kwieneke@swlfirm.com rlove@swlfirm.com tbojanowski@swlfirm.com nacedo@swlfirm.com afletcher@swlfirm.com aorcutt@swlfirm.com jlee@swlfirm.com - and - Thomas C. Horne, Esq., Arizona Attorney General Michael E. Gottfried, Esq., Assistant Attorney General Lucy M. Rand, Esq., Assistant Attorney General Katherine E. Watanabe, Esq., Assistant Attorney General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1275 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926 Telephone: (602) 542-4951 E-mail: Michael.Gottfried@azag.gov Lucy.Rand@azag.gov Katherine.Watanabe@azag.gov The case is Victor Parsons, et al. v. Charles Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. CV 12-00601- PHX-DJH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. AURORA HUTS: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss "Mielo" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy of the Western District of Pennsylvania denied defendant's motion in the case CHRISTOPHER MIELO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AURORA HUTS, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-1162 (W.D. Pa.) The plaintiff Christopher Mielo is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who has a mobility disability and is limited in the major life activity of walking, causing him to be dependent upon a wheelchair for mobility. Defendant Aurora Huts, LLC owned multiple retail establishments in Western District of Pennsylvania, specifically in Pittsburgh, Cheswick, Natrona Height, McKeesport, New Stanton, Greensburg, Aliquippa, Baden, Harmony, Butler, Canonsburg and the one plaintiff had visited in 8609 University Boulevard, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. During plaintiff's visit, Plaintiff experienced unnecessary difficulty and risk due to excessively sloped surfaces in a purportedly accessible parking space and access aisle. Plaintiff brings an action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against defendant, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 12181 et seq. (ADA). Specifically, he alleges that the parking lots at 14 properties owned and managed by defendant contain access barriers so as to render defendant's properties not fully accessible to and independently usable by plaintiff and a putative class of similarly situated disabled individuals who are dependent upon wheelchairs for mobility, because of various identified access barriers that fail to comply with the requirements of the ADA. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) challenging plaintiff's standing to bring this action. In the alternative, defendant moves for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Magistrate Judge Eddy denied defendant's motion to dismiss class action complaint and request for a more definite statement. A copy of Magistrate Judge Eddy's memorandum opinion dated January 7, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/xlnjhAfrom Leagle.com. CHRISTOPHER MIELO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- R. Bruce Carlson -- bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- Stephanie K. Goldin -- sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com -- at Carlson Lynch LTD AURORA HUTS, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joni M. Mangino -- mangino@zklaw.com -- Joseph F. Butcher -- butcher@zklaw.com -- at Zimmer Kunz P.L.L.C. AUTO CLUB GROUP: E.D. Mich. Judge Denied Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division granted defendants' motions in the case FRANK MONTELEONE and SHERI MONTELEONE, Plaintiffs, v. THE AUTO CLUB GROUP, and MEMBERSELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-12716 (E.D. Mich.) The plaintiffs' Frank and Sheri Monteleone suffered water damage in their finished basement of their Clinton Township home, which caused significant harm, including loss of personal property, and structural damage to their home. The AutoClub Group, MemberSelect Insurance Company, AutoClub Insurance Assoc., Auto Club Group Insurance Co., Auto Club Property-Casualty Insurance Co., and Auto Club Services are insurance companies. Plaintiffs claim they paid for coverage of water damage claims where water originating from within the home is prevented from leaving the premises. Plaintiffs describe such water damage events as overflows which they claim were covered losses under their homeowner's insurance policies. Defendants denied coverage under the policies' exclusion. Plaintiffs seek to proceed as a class action under the theory that defendants categorically denied valid claims based on an erroneous application of the policy terms, and that all individuals who merely purchased insurance, even those who never filed claims, are entitled to a partial refund of premiums, or like measure of damages, because certain coverage was allegedly illusory. The court denied class certification because issues of liability and damages as to each individual policyholder would predominate over any common questions. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and once again sought to certify a class. Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint. Count I seeks declaratory judgment that defendants' alleged interpretation of certain policy provisions was erroneous; Count II alleges breach of contract on behalf of all homeowners who purchased policies, including those individuals who never filed claims; and Count III alleges breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing on behalf of the those policyholders whose legitimate claims for water damage were improperly denied. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss Count II of the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to deny class certification. Judge Steeh granted defendants' motion to dismiss Count II of the amended complaint as well as the motion to deny class certification. A copy of Judge Steeh's opinion and order dated January 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/DjgyyEfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffa, represented by Amy L. Marino -- amarino@sommerspc.com -- Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Lance C. Young -- lyoung@sommerspc.com -- Jason J. Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com - at Sommers Schwartz, P.C.; Michael H. Fabian - mfabian@fabiansklar.com -- Patrick A. King -- pking@fabiansklar.com -- at Fabian, Sklar The Auto Club Group et al. are represented by: Kevin M. Aoun, Esq. Morley Witus, Esq. BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER, PLLC 211 W Fort Street, 15th Floor Detroit, MI 48226-3202 Telephone: 313-965-9725 Facsimile: 313-965-2493 BRAZOS ROCK: Faces "Lewis" Suit in Texas Alleging FLSA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Glenn Lewis, Mark Morton and Don Brewster, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Brazos Rock, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00013 (W.D. Tex., February 19, 2015) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant (a) failed to pay the Plaintiffs time and one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek; and (b) failed to properly calculate the Plaintiffs' regular rates of pay when determining the overtime premium owed. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON AND BUDD PC 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com BROWN COMMUNITY: Accused of Illegal Conduct Over Fund Transfer -------------------------------------------------------------- Marina Awerbuch, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Brown Community Management, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00333 (D. Ariz., February 23, 2015), alleges that the Defendant limits the rights of consumers with respect to electronic fund transfers through the use of its standardized, form agreements identical or substantially similar to the Automatic Payment Plan Application and Agreement, specifically by, waiving the right to cancel preauthorized electronic transfers in a manner other than in writing and notifying the financial institution, instead of Defendant. Brown Community Management, Inc. is a homeowner association management company doing business within the state of Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com BURBERRY LIMITED: Faces "Citizen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Prince Citizen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Burberry Limited, and Doe One through and including Doe Ten, Case No. 2:15-cv-01289 (C.D. Cal., February 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Burberry Limited owns and operates several retail stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Ricasa, Esq, LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN RICASA 2341 Westwood Boulevard Suite 7 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (424) 248-0510 Facsimile: (424) 204-0652 E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com CADILLAC MOTOR: Recalls ATS 2013 Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 19, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 6431 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015075TC ID number: 2015075 Manufacturer recall number: 15119 Certain vehicles equipped with power-operated sunroof system may fail to conform to Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 118 - Power-Operated Window, Partition and Roof Panel Systems. The roof panels could close automatically when the non-recessed portion of the "Slide" or "Tilt" switches are pressed and the roof panel is open, which is contrary to the standard. The switch could be more susceptible to an inadvertent actuation, which could result in unintended auto-closure of the roof panel, increasing the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the roof console accessory switch trim plate. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CADILLAC ATS 2013 CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Hires Manager to Deal With Jail Overcrowding --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Laday, writing for South Jersey Times, reports that Camden County officials have temporarily filled a top position at the county jail responsible for dealing with overcrowding issues, following a letter from a federal judge demanding to know why the job had been vacant since November. Working through the Florida-based consulting firm Luminosity, the county has hired Patrick Jablonski as its newest jail population manager. Tasked with bringing the jail's current population of 1,376 more in line with its official capacity of 1,267, Mr. Jablonski will serve at the position until a permanent replacement is found. He is the sixth person to hold the title in the past four years. "We've contracted with Luminosity, which is extremely well regarded in population management, to a year-long agreement to help us with the jail population," said Camden County spokesman Dan Keashen. "(Jablonski) is going to be short-term, but Luminosity has been very productive, and an asset, so far in identifying someone who will be the long-term population manager." Luminosity helped the county in 2009, when the jail's population had grown to more than 1,800, reducing the number of inmates to 1,278 one year later. The county's move to fix the issue back then had been in response to a class action lawsuit filed in 2005, by a group of inmates alleging the overcrowding represented a violation of their Constitutional rights. However, in recent years, the jail's population has steadily begun to rise back above its capacity. Officials have reportedly connected the new overcrowding issue to the new Camden County Police Department, which has vastly increased the number of police officers on the streets in Camden, which in turn has led to more arrests. U.S. District Court Judge Jerome Simandle penned his letter registering his "concern" with the county regarding the overcrowding issue on Jan. 26. Camden County and Luminosity officials named Mr. Jablonski as population manager on Feb. 9. Meanwhile, the overcrowding at the county jail has forced some inmates to sleep on the floor, according to the accounts of those with loved ones incarcerated in the facility. Stephanie Williams, a resident of Salem, said her fianc‚, Christopher Jones, is currently serving a 364-day sentence in the jail for missing a court date -- a charge Jones and Williams still contest. "When he first came into the jail last August, he said he was sleeping on the floor for a while, and then he got a bed after a few months," Williams said. "He's mentioned the overcrowding to me -- people sleeping on the floor, on mats -- numerous times. It makes no sense to have that kind of situation there." Others have reported there are, in some instances, four inmates sharing a two-person cell. Mr. Keashen stated he cannot comment of specific cases, but reiterated that the county is taking the issue "very seriously." "I can only tell you what the numbers are -- the population is about 1,370, and the capacity is around 1,260," he said. "We are taking this very seriously; the people at Luminosity are well- respected in this field. I can't think of anyone better to help us address this." CAN-AM: Recalls Spyder RT 2013 Models Due to Burn Risk ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 16, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: 3 Wheel Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 1373 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015067TC ID number: 2015067 Manufacturer recall number: PE 14-025 On certain vehicles, the temperature in the engine compartment may rise excessively at low speeds in hot ambient conditions. Elevated temperature in the engine bay may increase the risk of a skin burn and increase the risk of a fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Under development. Should be available by May 2015. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CAN-AM SPYDER RT 2013 CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Sued by Minors Over Violations of Housing Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ethan Whitby, Isabel Whitby, Gabriel Whitby, Savannah Whitby, Kirill Kouprina, Anna Kouprina, Vera Kouprina, Galina Kouprina, Blancis Jhandi, Seth Jensen, Joseph McGhee, Marie Corbin, Anisa Whittenburg, Adrian Whittenburg II, Ashley Guerrero, Eduardo Guerrero, Maya Flores, Brandon Cole, Arezo Nawaey, Arash Nawaey, Carter Stokes, Braun Webb, Caleb Webb, Chloe Webb, Derek Martinez, Richard Garcia Barrows, Emily Williams, Hailey Garcia Barrows, Aiden Williams, Ariel Smallwood, Jamaine Smallwood, Rafael Ramirez, Jr., Ricardo Ramirez, Rebecca Ramirez, Ariset Flores, Adrell Flores, Brett Jensen, and Deborah Jahndi, minors and others similarly situated v. Chelsea Investment Corporation, a California corporation; CIC PHR, LP, a California limited partnership; PHR Inclusionary, LLC, a California limited liability company; Pacific Southwest Community Development Corporation, a California corporation; Lend Lease PHR CIC, L.P., a Massachusetts corporation; SLP, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation; CIC Fairbanks, L.P., a California limited partnership; DDS Fairbanks, LLC, a California limited liability company; CIC La Costa, L.P., a California limited partnership; DDC La Costa, LLC, a California limited liability company; CIC Calavara, L.P., a limited partnership; CIC Calavara Hills II, LLC, a California limited liability company; Silver Sage CIC, L.P., a California limited partnership; CIC Silver Sage, LLC, a California limited liability company; CIC Landings, L.P., a California limited liability company; Ajax-Landings, LLC, a California limited liability company; CIC Management Inc., a California corporation; ConAm Management Corporation, a California corporation; The Schmid Family Trust Dated as of July 22, 1996, a California trust; James J. Schmid, an individual; Lynn Harrington Schmid, an individual; Rosie Terriquez, an individual; and Does 1-500, Case No. 3:15-cv- 00355-H-WVG (S.D. Cal., February 19, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Housing Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew S. Wilson, Esq. WILSON LAW CORPORATION 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 777-9815 Facsimile: (858) 777-9812 E-mail: matthew@wilsonlawcorp.com CHRYSLER: Recalls 200 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Power train Units affected: 3403 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015069TC ID number: 2015069 Manufacturer recall number: R08 On certain vehicles equipped with 9-speed automatic transmissions, the PARK pawl may not properly engage. If the parking pawl fails to engage and the driver does not use the parking brake, the vehicle may roll away after the brake pedal is released, which could result in a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the transmission and repair if necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CHRYSLER 200 2015 CITY FISH: Recalls Candy Smoked Salmon Products Due to Listeria --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 21, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert Sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: City Fish Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9658 City Fish is recalling Salish Seafoods brand Candy Smoked Salmon from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers, food service establishments, retailers, and distributors in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan should not consume, serve, use, or sell the recalled product described below. The following product has been sold in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan from February 7, up to and including February 15, 2015. Please note that some product packages may not bear the same brand or product name as described below, or a brand at all. Also, these products may have been sold clerk-served from deli counters with or without a label or coding. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected product are advised to contact their retailer. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC ---------- ----------- ----------------------- --- Salish Seafoods Candy Smoked Salmon Variable Lot # 6936 Packed On JA.30.15 None Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/hXFoaw CLEANNET USA: Court Orders "Estrada" Case Parties to Arbitrate -------------------------------------------------------------- Esther Estrada, Isaac Carrazco, and Maria Jacobo are California residents who seek to represent a class of individuals allegedly injured by corporate Defendants CleanNet USA, D&G Enterprises, Inc., CleanNet of San Jose, CleanNet of Southern California, CleanNet of San Diego, CleanNet of Sacramento, and individual Defendants Mark Salek and David Crum. Defendants are alleged to operate an integrated business wherein CleanNet USA controls its Area Operators, who in turn sell franchises to individuals. Each Plaintiff purchased a franchise. To purchase a franchise, each Plaintiff signed a franchise agreement. All three franchise agreements contained dispute resolution provisions and class action waivers. All three franchise agreements provide that the parties must first attempt to resolve disputes through direct negotiation. They then provide that, before a demand for arbitration can be made, the parties must attempt to settle their dispute through mediation. If that fails, "[a]ll disputes, controversies, and claims of any kind arising between the parties, including but not limited to claims arising out of or relating to this Agreement . . . shall be settled by arbitration. . . ." Finally, the agreements provide that "Franchisee shall not seek to arbitrate or litigate as a representative of, or on behalf of, any other person or entity, any dispute, controversy, and claim of any kind arising out of or relating to this Agreement. . . ." Plaintiffs not only signed these agreements, they initialed each page. On April 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action. On June 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging sixteen causes of action. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, or to dismiss the complaint. On February 24, 2015, District Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the Defendants' motions to compel arbitration and ordered Plaintiffs to attempt to resolve their disputes, on a solely individual basis, in accordance with the franchise agreements that they signed. The Court further ordered the proceedings stayed pending arbitration. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/gC8jpSfrom Leagle.com. The case is ESTHER ESTRADA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLEANNET USA, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. C 14-01785 JSW, (N.D. Cal.). Esther Estrada, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Allen Wimmer -- cwimmer@emergentlegal.com -- Emergent Legal & Greg Demirchyan -- greg@emergentlegal.com -- Emergent Legal. Isaac Carrazco, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Allen Wimmer, Emergent Legal & Greg Demirchyan, Emergent Legal. Maria Jacobo, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Allen Wimmer, Emergent Legal & Greg Demirchyan, Emergent Legal. CleanNet USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by R. Brian Dixon -- bdixon@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Laura Emily Hayward -- lhayward@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Richard Hill -- rhill@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson. D&G Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles G. Miller -- cmiller@bzbm.com -- Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller, Charles Griffith Towle -- gtowle@bzbm.com -- Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller & Sony Broto Barari -- sbarari@bzbm.com -- Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller. CleanNet of Southern California, Inc., Defendant, represented by R. Brian Dixon, Littler Mendelson, PC, Laura Emily Hayward, Littler Mendelson & Richard Hill, Littler Mendelson. CleanNet of San Diego, Defendant, represented by William Vincent DePaul Whelan -- wwhelan@swsslaw.com -- Solomon Ward Seidenwurm Smith LLP. CleanNet of Sacramento, Defendant, represented by William Vincent DePaul Whelan, Solomon Ward Seidenwurm Smith LLP. Mark Salek, Defendant, represented by R. Brian Dixon, Littler Mendelson, PC, Laura Emily Hayward, Littler Mendelson & Richard Hill, Littler Mendelson. David Crum, Defendant, represented by Charles G. Miller, Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller, Charles Griffith Towle, Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller & Sony Broto Barari, Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller. COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY: Sued in Florida Over Violations of EFTA -------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Wassell, Individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Collection Technology, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-00348-MSS-TBM (M.D. Fla., February 19, 2015) alleges violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Hans Crumley, Esq. CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA 2254 Riverside Ave. Jacksonville, FL 32204 Telephone: (904) 374-0111 Facsimile: (904) 374-0113 E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Veciana" Suit Moved From Florida to Alabama -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Veciana v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-02893, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv- 00279-KOB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Community Health Systems, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2595. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Anderson Benton Dogali, Esq. Geoffrey E. Parmer, Esq. DOGALI LAW GROUP, PA 101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100 Tampa, FL 33602-5146 Telephone: (813) 289-0700 Facsimile: (813) 289-9435 E-mail: adogali@dogalilaw.com gparmer@dogalilaw.com Defendant Community Health Systems Inc. is represented by: Timothy L. Warnock, Esq. RILEY, WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC 1906 W End Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 320-3700 Facsimile: (615) 320-3737 E-mail: twarnock@rwjplc.com Defendant Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation is represented by: Jimmy D. Parrish, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801-3432 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 Facsimile: (407) 841-0168 E-mail: jparrish@bakerlaw.com COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Tywanshia Bowden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. and Cascade Capital, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01236 (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' unlawful practice of collecting time-barred debt. The Defendants own and operate a debt collection company. 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 CONNIE GIPSON: Court Dismisses "Brown" Suit With Leave to Amend --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin issued an order dismissing the complaint captioned WILLIAM E. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CONNIE GIPSON, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13 CV 02084 GSA PC, (E.D. Cal.) and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. A copy of the February 23, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/uOrOhZ from Leagle.com. The Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Pelican Bay State Prison. He brought this civil rights action against defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at CSP Corcoran. Plaintiff names the following individual defendants: Warden Connie Gipson; Sgt. Wilson; Sgt. J. Gonzales; A. Guzman; E. Castro; S. Weber. Sgt. Rasley; Lt. M. Marsh; C/O Saucedo; C/O Scalfe; C/O Miere. Plaintiff brought the action to enforce court orders in Coleman v. Brown, CV-S-90-0520-LKK-JFM. According to Judge Austin, individual suits for injunctive and equitable relief from unconstitutional prison conditions cannot be brought where there is a pending class action suit involving the same subject matter. If Plaintiff seeks to complain about a perceived failure to comply with orders in Coleman, he may contact plaintiff's class counsel. The Court held that it has screened Plaintiff's complaint and finds that it does not state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. However, the Plaintiff will be provided with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court. Plaintiff is cautioned that he may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. Therefore, the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. The Clerk's Office will send to Plaintiff a complaint form, and within 30 days, the Plaintiff must file an amended complaint. The Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to the action via his amended complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. William E. Brown, Plaintiff, Pro Se. CVS PHARMACY: Removes "Patel" Class Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Patel v. CVS Pharmacy, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00765552, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-00288 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from alleged employment discrimination. The Defendants are represented by: Roger L. Scott, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 732-6524 Facsimile: (949) 732-6501 E-mail: scottro@gtlaw.com DEEP CANADA: Recalls Masala Mixed Spices Due to Undeclared Sesame ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 18, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert Sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Sesame Seeds Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Deep Canada Inc. Distribution: Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number:9647 Brand Common name Size Code(s) UPC name ----------- ---- on product --- ---- ---------- Badshah Punjabi Chhole 100 g All codes where 8 901774 002141 Masala Mixed sesame is not Spices declared on the label. DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Frizzell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Frizzell, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00407 (E.D. Cal., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that owns and operates chain of discount variety stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH YOON 624 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 E-mail: syasuda@yoonlaw.com kyoon@yoonlaw.com - and - Peter M. Hart, Esq. Travis Hodgkins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Frizzell" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Frizzell, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:15-at- 00265 (E.D. Cal., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that owns and operates chain of discount variety stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH YOON 624 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 E-mail: syasuda@yoonlaw.com kyoon@yoonlaw.com - and - Peter M. Hart, Esq. Travis Hodgkins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com ELITE SALADS: Recalls White Fish Duet to Clostridium Botulinum -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 20, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert Sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Elite Salads International Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9653 The food recall warning issued on February 10, 2015 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Elite Salads International is recalling Elite Salads brand White Fish from the marketplace because it may permit the growth of Clostridium botulinum. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision, dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC --------- ---------- ---- on product --- ---------- Elite White Fish 200 g Best Before 7 77739 00060 0 Salads Feb. 25, 2015 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/y2g2Q9 ENDO HEALTH: "Mahaffay" Suit Moved From California to Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Mahaffay v. Endo Health Solutions Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00387, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01473 to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violate antitrust laws in connection with the generic entry of Opana ER. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew M. Purdy, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1 Market Spear St. Tower San Francisco, CA 92866 Telephone: (415) 442-1310 E-mail: apurdy@morganlewis.com - and - James Gerard Beebe Dallal, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM 255 California Street, Suite 450 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: jdallal@saverilawfirm.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Ryan J. Mcewan, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM 505 Montgomery Street, #625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com - and - Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq. KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 530 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0331 E-mail: rkalfayan@kkbs-law.com Defendants Endo Health Solutions, Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. are represented by: Joshua David Hess, Esq. DECHERT LLP One Bush Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 262-4500 Facsimile: (415) 262-4555 E-mail: joshua.hess@dechert.com Defendant Impax Laboratories, Inc. is represented by: Susan Harriman, Esq. Benedict Y. Hur, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 633 Battery St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: sharriman@kvn.com bhur@kvn.com - and - Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Esq. Ana Fabish, Esq. Stephen J. McIntyre, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: korourke@omm.com afabish@omm.com smcintyre@omm.com Defendants Actavis Inc. and Actavis South Atlantic LLC are represented by: James Patrick Schaefer, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 525 University Avenue, Suite 1100 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 470-4500 Facsimile: (650) 470-4570 E-mail: james.schaefer@skadden.com FOREST RIVER: Recalls XLR 2015 Models Due to Safety Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 18, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 9 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015073TC ID number: 2015073 On certain travel trailers, The nozzle of the fuel dispensing system may come into proximity with a fuel burning appliance. As a result, the fuel vapor from the nozzle could be ignited by a fuel burning appliance pilot, burner or heating element. This could result in an explosion or fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will move the fuel dispensing station towards the rear of the unit. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FOREST RIVER XLR 2015 FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS: Recalls 2015 Models Due to Safety Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 16, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 49 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015068TC ID number: 2015068 Manufacturer recall number: FL-677 On certain vehicles equipped with a hydraulic brake booster, an incorrect switch may have been installed, potentially disabling brake warning lights in the instrument panel. As a result, warning lights may fail to illuminate in the event of a reduction in brake power assist, causing an unexpected increase in braking effort, which could increase stopping distances and increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will install the correct switch. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FREIGHTLINER BUSINESS CLASS M2 2015 FUEL FOODS: "Gross" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kristina Gross, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fuel Foods, Inc., Erik Leander, and Jeff Taschner, Case No. 9:15-cv-80232 (S.D. Fla., February 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, and an additional equal amount liquidated damages, declaratory relief and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing healthy prepackaged meals to clients in Palm Beach County, Florida. 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 GENCOR NUTRIENTS: "Ryan" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Ryan, et al. v. Gencor Nutrients, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-05682-JSW, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland)) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01209-GW-MAN to the proceeding. The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Testofen or nutritional supplements containing Testofen, an extract of the herb fenugreek. The Defendants advertise and market these products as "testosterone boosters," representing that Testofen has been "clinically proven" to increase free testosterone levels. The Plaintiffs allege that these representations are false, based on universally accepted principles of statistical analysis that have been adopted by the regulatory bodies of every "first world" country, including the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barry Himmelstein, Esq. HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK 2000 Powell St., Suite 1605 Emeryville, CA 94608-1861 Telephone: (510) 450-0782 Facsimile: (510) 924-0403 E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com Defendants Gencor Nutrients, Inc., Ge Nutrients, Inc., and Jith Veeravalli are represented by: Joshua G. Simon, Esq. Matthew R. Orr, Esq. CALL AND JENSEN 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 717-3000 Facsimile: (949) 717-3100 E-mail: jsimon@calljensen.com morr@calljensen.com Defendants General Nutrition Corporation, GNC Corporation, General Nutrition Centers Inc., S&G PROPERTIES, LLC, Direct Digital LLC, Force Factor LLC, Dreambrands, Inc., Pharmafreak Holdings Inc., and Prevention, LLC are represented by: Angel A. Garganta, Esq. Jasmine Kaur Singh, Esq. Robert Leslie Meyerhoff, Esq. VENABLE LLP Spear Tower, 40th Floor 1 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 653-3735 Facsimile: (415) 653-3755 E-mail: AGarganta@Venable.com jsingh@venable.com rlmeyerhoff@venable.com - and - Daniel Scott Silverman, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 299-9900 Facsimile: (310) 229-9901 E-mail: dsilverman@venable.com - and - Sarah S. Park, Esq. VENABLE LLP 1270 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 503-0653 Facsimile: (212) 307-5598 E-mail: spark@venable.com Defendant Truderma, LLC is represented by: David R. Koch, Esq. Steven Bradley Scow, Esq. KOCH AND SCOW LLC 11500 South Eastern Avenue, Suite 210 Henderson, NV 89052 Telephone: (702) 318-5040 Facsimile: (702) 318-5039 E-mail: dkoch@kochscow.com sscow@kochscow.com Defendant Premium Nutraceuticals, LLC is represented by: Daniel F. Crowley, Esq. DANIEL CROWLEY AND ASSOCIATES 37 Old Corthouse Square, Suite 200 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Telephone: (707) 525-8999 Facsimile: (707) 542-4752 E-mail: dcrowley@dcalaw.com - and - Jeffrey Francis Peil, Esq. CHARLES T. HUGGINS JR., PC 7013 Evans Town Center Boulevard, Suite 502 Evans, GA 30809 Telephone: (706) 210-9063 Facsimile: (706) 210-9282 E-mail: jpeil@hugginsfirm.com Respondent NDS Nutrition Products Inc. is represented by: David Robert Clark, Esq. THE CLARK LAW FIRM 1520 Wood Duck Lane Meadow Vista, CA 95722 Telephone: (530) 878-8700 Facsimile: (530) 878-3609 E-mail: drclarklaw@att.net GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Removes "O'Brien" Class Suit to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled O'Brien v. GovSimplified, LLC, Case No. 15-01492-CA-01 (11), was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20702-MGC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Benjamin Boese, Esq. LEON COSGROVE LLC 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 424 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1975 Facsimile: (305) 437-8158 E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com The Defendant is represented by: Harley Shepard Tropin, Esq. Rachel Sullivan, Esq. Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. Detra Shaw-Wilder, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: hst@kttlaw.com rs@kttlaw.com tjl@kttlaw.com dps@kttlaw.com HEIL TRAILER: Recalls 2000 Petroleum Pull Trailers -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 18, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Heavy Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Other Units affected: 9 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015071TC ID number: 2015071 On certain trailers, the cables of the secondary coupling system may not be able to completely restrain the towed vehicle, if the primary Pintle hitch coupling should fail. Failure of the cables of the secondary coupling system may increase the likelihood of a crash and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will install larger secondary coupling cables. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HEIL TRAILER PETROLEUM PULL TRAILER 2000 HERBALIFE INT'L: Former Distributors to Oppose Class Action Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Celarier, writing for New York Post, reports that more than two dozen former Herbalife distributors plan to object to a proposed $15 million class-action settlement with the company that was reached in October, The Post has learned. At least $100 million is required to adequately compensate the class, which represents 1.55 million people, said Douglas Brooks, the lawyer representing the group. A former Herbalife salesman in California sued Herbalife in 2013, claiming it was a pyramid scheme. Dana Bostick argued more than a million former distributors have failed trying to peddle the Los Angeles company's protein shakes and other weight-loss products. Herbalife, which is also under investigation by several federal and state regulators over similar allegations, agreed to settle the suit as a class action without an admission of wrongdoing. The $15 million cash settlement, after lawyers fees, would represent less than $10 for each class member. Objections to the settlement are due March 24. "The proposed settlement is unfair, inadequate and unreasonable," said Julie Contreras, of the League of United Latin American Citizens. She has been organizing the group objecting to the settlement. About 20 percent to 25 percent of the class are "supervisors" -- people who spent at least $3,000 to reach that level. The average loss is typically $8,500 for supervisors, according to Mr. Brooks. Even if the losses were half of $8,500, $100 million would represent little more than 10 cents on the dollar, he said. Ms. Contreras, who has taken 22 complaints from former Herbalife distributors to the Illinois Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission, said she is preparing complaints from three more alleged victims. All 25 are protesting the settlement. One is a Chicago woman who lost more than $118,000 after running an Herbalife nutrition club at a loss for five years, Ms. Contreras said. The proposed settlement also includes some changes to Herbalife's corporate policies, which were put into effect after Herbalife foe and hedge-fund billionaire Bill Ackman pointed out the questionable practices. "These changes are only giving Herbalife defenses in future litigation," said Mr. Brooks. "None of them deal with the fundamental problem of Herbalife, which is that the compensation plan rewards recruiting." J.P. MORGAN: N.D. Cal. Judge Dismissed RICO Claim in "Ellis" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case DIANA ELLIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-03897-YGR (N.D. Cal.) The plaintiffs Diana Ellis, James Schillinger, and Ronald Lazar filed a class action complaint against defendants J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Chase Home Finance LLC. Plaintiffs allege that Chase engaged in fraudulent practices by charging unnecessary fees in connection with defendants' home mortgage loan servicing businesses. By Order dated June 13, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' first motion to dismiss and provided plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs promptly filed their First Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs made allegations on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") claims. Judge Rogers granted defendants motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' RICO claims are dismissed without leave to amend. She observed that plaintiffs have failed to allege an association-in-fact enterprise in this case. A copy of Judge Rogers's order dated January 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Mh8ncZfrom Leagle.com. Diana Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Daniel Alberstone -- dalberstone@baronbudd.com -- Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- at Baron & Budd, P.C.; Marguerite K. Kingsmill -- mkingsmill@kingsmillriess.com -- Charles B. Colvin - ccolvin@kingsmillriess.com -- John Van Nguyen -- at Kingsmill Riess, LLC; Philip F Cossich, Jr -- pcossich@cossichlaw.com -- Andrew Cvitanovic -- AndrewCvitanovic@cossichlaw.com -- David Allen Parsiola -- dparsiola@cossichlaw.com -- at Cossich, Sumich, Parsiola and Taylor James Schillinger and Ronald Lazar, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Daniel Alberstone -- dalberstone@baronbudd.com -- Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- at Baron & Budd, P.C.; Marguerite K. Kingsmill -- mkingsmill@kingsmillriess.com -- Charles B. Colvin - ccolvin@kingsmillriess.com -- John Van Nguyen -- at Kingsmill Riess, LLC Defendants, represented by David M. Jolley -- djolley@cov.com -- Robert D. Wick -- rwick@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling LLP; Jee Young You -- JeeYoung.You@aporter.com -- Peter Obstler -- peter.obstler@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter LLP JAMES BOMBECK: Removes G&J Suit to Middle District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled G&J Marketing and Sales, LLC v. Bombeck, Case No. 14-9233-CI, was removed from the 6th Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-00352-JSM-AEP to the proceeding. The action is for injunctive relief for alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant G&J Marketing and Sales, LLC is represented by: Charles A. Samarkos, Esq. Colleen M. Flynn, Esq. JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP 911 Chestnut Street PO Box 1368 Clearwater, FL 33757 Telephone: (727) 461-1818 Facsimile: (727) 441-8617 E-mail: charles@jpfirm.com ColleenF@jpfirm.com Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff James Bombeck, on his Own Behalf and On Behalf of a Class and/or Collective Action of All Similarly Situated Sales Associates, is represented by: Charlotte Rose Fernee Kelly FERNEE KELLY LAW FIRM, LLC 3201 W Hillsborough Av Tampa, FL 33614-5940 Telephone: (813) 886-3473 E-mail: charlotte@charlottefernee.com - and - Lindsey Wagner, Esq. CATHLEEN SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, PA 250 S Central Blvd., Suite 104-A Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 653-0008 E-mail: lwagner@csapalaw.com JAPAN: Survivors of 1945 Hiroshima Bombing File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Sputnik News reports that survivors of the Hiroshima nuclear bombing are preparing a class action lawsuit against the Japanese government, insisting that it expands the area in which victims are eligible for health coverage. Hiroshima survivors are filing a class action lawsuit against the Japanese government, demanding that it expands health coverage for people exposed to fallout after the 1945 nuclear bombing, Japanese daily Mainichi reported. The survivors, who are not currently receiving assistance under the country's Atomic Bomb Survivors' Assistance Law, have been impacted by so-called black rain. Following the nuclear bomb's explosion, the mixing of radioactive particles with carbon residue from resulting firestorms led to rainfall in surrounding areas. The rain which reached the ground was a dangerously radioactive, sticky, black substance that became known as black rain. So far, 46 people have indicated that they will join the lawsuit, which aims to expand the area officially designated as exposed to black rain to six times what it is today. In 2012, the Japanese government announced that the request to expand the coverage area was "scientifically groundless" and would not grant people exposed to black rain "Category 3" status which means that they were exposed to radiation and would be granted free medical checkups. On August 6, 1945, in the concluding weeks of World War II, the United States dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, killing 80,000 people in the blast and resulting firestorm, and tens of thousands more from resulting injuries. On August 9, 1945 the United States dropped a second nuclear bomb in Nagasaki, killing another 80,000 people. Hundreds of thousands more were impacted by radiation, and later designated as survivors of the bombing by the Japanese government. As of March 2014, the Japanese government recognized 192,719 people as "hibakusha," Japanese for "explosion-affected people." JUNTOS INC: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Rojas and Emigdio Cruz Marcial, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Juntos Inc. d/b/a Barbossa, Mohamed Tariq Hag, and Ernani Assuncao Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-01250 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a Brazilian restaurant located at 232 Elizabeth Street, New York, New York 10012. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Optima Door Lock Problems ------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Kia Optima door lock problems will get a close look in a proposed class-action lawsuit filed by the owner of a 2003 Kia Optima who claims having problems unlocking both front doors. The lawsuit alleges model year 2001-2006 Optimas have defective door lock mechanisms that can lock a person inside or outside the car, leading to a dangerous situation during an emergency. Plaintiff Colleen Davison filed the lawsuit after she began having problems with both front doors. Ms. Davison claims after using the key fob to unlock the doors, the doors would lock on their own simply from touching the door handle. This caused her to open the doors manually by inserting the key into the lock. Additionally, she couldn't unlock the doors from the inside and had to reach outside to unlock the doors with the key. Ms. Davison says there were incidents where she found herself locked inside the Kia Optima and had to forget using the front doors and instead, climb over the seat and exit through a rear door. CarComplaints.com has heard from Kia Optima owners who also claim they have to perform stunts to exit the cars. "Many others have the same problem. Driver's door locks itself when you go to open the door from inside or outside the car. The result is a 3 door car and an embarrassed owner that is relegated to climbing in from the passenger side performing gymnastic moves worthy of a gold medal." - 2005 Kia Optima owner / Chattanooga, Tennessee "Drivers side door will not open with fob or key. I have to crawl through passenger side to get and out. There should be recall and Kia pay for this defect. This is a safety hazard." - 2005 Kia Optima owner / Greenville, South Carolina The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff told her Kia dealership about the door lock problems and was told the repairs would cost about $500, money Ms. Davison would have to pay because the car was no longer under warranty. Ms. Davison had no choice but to drive the Optima while she saved the money to repair the door locks. Ms. Davison had more problems over the next months as it became nearly impossible to manually unlock the doors. Eventually she couldn't open the front doors at all and had to park the Optima, without the ability to lock the doors while the car was parked. The Kia Optima door lock lawsuit alleges the door locks are clearly a safety defect because of what could happen to front seat occupants in various situations. In the event of a crash, fire or other emergency, not having the ability to unlock the doors could lead to disaster. The Kia Optima door lock lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court Central District of California Southern Division - Colleen Davison v. Kia Motors America, Inc. The plaintiff is represented by the Braun Law Group, and the Katriel Law Firm. KMART CORPORATION: Faces First Choice Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- First Choice Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated financial institutions v. Kmart Corporation and Sears Holdings Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00241 (W.D. Pa., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to maintain adequate computer data security for customer information, including credit and debit card data and personally identifying information. Kmart Corporation is a Michigan corporation that operates a chain of retail stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise, including home appliances, consumer electronics, home goods, apparel, grocery & household, pharmacy and drugstore items. Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart and was formed in 2004 in connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears, Roebuck and Co. The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Edson, Esq. 100 Hazel Lane, Suite 300 Sewickley, PA 15143 Telephone: (412) 259-8868 Facsimile: (412) 259-8892 E-mail: lesterlaw@comcast.net - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Erin G. Comite, Esq Edward C. Signaigo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ecomite@scott-scott.com esignaigo@scott-scott.com KMART CORPORATION: Faces Gulf Coast Suit in La. Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Company, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated financial institutions v. Kmart Corporation and Sears Holdings Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00558 (E.D. La., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to maintain adequate computer data security for customer information, including credit and debit card data and personally identifying information. Kmart Corporation is a Michigan corporation that operates a chain of retail stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise, including home appliances, consumer electronics, home goods, apparel, grocery & household, pharmacy and drugstore items. Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart and was formed in 2004 in connection with the merger of Kmart and Sears, Roebuck and Co. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wallace Goodell Jr., Esq. WILLIAM W. GOODELL, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW P. O. Box 52663 Lafayette, LA 70505-2663 Telephone: (337) 412-2724 E-mail: bill@goodelllaw.com KNIGHTS' MARINE: "Fairley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Fairley, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Knights' Marine and Industrial Services, Inc., David Knight, and Brian Knight, Case No. 1:15-cv-00047 (S.D. Miss., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Knights' Marine and Industrial Services, Inc. is a Mississippi corporation that subcontracts with various shipyards and other marine and industrial companies to provide the services of structural welders, shipfitters, pipe welders, pipefitters, electricians, and outside machinists. The Plaintiff is represented by: Virginia Carothers LoCoco, Esq. LOCOCO AND LOCOCO, PA P.O. Box 6014 D'Iberville, MS 39532 Telephone: (228) 392-3799 E-mail: virginia.lococo@lococolaw.com KNUDSEN & SONS: Lies About Blueberry Pomegranate Juice, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Snyder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Knudsen & Sons, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00189-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla., February 19, 2015) is a class action seeking redress for the Defendant's alleged deceptive practices misrepresenting and omitting the true nature of the R.W. Knudsen Family Organic Blueberry Pomegranate Juice. Mr. Snyder alleges that the Product, based on the label and other forms of advertising, represented that the ingredients in the juice product are pomegranate and blueberry juice. However, he contends, the Product contains very little pomegranate or blueberry juice, a fact that the Defendant knew and purposely failed to disclose to its consumers. He adds that the Product consists primarily of water and cheap apple and other juices. Knudsen & Sons, Inc., is an Ohio corporation with its principal office located in California. The Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, advertises, sells and distributes the Product to purchasers throughout the state of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP 5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: jeggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com mpascucci@EggnatzLaw.com KOREA EXCHANGE: Faces Suit Over Carbon Emissions Quota ------------------------------------------------------ The Korea Herald reports that the Korea Exchange, the nation's main bourse and the operator of the emissions trading market, said that only 1,380 tons of emissions allowances -- with a total value of 11.55 million won ($10,500) -- changed hands in the first month of trading since Jan. 12. There was not a single transaction in all but four days -- all in the first week -- during the entire one-month period. Nevertheless, the Korean carbon exchange's poor report card for the first month goes beyond our expectations, and this calls for all concerned parties -- especially government authorities -- to take supplementary measures. One of the urgent problems to be tackled is readjustment of the amount of emissions allowances. Businesses insist that the 1.6 billion tons allocated to 525 installations is too small -- in fact, it accounts for 80 percent of the emission quotas requested by the installations. It is understandable that businesses have been crying foul against emissions quotas, with some going on to take legal action, which is widely seen as justified in some cases. A group of 17 firms in the nonmetal manufacturing sector filed an administrative suit. Their logic is that the nonmetal industry should get a larger proportion of emissions allowances than the metal industry because it is growing far faster, but the government allocations were based on uniform criteria. That petrochemical companies are moving to file a similar class action suit and pressure government officials to review the way they allocated the emissions quotas for each sector and individual installations. In this context, the government did the right thing when it decided to increase the emissions quotas of 40 installations -- out of 243 who appealed their original allocations -- by a total of 6.7 million tons. The government is advised to see whether there is room to readjust the emissions allowances, on the condition that the goal -- for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 million tons by 2017 and 30 percent below the business-as-usual levels by 2020 -- is kept intact. It will do well to devise supplementary programs to help the emissions trading scheme take root early. LABORATOIRE RIVA: Recalls RIVA-Olanzapine Tablets ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 18, 2015 Posting date: February 26, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43907 This lot is potentially contaminated with foreign tablets (Ondansetron 8mg). Affected products: A. RIVA-Olanzapine 2.5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02337126 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 2.5 mg Lot or serial number: C0938 B. RIVA-Olanzapine 5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02337134 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 5 mg Lot or serial number: C1362 C. RIVA-Olanzapine 7.5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02337142 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 7.5 mg Lot or serial number: C1729, C0940 Recalling Firm: Laboratoire Riva Inc. 660 Industrial Blvd. Blainville J7C 3V4 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Laboratoire Riva Inc. 660 Industrial Blvd. Blainville J7C 3V4 Quebec CANADA LABORATOIRE RIVA: Recalls RIVA-Olanzapine Tablets ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 18, 2015 Posting date: February 26, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43907 This lot is potentially contaminated with foreign tablets (Ondansetron 8mg). Affected products: A. RIVA-Olanzapine 2.5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02337126 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 2.5 mg Lot or serial number: C0938 B. RIVA-Olanzapine 5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02337134 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 5 mg Lot or serial number: C1362 C. RIVA-Olanzapine 7.5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02337142 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 7.5 mg Lot or serial number: C1729, C0940 Recalling Firm: Laboratoire Riva Inc. 660 Industrial Blvd. Blainville J7C 3V4 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Laboratoire Riva Inc. 660 Industrial Blvd. Blainville J7C 3V4 Quebec CANADA LAKE LAND: Recalls Smoked Trout & Arctic Char Products ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 19, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert Sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Lake Land Meats & Farm Market Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9650 Lake Land Meats & Farm Market is recalling smoked trout and smoked arctic char from the marketplace because they may permit the growth of Clostridium botulinum. Consumers should not consume the recalled products described below. The affected products were sold in variable weight packages at the following retail locations in Ontario during the periods shown below. Retail Location Address Dates Sold --------------- -------- ---------- Lake Land Meats Farm & 1226 St. Paul St. Up to and Market Retail Store West St. Catharines including ON February 13, 2015. Cheese Shoppe on 90 Locke St. South Up to and Locke Hamilton ON including February 13, 2015. Upper Canada 4159 Jordan Rd. Up to and Cheese Company Jordan Station ON including February 13, 2015. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected product are advised to contact their retailer. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision, dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ --- None Smoked Trout variable None None None Smoked Arctic variable None None Char Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/t4PyEY LAND ROVER: Recalls 2015 Range Rover Sport Models ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 18, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 1 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015072TC ID number: 2015072 Manufacturer recall number: P055 On certain vehicles, bolts which fix the big end bearing caps onto the engine connecting rod may not have been torqued to the correct specification and could loosen. This would result in unusual knocking noises from the engine compartment. If the vehicle was to be operated in this condition, the engine could seize and stall, causing a loss of motive power as well as a loss of power steering and power brake assist. This could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace affected engines. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPORT 2015 LAND ROVER: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Safety Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 19, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Wheels Units affected: 127 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015076TC ID number: 2015076 Manufacturer recall number: P056 On certain vehicles, the wheel nuts may contain a manufacturing defect. The wheel nuts may crack and detach from the wheel hub stud when subjected to shock loading. Correction: Dealers will replace wheel nuts. Locking wheel nuts are not affected by this concern. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER 2015 LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPORT 2015 LAND ROVER LR4 2015 LAND ROVER: Recalls Multiple Models Due Non-Compliance ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 19, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 5839 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015077TC ID number: 2015077 Manufacturer recall number: P059 Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 208 - Occupant Protection. The passenger seat occupant classification system (OCS) may have been calibrated incorrectly during the manufacturing process. This could result in the non-deployment of an airbag, which would increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant in a crash where airbag deployment is warranted. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the occupant classification system (OCS). Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER 2013 LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPORT 2014 LEIGHTON HOLDING: Conceals Financial Black-Hole, Exec Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Nick McKenzie, Richard Baker and Jenny Wiggins at The Sydney Morning Herald report that Australian construction firm Leighton Holdings faces courtroom accusations it concealed a financial black-hole worth up to $4 billion from shareholders, potentially breaching continuous disclosure laws. The allegations from a former senior company manager in the Federal Circuit Court come with the firm facing a series of high- level investigations, including an internal probe into the purchase of expensive gifts for former NSW premier Barry O'Farrell and other politicians and business figures. Fairfax Media can reveal that former senior technical manager Alan Henry told the court that Leighton's chief operating officer, Adolfo Valderas Martinez, and other top executives have been publicly over-stating revenue "for fear" that disclosing adverse results "would jeopardize the company's reputation and financial position". Mr. Henry, a 20-year Leighton veteran, has also alleged that a number of Leighton executives had "suffered extreme stress and anxiety as a result of pressures to falsify or improve inaccurate reporting figures". The revelations come just three years after Leighton was sanctioned by ASIC for failing in 2011 to fully reveal the extent of its financial position in major projects in Victoria and Queensland, causing massive share market losses and a class action law suit that cost the firm $70 million. A Fairfax Media investigation can also reveal that Leighton operating company Thiess has apparently breached its own policies by purchasing a $1195 Montblanc pen for Mr. O'Farrell, who said in a statement he and his staff did not recall receiving the pen. The purchase of the luxury pen is one of a number of expensive items bought with company funds that appear to breach company policies banning gifts to government officials or the purchase of goods unrelated to company business. A company legal source said other egregious examples include the personal assistant of a top company executive using a Thiess credit card to pay for botox treatments and staff using company credit cards while on leave. The latest allegations add to the raft of misconduct claims already facing Leighton and suggest ASIC's previous 2012 sanctioning of the firm for failures to disclose cost blow outs has had little effect on its corporate behavior. The new claims also raise questions about the progress of other longstanding and unresolved probes into the firm. Federal police are expected to soon charge several of former Leighton executives over alleged bribery linked to a multi-million dollar oil pipeline in Iraq in 2010, while ASIC is preparing its own case relating to accounting and disclosure discrepancies linked to a 2010 joint-venture project in India with firm Welspun. On Feb. 16, Fairfax Media revealed how Indian police have issued a criminal summons to Thiess chief Bruce Munro over allegations he and Thiess defrauded Indian businessman Syam Reddy in connection to a massive coal deal. The latest failure-to-disclose allegations are detailed in an unfair dismissal case lodged in November by Mr. Henry. He says he was pushed out of Leighton after repeatedly urging Mr. Valderas and other senior figures to release unflattering financial figures. Mr. Valderas was appointed Leighton's chief operating officer in October 2013 ahead of a $1.1 billion takeover by Spanish construction company Grupo ACS in March 2014. ACS, which controls 70 percent of Leighton, fired Leighton's chief executive and chief financial officer in March last year, appointing former ACS executive Marcelino Fernandez Verdes as CEO and chairman. Mr. Henry has sworn that Mr. Valderas knew of major project blow outs but "intentionally chose to disregard their significance." Among the evidence Mr. Henry has presented to the court is a photo of a whiteboard used during a management meeting in Perth in February last year. The photo allegedly shows a $205 million blow out on the Chevron Gorgon Jetty Project, from $2.688 to $2.893 billion. Mr. Henry said that when he raised the issue of under-reporting on the jetty project at a further meeting with Mr. Valderas and Leighton Contractors managing director Craig Laslett, and questioned whether it should be disclosed to the Australian Securities Exchange, his observations were "not favorably received". "The issues raised were a major concern for Mr. Valderas and the company, particularly in light of the recent change of control and their desire to develop a good reputation," he court case states. Mr. Henry said that during another high-level meeting executives discussed how Leighton should retrieve $1.464 billion from the client on the jetty project, given it had only approved payments of $1.428 billion to Leighton and had rejected most of the additional claims already submitted. Mr. Henry said it later became apparent that the firm had relied on "a knowingly false forecast" of $2.688 billion relating to the Gorgon project Mr. Henry has alleged he was "concerned" by this as the "number was . . . used to uphold the first quarter results publicly issued by Leighton Holdings". The court files state that Mr. Valderas has previously rejected Mr. Henry's claims, but Leighton declined to respond to questions from Fairfax Media. Australian listed companies are required by law to give continuous and honest disclosure to the market so their shareholders are fully informed of the financial position. Mr. Henry has also alleged the company relied on "a total of around $4 billion" in revenue that its clients had not agreed to pay, did not know about or would most likely dispute. He has alleged this "unapproved revenue" stemmed from an oil pipeline project in Iraq, a Hong Kong Kowloon rail terminus project, the Chennai to Nashri Tunnel project in India and the Chevron Gorgon Jetty project. Mr. Henry said he sought to "avoid the victimization that his previous colleagues had suffered [in questioning the failure to act on cost blow outs] by raising the issues with Mr. Valderas on a number of occasions with the hope that the issues would be addressed". "However, in raising these concerns, the applicant received significant push back from Mr. Valderas and the management team, for fear that such results would jeopardize the company's reputation and financial position," the legal claim states. "Not only was Mr. Valderas aware of the shortfalls but he also intentionally chose to disregard their significance despite the number of times the applicant [Mr. Henry] raised them." LENOVO INC: Faces Sterling Int'l Suit Over Preinstalled Spywares ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sterling International Consulting Group, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Group Limited, and Superfish Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00807 (N.D. Cal., February 23, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Shiho Yamamoto, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: jkl@pritzkerlevine.com ecp@pritzkerlevine.com sy@pritzkerlevine.com - and - John A. Kehoe, Esq. 41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor New York, New York 10010 Telephone: (917) 525-2190 Facsimile: (917) 525-2184 E-mail: jak@pritzkerlevine.com LIFE SCIENCE: Recalls Ironkids Gummies due to Missing Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 17, 2015 Posting date: February 26, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Natural health products Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43895 Recall initiated due to missing labels on the bottles Affected products: Ironkids Omega-3 Gummies DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM NPN 80031182 Dosage form: Block Strength: Fish oil 90.0 mg (Omega-3 Fatty acids 25.0 mg; Eicosapentaenoic acid 5.0 mg; Docosahexaenoic acid 20.0 mg) Lot or serial number: 14233 Recalling Firm: Life Science Nutritionals 1190 Lemay Street Acton Vale J0H 1A0 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Life Science Nutritionals 6-5040 Mainway Burlington L7L 7G5 Ontario CANADA LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Court Appoints Coyler as Lead Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------- In ADAM ZHAMUKHANOV, Plaintiff, v. ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-04416-LHK, (N.D. Cal.), before the Court are three motions to appoint lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel. The first is Plaintiff Dennis Simcox's motion for appointment of Simcox as lead plaintiff and approval of Simcox's selection of counsel. The second is Plaintiff Rick L. Coyler's unopposed motion for appointment of Coyler as lead plaintiff and approval of Coyler's selection of counsel. The third is Plaintiff Harry Zweifel's motion to appoint Zweifel as lead plaintiff and approval of Zweifel's selection of counsel. Defendants have filed a statement of non-opposition to all three of Plaintiffs' motions and have stated they take no position as to the appointment of lead plaintiff and/or the selection of lead counsel. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), District Judge Lucy H. Koh finds all three motions appropriate for determination without oral argument, and thus vacates the hearing set for these motions on March 26, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. The Court further grants Coyler's unopposed motion and denies the other two motions. Coyler is appointed as the lead plaintiff in this action and Brower Piven as lead counsel, wrote Judge Koh in her order dated February 24, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/H7SIE7from Leagle.com. Adam Zhamukhanov, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban -- jkaban@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Michael Walker -- jwalker@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Koji Francis Fukumura -- kfukumura@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. Richard A. King, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Michael Walker, Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP & Koji Francis Fukumura, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. Timothy E. Morris, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Michael Walker, Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP & Koji Francis Fukumura, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. James H. Welch, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Michael Walker, Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP & Koji Francis Fukumura, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. Dennis Simcox, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.. Rick L. Coyler, Movant, represented by Evan Jason Smith -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsky & Smith LLC. Harry Zweifel, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. MAJOR LEAGUE: Judges Wants Class Members Linked to California ------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge ordered attorneys representing minor league baseball players in a labor dispute with Major League Baseball to find potential class members linked to California, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service. U.S. District Judge Joseph Spero ruled in a putative class action from lead plaintiff Aaron Senne, who claims Major League Baseball underpays its amateur players. Senne played for the Miami Marlins organization from 2010 to 2013. Senne sued three Major League clubs, the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball dba Major League Baseball, and Commissioner Bud Selig in February 2014. Eventually, all 30 Major League teams were added as defendants. Eleven teams sought dismissal in November, claiming they were not subject to jurisdiction in California. Baseball's attorneys argued that the teams' limited contacts with California do not satisfy the court's standards for personal jurisdiction. In a hearing on February 13, Spero told plaintiffs' attorneys to submit an amended complaint with potential new class members who can be shown to have worked for their teams in California. "You need an individual representative plaintiff for each of these clubs that are contesting jurisdiction," Spero said. In separate motions also addressed February 13, defendants' attorneys asked the judge to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida because that's where "the largest concentration of parties and witnesses can be found." Spero said it is unlikely he will transfer the case, because it is a "nationwide case" with many parties inside and outside of California. MANGOS STEAKHOUSE: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Gustavo Adolfo Ortiz Jimenez, Juan Carlos Gonzalez Caceres, and William Isazalopez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Mangos Steakhouse & Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Mangos, Case No. 1:15-cv-00841 (E.D.N.Y., February 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant bar located at 78-14 Roosevelt Avenue Jackson Heights, New York 11372. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence F. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON TENENBAUM PLLC 87 Walker Street, Floor 2 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 620-0938 Facsimile: (646) 998-1972 E-mail: lmorrison@m-t-law.com MARION COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Action Delayed Jail Releases ----------------------------------------------------------- Russ McQuaid, writing for Fox59, reports that Marion County's Sheriff Office faces a class action over delayed jail releases. Terry Clayton's problems began long before he went to court. Mr. Clayton was arrested for battery and intimidation last fall, said Richard Waples, the attorney representing the former inmate in a federal lawsuit against the Marion County Sheriff. On December 10th Mr. Clayton's trial came to a conclusion. "The jury found him not guilty," said Mr. Waples. "There weren't any other charges against him. The judge issued an order right then and there at the conclusion of the trial that he be released. The sheriff then after the trial puts him in chains and handcuffs, takes him back to the jail, imprisons him for another two days before he's finally released." Not only did Mr. Clayton served two months in jail awaiting trial for a crime he didn't commit, he served another 48 hours after the jury found him not guilty because the Marion County Sheriff's Department is bogged down in its processing of inmates in and out of the jail. "The sheriff admits that there's a problem here," said Mr. Waples. "It's widespread, it's systemic, the courts are frustrated by it, defense counsel are frustrated by it, the prosecutors are frustrated by it and certainly our clients, who represent the people who are spending the time in jail when they shouldn't be there, are extremely frustrated by it." Each year the Marion County Sheriff is responsible for booking some 63,000 people into its jail and assorted detention centers. Since the implementation of a new case management system called Odyssey last June, the sheriff has grappled with the mistaken release of inmates who should be held and the delayed departures of arrestees and offenders who shouldn't be. "Not only is it a problem to the person that has to wait in jail for days after they should've been let free," said Mr. Waples, "it's a problem for us all as citizens of the city because we pay to incarcerate people so it's costing more for our government to be inefficient by incarcerating people who shouldn't be there because that's a cost every day." FOX59 News has investigated the inefficiencies and glitches of the Odyssey case management system since its launch. Throughout the summer and fall, loved ones and friends of Marion County Jail inmates called FOX59 News to complain that offenders were not being released days after judges signed their paperwork. FOX59 viewers said their friends and family members were told by jailers that the sheriff didn't have enough staff on duty to process the offenders out in a timely manner. "The sheriff's department says they have 72 hours to release them and that's not the law," said Mr. Waples. "The sheriff's department should release them quickly." In September Sheriff John Layton brought in an outside management expert to examine the Odyssey system and how an offender's case moves from arrest through the jail to the courts and back out onto the streets. "The scope of what I have been involved in is looking at the wrongful releases, and hand-in-hand with the wrong releases, the slow releases and the over-detentions," said Dr. Jon Padfield, a former state representative and president of Proffer Brainchild. "The recommendations that we came up with I'm very confident that we're going to see a substantial decrease in the number of over- detentions." That was in September. Layton's staff promised changes by October 1st. The four men listed in the federal class action lawsuit claim they were over-detained in November and December. "The guys were being held over days after they were ordered released either on bail or if they had been found not guilty or if they had been ordered released on their own recognizance," said Mr. Waples. "The punishment aspect of this is horrible. The conditions are not good in jail and yet they're subjected to these conditions when maybe they didn't do anything and they're innocent, and even if they are guilty of the offenses charged, the punishments are so minor in many of these cases that they're going to end up effectively serving more time than they would even if they go to trial and are found guilty." Mr. Waples estimates over-detentions like those served by his clients have been repeated thousands of times with other inmates during the last year. The attorney sees a class action lawsuit, with its demand of compensation and changes in jail policy and practices, as the most effective remedy to the over-detention dilemma. High above the main entrance to the sheriff's department is a banner proclaiming MCSD as one of the top 1 percent of the sheriff's departments in America. Sheriff Layton, the 2014 Indiana Sheriff of the Year, sought the certification as his department emerged from years of oversight by the U.S. District Court. The current lawsuit invites a federal judge to once again examine the operations and practices of the Marion County Sheriff's Department. When asked for a response to the lawsuit, a spokeswoman for Sheriff Layton told FOX59 News, "No comment as lawyers are still in the process of reviewing the amended complaint." MAXWELL & MORGAN: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Allan Costa, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Maxwell & Morgan PC, an Arizona professional corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00315-NVW (D. Ariz., February 19, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Clark Wigley, Esq. Francis Robert Connelly, II, Esq. Jonathan Adam Dessaules, Esq. DESSAULES LAW GROUP 5353 N 16th St., Suite 110 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-5400 Facsimile: (602) 274-5401 E-mail: dwigley@dessauleslaw.com rconnelly@dessauleslaw.com jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com - and - Kevin R. Harper, Esq. HARPER LAW PLC 207 N Gilbert Rd., Suite 001 Gilbert, AZ 85234 Telephone: (602) 256-6400 Facsimile: (602) 256-6418 E-mail: krh@harperlawarizona.com MAYPORT C & C: Faces "Cowen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Cowen v. Mayport C & C Fisheries, Inc. and Graeme Thomson, Case No. 3:15-cv-00195 (M.D. Fla., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Mayport C & C Fisheries, Inc. is a Florida corporation that is engaged in the business of distributing, packing and selling of seafood. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yolando Ann-Marie Hewling, Esq. FARAH & FARAH, PA 3rd Floor, 10 W Adams St Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 807-3103 Facsimile: (904) 358-5302 E-mail: yhewling@farahandfarah.com MEDICAL CAREER: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Lucinda Yuetter-Beacham, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Medical Career Institute of South Florida, Inc., et al., Case No. 9:15-cv-80226 (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act. Medical Career Institute of South Florida, Inc. owns and operates an educational institute located at 3650 Shawnee Ave., West Palm Beach, Florida 33409. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Sanchez, Esq. ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 665-9211 Facsimile: (305) 328-4842 E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com MILLPOND FARM: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan E. Mendez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Millpond Farm, Inc. and Donna Phillips, Case No. 0:15-cv-60366 (S.D. Fla., February 23, 2015), seeks to recover minimum and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a real estate company in Coconut Creek County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MINNESOTA: Trial Begins in Sex Offender Program Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Dana Melius, writing for St. Peter Herald, reports that Minnesota's Sex Offender Program entered its second week of scrutiny in St. Paul, as the class action lawsuit questioning its constitutionality revealed two widely differing viewpoints. State Sen. Kathy Sheran, DFL-Mankato, continues to watch the trial unfold, a scenario she had hoped the Minnesota Legislature would have avoided by taking leadership and action to make changes to the program. Sen. Sheran, whose senate district includes St. Peter and Nicollet County, stressed at the start of the 2015 legislative session that the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) needed to be amended before the Feb. 9 trial opened. "I obviously believe that the court has given us plenty of direction on what they would like the Legislature to do," Sen. Sheran said prior to the start of the trial. "They've given us time to make changes to the system." But others disagreed. Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, has been vocal in suggesting the trial run its course, which could be several weeks. After that, Cornish said, the Legislature can assess the court ruling and either appeal or begin to redefine the MSOP. It's a tough case either way, both admit. "The public has become very fearful," said Sen. Sheran. "The public does not have empathy for sex offenders." Funding woes add to that dilemma, as the Minnesota Department of Human Services estimates that the MSOP costs $341 a day to treat and house patients, or $124,000 annually. With over 700 individuals in the MSOP, total costs to the system are climbing close to $9 million a year. Gov. Mark Dayton has proposed an additional $6.8 million in state funding over the next two years which would be used to evaluate patients more often and move some to facilities less restrictive than St. Peter and Moose Lake, both which house MSOP clients. Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson defended the program in testimony on Feb. 13. Ms. Jesson stressed that since 2011, when she took over the department, ongoing changes have been made to the program. Ms. Jesson was thrust into leading such change after the Office of the Legislative Auditor the same year pointed out "significant inconsistencies in the commitment process." The class action lawsuit, however, claims that those individuals civilly committed have little hope of ever being released, as attorney Dan Gustafson also argued that treatment options are inadequate. "The door swings only one way," Mr. Gustafson argued. "It's easy to get in . It's impossible to get out." U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank, who is presiding over the MSOP trial, had labeled the program as "draconian" and "clearly broken" in pre-trial hearings. In the 21-year history of the MSOP, only three individuals have been granted conditional discharge from the program. But where to house such individuals remains a political problem, as the first attempt at the development of such an alternative housing facility in Cambridge was met with fierce neighborhood opposition. Locally, the DHS recommended placement of convicted sex offender Robert Jeno at a Le Center facility has also draw opposition. "The community reaction was much more than we'd expected," Commissioner Jesson said after the Cambridge plan was dropped. But Deputy Minnesota Attorney General Nathan Brennaman, arguing the case for DHS, says the state has "a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from sex offenders" and considers the MSOP constitutional. "This program not only does some things well, but does some things better than any sex offender treatment program in the country," Mr. Brennaman argued. "The fact is, these individuals are difficult to treat." But the trial's first day saw four hours of testimony from Deborah McCullough, head of Wisconsin's Sexually Violent Persons treatment program. She was one of four court-appointed experts asked to review the Minnesota's program. And she labeled the MSOP problematic, creating a "climate of despair" for those committed, prompting "hopelessness" and "helplessness." Ms. McCullough and others critiquing the MSOP particularly noted that 52 individuals remained in treatment even though their offenses were committed as juveniles. Commissioner Jesson said improvements to the MSOP may lead to some 40 to 50 patients moving out of the program. She also noted that since 2012, there's been a 9 percent increase in patients moving up to "Phase 3" and an improvement from 25 to 51 percent moving up to "Phase 2" in the MSOP. Funding delayed Adding to Sen. Sheran's concerns was a $10.4 million emergency funding bill for the Minnesota State Security Hospital in St. Peter, which became embroiled in controversy as Dayton launched a surprising tirade of words on Feb. 13 against a fellow DFLer, Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk. Sen. Sheran had advocated for the emergency spending measure two weeks earlier, indicating that the hospital was in danger of running out of finances my March 31 if the additional funding wasn't approved. The Mankato senator, who chairs the Minnesota Senate's Health and Human Services Committee, said safety and security measures put in place last year prompted the funding deficiency at the St. Peter facility. She noted that some 60 security counselors have been added, costing the facility $8.2 million. The admitting area at the hospital was also separated from the crisis unit at a cost of $600,000. Additional training funds of $1.2 million further crippled the State Hospital budget, according to Sen. Sheran. However, Gov. Dayton threatened to veto the emergency funding bill because Rep. Bakk removed a provision which would have allowed for raises to many of Dayton's department heads. Members of both political parties are hoping the two DFLers can mend their ways. MINNESOTA: Class Action Mulled Over Mismanaged Disability Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Serres, writing for Star Tribune, reports that thousands of Minnesotans struggling with physical and mental disabilities have been deprived of basic services and therapy because county governments are failing to spend millions of dollars set aside for disability services. In the last two years alone, nearly $200 million in state and federal money that was allocated by the state for people with disabilities went unspent by counties, state records show. As a result, disabled people were placed on long waiting lists for services and wrongly told that funds were unavailable. The situation has inflamed advocates and state lawmakers, who are now pressing the administration of Gov. Mark Dayton to accelerate long-stalled reforms that would expand access to independent housing, transportation and other services for the disabled. In a letter to Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson, Minneapolis attorney Shamus O'Meara accused her agency of mismanaging at least $1.1 billion over the last 15 years and threatened a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a large group of disabled clients. If the state had managed the money better, prolonged waits for disability benefits, which can last a decade or more, would have been dramatically reduced or eliminated, Ms. O'Meara argues. In February, a coalition of disability rights advocates and providers was expected to introduce a bill that would force counties to spend more of the available money or face action by the state. The advocates blame what they see as a series of "perverse incentives" that encourage counties to be overly stingy with Medicaid benefits, known as waivers, which represent the largest source of money for social services for disabled Minnesotans. "This is a blatant mismanagement of public funds that flies in the face of everything government agencies should be doing to serve vulnerable populations," said Sen. John Hoffman, DFL-Champlin, who plans to introduce the waiver legislation. "It simply has to stop." Human Services officials argue that the advocates are exaggerating the scope of the problem, but say they are preparing to take unprecedented steps to eliminate large disparities among counties in the use of waiver funds. Some counties fail to spend 20 percent to 40 percent of the money allocated to them by the state, while others spend nearly all of what they receive. "Clearly, we need to manage the dollars better," Assistant DHS Commissioner Jennifer DeCubellis said in an interview on Feb. 13. "There is a significant need." At the same time, these officials say critics have failed to grasp the complexities of waiver funding and the challenge of forecasting demand for disability services. In small counties, just one or two complex disability cases could cause overspending. As a result, the state allocates more waiver money than is legislatively mandated to give counties more flexibility. "It's really hard for counties to hit a number year after year, given their changing needs," said Deputy Human Services Commissioner Charles Johnson. 'Too conservative' The legislation and threat of legal action are likely to shine a bright light on the arcane but vital process by which counties divvy up more than $1 billion in annual spending on Medicaid waivers. The waivers pay for an array of services, from personal care assistants to adult day care and integrated work opportunities, which enable thousands of Minnesotans to live in their own homes rather than in institutions, such as nursing homes. The backlog of unused waiver funds originated, in part, from changes the Legislature adopted nearly a decade ago. Counties were required to reimburse the state if they overspent their waiver funds; as a result, they became overly cautious, say disability advocates. A coalition of disability advocacy groups, including Arc of Minnesota and the Minnesota Disability Law Center, are preparing legislation that would reverse the payback provision but require counties that overspend to develop a correction plan. "Right now, too many counties are far too conservative," said Bud Rosenfield, a supervising attorney with the Disability Law Center, a state advocacy agency for people with disabilities. "The money is frustratingly unused, while people are not getting access to supports that would help them live better lives." In pressing for reform, disability rights advocates are emboldened by a 1999 federal civil rights ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, known as Olmstead, that said states cannot keep disabled people in segregated settings if less-segregated alternatives are available in the community. In recent years, the Justice Department has applied Olmstead broadly, using it against government agencies with long waiting lists for community services. Under pressure from a federal court, the state developed a detailed plan in late 2013 to demonstrate that it is complying with the Olmstead ruling. A key piece of the plan called for reduced waiting lists for disability waiver benefits. As of November, nearly 5,000 Minnesotans were on waiting lists for the disability waivers through Medical Assistance, the state's version of Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for the poor. A federal judge overseeing the Olmstead plan has repeatedly admonished DHS for failing to move quickly enough on steps that would reduce the wait lists. "DHS has ignored the problem . . . and now they're forced to explain how they failed to ensure that the money gets to the people it was meant to help," said O'Meara, managing partner with O'Meara Leer Wagner and Kohl and lead counsel for the families. MYCOIN: Investors Mull Class Action Over "Ponzi Scheme" ------------------------------------------------------- With Hong Kong-based bitcoin exchange MyCoin now unmasked as a 'classic Ponzi scheme', the race is on in terms of trying to recover up to HK$3 billion ($387 million) of investor assets around the globe. Randall Arthur, a partner in the Hong Kong office of Kobre & Kim, addresses a number of key questions about what lies ahead: What recourse do MyCoin investors have? "There are no provisions under Hong Kong law or procedure which allow class action lawsuits to be commenced. Individual investors have the right to commence legal proceedings in Hong Kong against MyCoin, or even join together as joint plaintiffs in a claim. However they would only be pursuing the claim on behalf of themselves and not for the benefit of a class of investors. Even if one or more individuals were able to obtain a judgment against MyCoin, it appears that there may not be any assets in Hong Kong against which such a judgment could be enforced. "Unless assets can be immediately identified in Hong Kong or elsewhere in the world -- and steps taken to freeze those assets in aid of the Hong Kong proceedings -- MyCoin and the perpetrators of the scheme would almost certainly use the opportunity to continue to try and hide investors' funds in various jurisdictions around the world, making any judgment obtained that much harder to enforce. "Taking immediate action to identify the whereabouts of investors' assets and to freeze those assets is crucial. It may therefore be in the best interests of the investors to take immediate steps to place MyCoin into provisional liquidation. Once appointed, the provisional liquidators will have wide powers to take immediate possession of all of MyCoin's assets and records, including banking records. They can thereafter engage in a large scale recovery exercise, involving investigations, both in Hong Kong and overseas, to trace where investors' stolen funds have been hidden. Once identified, the funds -- or assets acquired with those funds -- can be frozen and then steps can be taken, whether through legal proceedings or otherwise, to recover those assets for the benefit of the investors." How should investors go about applying to put MyCoin in provisional liquidation? "Simply, as creditors of MyCoin, one or more of the investors would need to present a winding-up petition against MyCoin alleging that there are unpaid debts due to the investors and that it is appropriate for MyCoin to be wound up. It is also possible -- although uncommon -- for the Registrar of Companies to apply to wind up a company if it appears to the Registrar that the company is being used for unlawful purposes, as is likely to be the case with MyCoin. As soon as the petition is presented, an application can immediately be made to appoint provisional liquidators over MyCoin." When provisional liquidators are appointed in this matter, they will begin an investigation into the affairs of the company. What are the top things liquidators need to do right away to minimize losses? "The provisional liquidators (and liquidators once a winding-up order is made) will be primarily concerned with investigating the affairs of MyCoin and identifying, and preserving, whatever assets they can by securing the premises at which MyCoin conducted business, and taking possession of the computers, books and records of MyCoin. The provisional liquidators' team will immediately begin to review the records to ascertain where the investors' assets may be, whether in or outside of Hong Kong. "They will also inform banks of their appointment to ensure any accounts MyCoin has are immediately frozen -- to the extent that such accounts have not already been frozen by the police -- and obtain all relevant banking records. Any funds remaining in any account will be transferred to the company's liquidation account. "In addition, the provisional liquidators will need to interview -- and obtain any relevant information and documents from -- a number of organizations and individuals. These include investors, any employees who can be located; and other agents and advisors involved with the company." "Once the provisional liquidators are able to identify assets outside of Hong Kong, they will likely engage lawyers to take steps to secure those assets, whether through court proceedings or otherwise." How will the fact that there are allegedly no (or few) written records in this case impact asset recovery? "This will make things more difficult, but liquidators are used to dealing with scenarios where there are few written records. In such circumstances they will conduct investigations with the tools they have, analyzing computers, banking records, and other books and records of company. They will also seek to obtain what they can from third parties, whether documents, e-mails, or other electronic records. "It is worth noting that provisional liquidators have wide powers to compel production of documents and information from any party who may have knowledge of the affairs of the company, such as directors, investors, lawyers, accountants, company secretarial service providers, banks, or other agents. If those parties fail to co-operate with the liquidators' investigations, then the liquidators can apply to the court to compel those parties to provide documents and information." MyCoin allegedly operated with a large network of referral sources such as real estate and insurance agents and law firm clerks. Do investors have recourse against these parties? "The liquidators may have potential claims against such parties if there is evidence they were complicit in the scheme. Even if did not know of the scheme and were innocent pawns, liquidators may be able to claw back any payments or commissions made to them by MyCoin. These parties will be an important source of information, and potentially documents, for the liquidators." What might be the long-term implications of this matter in terms of legislation or moves to protect investors in the future? "Legislation, called the Pyramid Schemes Prohibition Ordinance, already exists in Hong Kong which makes it an offence to promote, or knowingly participate in, pyramid and ponzi schemes. Further, ponzi schemes involving regulated industries, such as products regulated by the Securities & Futures Commission, are often more difficult to run and promote, as investors are better placed to do due diligence on the company. "Whilst it is almost certain that MyCoin did not actually trade in bitcoins, it may well have promoted itself as doing so given that the bitcoin industry is not currently regulated. In other words, potential investors would have had less opportunity to investigate the bona fides of the company. In light of this ponzi scheme which falsely promoted itself as trading in bitcoins, there have already been increasing calls for the regulation of bitcoin trading." NATIONAL CREDIT: IFS et al. Dropped From "Gerstle" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum of the Southern District of New York ruled on defendants' motions in the case AVROHOM GERSTLE and PHILLIP COUSER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC, a Kansas Limited Liability Company; INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a Kansas Corporation; RICHARD E. SMITH, Individually and in His Official Capacity with NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC and INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; MARK L. HUSTON, Individually and in His Official Capacity with NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC and INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; BRADLEY E. HOCHSTEIN, Individually and in His Official Capacity with NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC; MARK FLETCHALL, Individually and in His Official Capacity with NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC; KEVIN EMMERICH, Individually and in His Official Capacity with NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC; CHARLES HYTER, Individually and in His Official Capacity with NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC; JACKIE FAGAN, Individually and in Her Official Capacity with NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC. Defendants, NOS 12 CIV 07593 (MGC), 13 CIV 02542 (MGC) (S.D.N.Y.) National Credit Adjusters, LLC (NCA), is a purchaser and collector of consumer debts. Other defendants include International Financial Services, Inc. (IFS) as the sole manager of NCA and have complete authority to direct NCA's affairs. Richard Smith, president of IFS and an investor of NCA, Mark L. Huston, the Chief Financial Officer of NCA, Mark Fletchall, the General Counsel of NCA, Kevin Emmerich, the Operations Manager of NCA, Charles Hyter, the Regulatory Compliance Officer of IFS, Jackie Fagan, manager of NCA and Bradley E. Hochtein. NCA acquired two payday loans made to plaintiff Avrohom Gerstle and a one day pay day loan made to plaintiff Phillip Couser. On January 27, 2012 and June 21, 2012, letters bearing an NCA letterhead and defendant Fagan's typewritten signature were sent to plaintiff Gerstle at a New York address. The letters purported to be "communications from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. On August 16, 2012, an unsigned letter bearing the NCA letterhead purporting to be from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt was sent to plaintiff Couser at a New York address. That same day, NCA presented for payment from Couser's checking account for $125. Although Couser did not authorize that check, Couser's bank paid $125 to NCA from his account. Couser brought suit in the Western District of New York on October 5, 2012. Gerstle filed separately in the Western District of New York District Court on October 11, 2012. Couser's case was transferred, by agreement of the parties, to this Court, and the two plaintiffs filed their first amended class action complaint on October 3, 2013. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 13, 2013. Plaintiffs subsequently proposed a second amended class action complaint that was never filed. The motion to dismiss was denied in part and granted in part with leave to amend on June 26, 2014. Plaintiffs filed a third amended class action complaint on July 10, 2014. They alleged in their amended complaint, (Count I) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (Count II) N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349 (Deceptive Business Practices) and (Count III) N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law Section 5-501 et seq. (Usury). All defendants except NCA move to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). All defendants also move to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Judge Cedarbaum granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as to IFS and all individual defendants except Fagan. Personal jurisdiction over NCA is unchallenged. Count II, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349, is dismissed. Count IV, RICO, is dismissed because there is no jurisdiction over the defendants named in that count. Count I, FDCPA, will proceed against NCA and Fagan, and Count III, N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law Section 5-501et seq., will proceed against NCA. A copy of Judge Cedarbaum's opinion dated January 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/MYMCbffrom Leagle.com. Attorney for Plaintiffs: Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-739-4200 Facsimile: 312-419-0379 - and - William F. Horn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM F. HORN 188-01B 71st Crescent Fresh Meadows, NY 11365 Telephone: 718-785-0543 - and - Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN, LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: 516-522-2621 - and - Mark F. Viencek -- mark@trustedvoice.net -- at LAW OFFICES OF MARK F. VIENCEK, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Glenn M. Fjermedal -- gfjermedal@davidsonfink.com -- Andrew M. Burns -- aburns@davidsonfink.com -- Curtis A. Johnson -- cjohnson@davidsonfink.com -- at DAVIDSON FINK LLP, Attorneys for Defendants National Credit Adjusters, LLC; International Financial Services, Inc.; Mark Fletchall; Kevin Emmerich; Charles Hyter; and Jackie Fagan Jason Nagi -- jnagi@polsinelli.com -- Paul D. Sinclair -- psinclair@polsinelli.com -- Mark. A. Olthoff -- molthoff@polsinelli.com -- Todd H. Bartels -- tbartels@polsinelli.com -- at POLSINELLI PC, Attorneys for Defendants International Financial Services, Inc.; Richard E. Smith; Mark L. Huston; Bradley E. Hochstein; and Mark Fletchall NESTLE PURINA: 7th Cir. Flips Dist. Court Ruling in "Adkins" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In DENNIS ADKINS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and CONNIE CURTS, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY and WAGGIN' TRAIN, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-3436, which the district court has certified as a nationwide class action, Plaintiffs contend that Nestle and Waggin' Train sold dog treats that injured the dogs. The parties have reached a settlement, to which the district court has given tentative approval pending a fairness hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). That hearing has been scheduled for June 23, 2015. The order tentatively approving the settlement has one non-tentative provision: It enjoins all class members from prosecuting litigation about the dog treats in any other forum. One case affected by this injunction has been pending for two years in Missouri, and it was certified as a statewide class action before the federal suit was certified as a national class action. It was on a schedule leading to a trial in May 2015 when the injunction stopped it cold. Connie Curts, the certified representative of the Missouri class, intervened to protest the federal injunction. She contends in this appeal that the district court has violated 28 U.S.C. Section 2283, the Anti-Injunction Act, which provides: "A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." The parties (the representatives of the federal class plus Nestle and Waggin' Train) contend that the injunction is "necessary in aid of [the district court's] jurisdiction". Curts maintains, to the contrary, that only federal actions in rem -- that is, suits about the disposition of specific property -- come within the scope of the "aid of jurisdiction" exception, because only then could a state court's action override the federal tribunal by moving or destroying the property on which federal authority depends. According to the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, when it sought to learn the district court's view of this subject, it was stymied. "The district judge has not explained why he entered the injunction. There are some hints, but nothing more. That won't do. Rule 65(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that every order issuing an injunction must "state the reasons why it issued,"" it pointed out. The immediate question the Seventh Circuit must resolve, therefore, is whether to vacate the injunction and remand for further proceedings, or to reverse outright. "We think the latter step appropriate, for two reasons: first, the final hearing is scheduled for June, and further proceedings in the district court (potentially followed by another appeal) could leave the state litigation in limbo until then, disrupting the state case almost as effectively as an injunction; second, in supporting this injunction the parties do not even contend that it is "necessary" in aid of the district court's "jurisdiction,"" ruled the Seventh Circuit in an opinion dated March 2, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/WbTXoUfrom Leagle.com. "Effective immediately, the district court's injunction is stayed. Curts and the Missouri court are free to proceed. But our mandate will issue in the ordinary course, to preserve the parties' entitlement to seek rehearing," the Seventh Circuit added. NICKLES BAKERY: Ohio Route Sales Drivers File OT Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Sidney Daily News reports that a newly approved class action lawsuit claims that Nickles Bakery misclassified its Ohio route sales drivers and denied them overtime pay. The plaintiff, a Nickles Bakery route sales driver, is represented by Nilges Draher, LLC in Canton, Ohio. The case is filed against Nickles Bakery in federal court under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FLSA requires that hourly and non-exempt workers be paid their minimum wage and overtime at time and a half for working more than 40 hours a week. Nickles Bakery has a long-standing practice of classifying its route sales drivers as exempt sales employees. The result of this classification means that the route sales drivers, who routinely work 50 or more hours per week, are not paid overtime. The class action lawsuit alleges these misclassified drivers route sales drivers as exempt sales employees because their primary duty is to deliver baked products and manage inventory, not to make sales. Nilges Draher will send notice those workers allowing them the opportunity to join the lawsuit. NORDSTROM INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Ogiamien" Case Denied -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, denied a motion for class certification in SHAMEA OGIAMIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NORDSTROM, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-05639-ODW-JCG, (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Shamea Ogiamien sought to certify a class of former, non-exempt employees of Defendant Nordstrom, Inc., alleging that Nordstrom's policy subjected them to bag checks during "off the clock time" without compensation. Nordstrom opposed the certification arguing that individualized inquiries into the random and non-mandatory checks of bag-carrying employees prevents class-wide issues from predominating over individual issues. In his ruling entered February 24, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/L2sM9xfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wright concluded that Ogiamien failed to establish that "the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Shamea Ogiamien, Plaintiff, represented by Kashif Haque -- khaque@aegislawfirm.com -- Aegis Law Firm PC & Roger Richard Carter -- rcarter@carterlawfirm.net -- The Carter Law Firm. Shamea Ogiamien, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel A Wong -- swong@aegislawfirm.com -- Aegis Law Firm PC. Shamea Ogiamien, Plaintiff, represented by Scott B Cooper -- scott@cooper-firm.com -- The Cooper Law Firm PC & Samantha A Smith -- samantha@cooper-firm.com -- The Cooper Law Firm, P.C.. Nordstrom, Inc., a Washington Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dawn S Fonseca -- dfonseca@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. Nordstrom, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie A Dunne -- jdunne@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Dominic John Messiha -- dmessiha@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. PARAMOUNT CITRUS: Faces "Peralta" Class Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- Marcelina Peralta and Rigoberto Monjaraz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Paramount Citrus Cooperative, Case No. 1:15-cv-00263-JLT (E.D. Cal., February 19, 2015) is brought over farmworker rights under the Agriculture Acts. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. KARASIK LAW FIRM 11835 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1275 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-6800 Facsimile: (310) 943-2582 E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com - and - Santos Gomez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ 2901 Park Ave., #B16 Soquel, CA 95073 Telephone: (831) 471-8780 Facsimile: (831) 471-8774 E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com PASADENA, CA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Tax Payers Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- James Lomako, for himself and those similarly situated v. City Of Pasadena, a California charter city, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01256 (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for depriving the Class members' constitutional rights under color of authority of law, specifically by not publicly disclosing information related to the embezzlement of tax payers' funds prior to the closing of nominations period. City of Pasadena is a municipal government entity chartered under the laws of the State of California, a charter city and incorporated within the boundaries of Los Angeles County, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Eberhard Koebel, Esq. PHILIP E. KOEBEL LAW OFFICES P O Box 94799 Pasadena, CA 91109-4799 Telephone: (626) 797-6342 Facsimile: (626) 410-1149 PATTIES FOODS: Raspberries Recalled Over Hepatitis A-Link --------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Jefferson, writing for Herald Sun, reports that NANNA'S Raspberries 1kg packs are being recalled after a potential link to Hepatitis A contamination, Patties announced on Feb. 17. Patties Foods CEO, Steven Chaur, said the further recall was a precautionary measure in the interests of public safety after investigations identified the potential link to a specific source of raspberries in China. "While there are no confirmed test results indicating a potential link to Hepatitis A, we are working proactively with health authorities based on the information they have presented to date," he said. "The specific source supplied raspberries which were packed in Nanna's and Creative Gourmet Mixed Berries, that were the subject of the consumer recall. "The source also supplied product for Nanna's Raspberries 1kg packs, with Best Before Dates up until 15/09/16. "The specific source did not supply raspberries for Creative Gourmet Raspberries 300g and 500g packs. "The supplier of raspberries is no longer used by Patties Foods." Meanwhile, consumers who have eaten berries at the centre of the scare should ignore advice to throw the frozen fruit out and keep the product in case they need to make a claim, a lawyer says. Compensation lawyer Mark O'Connor said consumers should ignore the product recall by the distributors of Nanna's frozen berries because they could be key evidence should a consumer contract the virus. "If someone has consumed some I would suggest they hang on to them -- put them in the freezer, mark them 'poison' or something so nobody else consumes any," he said. "If they become ill later on then they will need to be able to prove that they have consumed the product in question, and my experience with insurance companies is they won't take your word for it." The food scare is ripe for a class action, a Melbourne law academic says. Dr Andy Schmulow, senior research associate in the school of law at the University of Melbourne, says the goods will have breached Australian consumer law if found not to be fit for human consumption. Nine Australians have now tested positive to Hepatitis A after consuming contaminated berries. Three Victorians, four Queenslanders and two people in New South Wales diagnosed with Hepatitis A have all reported eating 1kg packets of Nanna's Frozen Mixed Berries before becoming ill. A national recall has been issued by Patties for the following products: Nanna's Raspberries 1kg packs, Nanna's Frozen Mixed Berries 1kg packs and Patties' 300g and 500g packs of Creative Gourmet Mixed Berries. While hepatitis A typically poses a very low risk to the blood supply, Red Cross Blood Service spokesman Shaun Inguanzo says the situation is being closely monitored and people who have eaten the berries will be banned from donating for two months. He said hepatitis A is almost exclusively spread by ingesting faecal- contaminated food. "As a purely precautionary matter, the Blood Service is asking donors who consumed Nannas Frozen Mixed Berries or Creative Gourmet Mixed Berries and then gave blood either on or after 1 November 2014 to contact us on 13 14 95," Mr Inguanzo told AAP on Feb. 17. The Blood Service screens blood donations for 70 diseases, but not hepatitis A due to its low risk. As the Hepatitis A scare spreads, $14.6 million was wiped off the value of Victorian company Patties Food on Feb. 16. Hepatitus A is a viral disease that affects the liver and has an incubation period of up to 50 days. Symptoms include abdominal pain, fever, loss of appetite, diarrhoea, dark-coloured urine and jaundice. Hepatitis A is spread when food is contaminated with fecal matter. Health authorities expect the number of those affected to rise. Bairnsdale-based manufacturer Patties Foods expanded the recall on Feb. 15 to include all 300g and 500g packs of Creative Gourmet Mixed Berries. Customers who bought the berries were earlier advised to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Patties Foods has been importing frozen berry products from China for the past six years and takes its blueberries from Chile. Professor Enzo Palombo, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Biotechnology at Swinburne University of Technology, said freezing the berries would not eliminate the problem. "While the virus does not grow in frozen food, it still remains infectious," he said. Australian farmers say they are confident that homegrown fruits are the best berries money can buy. Owner of Sunny Ridge Strawberry Farm, Mick Gallace said Australian grown produce was subject to strict rules. "You get a much fresher product which is grown with quality and is sold with a guarantee that you will not get sick," he said. As a precaution, the Australian Red Cross Blood Service says it is working closely with health authorities to determine the risk of hepatitis A entering the blood supply. It is asking donors who have eaten the three affected products and given blood after November 1 to contact them on 13 14 95. PATTIES FOODS: Class Action Over Frozen Berries Looms ----------------------------------------------------- Darren Gray and Deborah Gough, writing for The Age, report that a class action lawsuit is looming over the Hepatitis A food scare linked to imported frozen berries, with law firm Slater and Gordon encouraging anyone who ate the berries and developed the virus to come forward. The firm said it had been contacted by "a number of people" who had contracted Hepatitis A after eating recalled frozen berries imported by Bairnsdale-based company Patties Foods. "Manufacturers of goods, such as the frozen berries in question, have a number of stringent obligations towards consumers under Australian law, and among the most important of these is a clear requirement that any goods they produce must be free from safety defects," said Slater and Gordon Principal Lawyer Julie Clayton. "This means that the safety of goods must be of a standard that people generally are entitled to expect for a product of that nature -- clearly, any food product contaminated with a virus like hepatitis A fails to meet this test," she said. In other developments on Feb. 17 relating to the Hepatitis A scare; * Patties Foods added the Nanna's 1kg frozen raspberries to the three other lines recalled. * Victorian Farmers Federation president Peter Tuohey said the imported food scare was a "wake-up call" to Australian consumers. * Australian berry growers said locally grown berries were grown under strict food standards, and urged consumers to buy Australian-grown produce. * Nine cases of Hepatitis A have been linked to the consumption of berries from one kilogram packets of Nanna's Frozen Mixed Berries. A tenth case of Hepatitis A linked to imported frozen berries was confirmed in Queensland late on Feb. 17, but health officials did not name the product consumed. * The Red Cross said more than 110 blood donors have contacted it recently to report their consumption of Patties frozen berries products that have been recalled because of the scare. Patties Foods said on Feb. 17 that because commercial food production laboratories in Australia were not equipped to test for hepatitis A, Nanna's frozen berries had been sent to the United States and Italy for testing. The Victorian Health Department advised Patties of the potential Hepatitis A link to its Nanna's 1kg frozen mixed berries packets on Feb. 13. Microbiological tests have yet to prove a link between the virus and the berries but tests in the US and Italy should establish if raspberries, supplied in China, are the cause. Test results are expected in two weeks. Patties managing director and chief executive officer Steven Chaur said the common link between the products in all four recalled lines was the raspberries, which came from a supplier in China. "That was a very clear marker for us that the consistency with the two products is the raspberries," he said. "We don't believe at this time that our other products -- sourced from other facilities and other countries and other regions -- are at risk. The common denominator here is raspberries and we believe that could be an area to further investigate," he said. Patties severed its links with the China supplier of those raspberries in November last year but Mr. Chaur denied it was over health concerns and said it was to consolidate supply in China. He said testing for hepatitis A virus was "difficult". No commercial food production testing facilities were equipped to test for viruses like hepatitis A in Australia, he said. "We do test for markers (for hepatitis A) like e.coli which are generally associated with faecal matter. That is a pretty clear indicator if there is any concern," Mr. Chaur said. He said E.coli levels results showed its frozen berries were within safe tolerance levels. "We had no reason to believe these products present a health risk," he said. Meanwhile, Australian growers have noticed a surge in demand for locally-grown berries. At The Big Berry farm in the Yarra Valley the phone has been "running hot" in recent days with people looking for locally-grown frozen berries, said grower Paul Casey. Mr. Casey attributed the interest to the imported berry scare. He reassured Australian berry lovers that they could be confident in the quality of locally-grown produce. "It's produced locally and we know it's under Australian food standards," Mr. Casey said. The 72-year-old said his berries were regularly tested and his operation regularly audited. "The phone's been running hot in the last two or three days, people are looking for frozen berries that haven't bought from me in the past. There's been a dramatic surge in inquiries and purchasing of frozen berries. I'd like to see it continue," he said. Orders from one customer, he said, "have quadrupled in the last couple of days," while new customers were also ringing, he said. PERRY JOHNSON: Court Stays Case Pending Arbitration Result ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion in the case MARIA WILLIAMS-BELL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PERRY JOHNSON REGISTRARS, INC. and TERRY BOBOIGE, Defendants, CASE NO. 14 C 1002 (N.D. Ill.) Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc. (PJR), is an audit organization based on industry standards and registers the organizations if they meet or exceed the applicable standards, and Terry Boboige is PJR's president. The plaintiff Maria Williams-Bell is currently the lead auditor for PJR. Plaintiff contends that defendants Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc. and Boboige, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., and the Illinois minimum wage law, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Sections 105, et seq. by improperly classifying her as an independent contractor, thus PJR owes overtime compensation and wages to her and other similarly situated individuals. The parties agree that William-Bell's individual claims must be arbitrated pursuant to a binding arbitration clause in a contract she signed relating to auditing work that she performed for PJR. However, the parties disagree regarding who this court or an arbitrator should decide whether the claims brought on behalf of putative class members are arbitrable. The defendants ask the court to dismiss the complaint in its entirety pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue. Alternatively, they ask the court to compel arbitration of William-Bell's individual dispute and rule that the classwide arbitration is not available. Williams-Bell argues that the availability of classwide arbitration is a question for an arbitrator and that a stay of the case pending completion of arbitration, not dismissal is the proper procedure when the court compels arbitration. Judge Gottschall granted in part and denied in part PJR's motion to dismiss or compel arbitration. PJR's motion to dismiss based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue is denied. The court, however, compels arbitration of Williams-Bell's individual claim. It further finds that the arbitrator may decide if the class claims are arbitrable. Finally, it stays the case pending completion of arbitration proceedings. A copy of Judge Gottschall's memorandum opinion and order dated January 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/QFOlzFfrom Leagle.com. Maria Williams-Bell, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by: Ryan F Stephan, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-233-1550 Facsimile: 312-233-1560 Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc., Defendant, represented by: Daniel Garth Cohen, Esq. PILCHAK & COHEN, P.C. 3062 E. Walton Blvd. Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2366 Telephone: 248-409-1900 Facsimile: 248-409-1999 - and - Michael A. Warner, Jr. -- maw@franczek.com -- at Franczek Radelet PC Terry Boboige, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Warner, Jr. -- maw@franczek.com -- at Franczek Radelet PC PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Civil Rights ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Philadelphia, Law Department, Case No. 2:15- cv-00868-TJS (E.D. Pa., February 19, 2015) is brought under the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Kocher, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC One Liberty Plaza, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3985 E-mail: ckocher@smbb.com PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY: "Bechtloff" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Bechtloff and William Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Phoenix Technology Services USA Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00483 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Phoenix Technology Services USA Inc. is an oilfield service company with significant operations in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com PIMA COUNTY, AZ: Faces Class Action Over Foster Child Abuses ------------------------------------------------------------ Patty Machelor, writing for Tucson.com, reports that after the first full year of extensive reform to Arizona's child welfare system, Pima County continues to trail state averages for hiring new staff workers and investigating abuse allegations, with more than 200 calls receiving no response last year. And since early last March, when 3-year-old Roman Barreras' skeletal remains were found in an abandoned toy chest, at least eight more children have died or nearly died of abuse or neglect in Pima County. Amelise Beatrice Telles-Lopez and Jacob Patrick Mathews died, and another child suffered significant brain injuries, despite their cases being recently known to Arizona's Department of Child Safety. Statewide reform efforts started in December 2013 after the agency acknowledged failing to investigate more than 6,000 cases of suspected child abuse since 2009. Caseworkers at that time were seriously overburdened, often handling 75 to 80 percent more cases than state and federal guidelines suggested they should. In Pima County, that trend appears to have continued. Of 4,575 calls made between April and September 2014, 221 received no response, DCS records show. Maricopa County, by comparison, failed to respond to 32 of 14,680 calls made during the same period. The uninvestigated calls here, which account for 73 percent of all investigated allegations statewide, were in cases where a child was not believed to be in current or imminent danger. At the start of the six-month reporting period beginning in April 2014, DCS was authorized to employ 293 Pima County caseworkers and specialists, but had 60 vacancies, a DCS financial report shows. That staffing shortage was even larger than it was in July 2013, when the county had 40 vacancies. DCS did not respond to requests for more recent data on Pima County's vacancies. On Feb. 10, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey fired Charles Flanagan, who was charged with turning the agency around after being hired as director one year ago. He replaced Flanagan with Greg McKay, who previously worked at the Phoenix Police Department before becoming head of the Office of Child Welfare Investigations in 2012. As head of that office, Mr. McKay discovered the thousands of uninvestigated reports. Mr. McKay declined interview requests. He steps into the job at a time when more than 17,000 Arizona children are in out-of-home care -- an increase of 13.3 percent from last year -- and as Arizona is facing a class-action federal lawsuit recently filed on behalf of 10 foster children from Maricopa and Pima counties. The lawsuit alleges Arizona's treatment of foster children is so bad it puts them at greater risk than staying home. PIZZA HUT: Faces FCRA Class Action Over Background Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Allison Reddoch, Esq. of Strasburger reports that Pizza Hut became the latest major restaurant chain to come under fire for how it screens potential hires. The lawsuit, filed in New York federal court, accuses Pizza Hut of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), which regulates employers' use of background reports during the hiring process. The FCRA is widely-known as the federal law that regulates the exchange of credit information between credit bureaus and lenders. For decades, most lawsuits targeted the nation-wide credit reporting agencies ("CRAs") and claims against employers were rare. However, since early 2014, there have been approximately thirty FCRA class-action lawsuits brought against employers in the retail, restaurant, theater, manufacturing, and transportation industries. This recent rise in FCRA class actions is likely due to the plaintiff's bar view that the FCRA's remedial provisions are "class action friendly." An applicant or employee may sue an employer for "negligent" or "willful" non-compliance with the FCRA. Class actions typically allege willful non-compliance because plaintiffs can pursue statutory damages (ranging from $100 to $1,000) for each alleged "willful" violation. In contrast, plaintiffs may only recover "actual damages" for alleged "negligent" violations. Typically, because an employer's violation of the FCRA concerns paperwork defects, actual damages are nominal at best. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling that individualized damages issues may preclude class certification in certain cases may have had the unintended effect of increasing the FCRA's appeal to class action lawyers. Many believe that the statutory damages under the FCRA make class certification easier to obtain because individualized damages assessments are unnecessary. Lastly, and quite possibly most appealing to the plaintiffs' bar, is that the FCRA allows prevailing plaintiffs to recover their attorneys' fees. Of course, the headline catching, high dollar settlements have also driven the increase in FCRA class action litigation. In October 2014, grocery chain Publix Super Markets, Inc. and discount retail chain Dollar General Corp. agreed to settle FCRA class actions for $6.8 million and $4 million respectively. While these settlement figures are dwarfed by the number of high-profile settlements in cases brought against CRAs, the plaintiff's bar remains steadfast in their pursuit of class claims against employers. The lawsuit filed against Pizza Hut is illustrative of the most popular claims brought against employers; namely that the employer's background check disclosure form contains "extraneous" language, such as a release of liability, which is not permitted under the FCRA. Another common cause of action attacks an employer's failure to provide any pre-adverse action notice, or if notice is provided, the employer failed to wait an appropriate amount of time before taking final adverse action against an individual. To mitigate any chance of FCRA litigation, employers should first review their written disclosure to ensure that it is "clear and conspicuous" to the applicant or employee that a consumer report may be obtained as part of the hiring, retention, or promotion process. The disclosure must also be a stand-alone document. If the employer intends to take an adverse action, even if only based in part on the report's content, the employer must provide a "pre-adverse action notice" to the individual as well as a copy of the consumer report and the statutory Summary of Rights. If the employer takes the adverse action, meaning it denies employment or takes any other employment action that adversely affects any current or prospective employee, the employer must provide a second adverse action notice, which must include specific text. While the FCRA is silent concerning the minimum amount of time an employer must wait between delivering the pre-adverse action notice and adverse action notice, courts have generally found five business days reasonable. While there is never any guaranteed protection that your company won't share the FCRA spotlight with Pizza Hut, Michaels, Paramount Pictures, Whole Foods, Dollar General, Publix Super Market, or LinkedIn, creating and implementing policies and procedures that ensure compliance with the technical requirements of the FCRA will go far in defending against any claims that your company "willfully" violated the FCRA. PHARMASCIENCE INC: Recalls PMS-Olanzapine Tablets ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 18, 2015 Posting date: February 26, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43903 This lot is potentially contaminated with foreign tablets (Ondansetron 8mg). Affected products: A. PMS-Olanzapine 2.5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02303116 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 2.5 mg Lot or serial number: C302666 B. PMS-Olanzapine 5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02303159 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 5 mg Lot or serial number: C302667 C. PMS-Olanzapine 7.5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02303167 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 7.5 mg Lot or serial number: C302668 D. PMS-Olanzapine 10 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02303175 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 10 mg Lot or serial number: C302669 Recalling Firm: Pharmascience Inc. 6111 Royalmount Ave., Suite 100 Montreal H4P 2T4 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Pharmascience Inc. 6111 Royalmount Ave., Suite 100 Montreal H4P 2T4 Quebec CANADA PHILIPS LIFELINE: Recalls Neck Cords Due to Strangulation Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 20, 2015 Posting date: February 20, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Specialized Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Strangulation Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-43841 This recall involves the non-breakaway neck cord versions of the Lifeline AutoAlert Personal Help Button, Classic Personal Help Button and the Slimline Personal Help Button. Philips Lifeline personal help buttons with breakaway cords are not affected by this recall. Cords that do not have the breakaway design may pose a strangulation risk if the cord becomes caught or entangled on a wheelchair, walker or other protruding objects. Philips Lifeline and Health Canada has received two reports of deaths that were possibly related to the affected products in Canada since 2009. Over 100 000 units of the affected products were distributed in Canada prior to 2011. Since 2011, Philips Lifeline has taken steps to recall the affected products and replace them with the new breakaway version of the neck-cord. However, some of the affected products may remain in the market. The affected products were distributed prior to June 2011. Manufactured in the United States. Distributor: Philips Lifeline Canada Markham Ontario CANADA Consumers who do not already have a breakaway neck cord should immediately contact Philips Lifeline Canada to order a replacement neck cord with a breakaway feature or an alert button worn on the wrist. For more information, consumers can contact Philips Lifeline Canada toll-free at 1-800-387-1215 (24hours/7days per week) or via the Philips Lifeline website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/fbyvV9 PRO DOC: Recalls Multiple Olanzapine Tablets -------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 18, 2015 Posting date: February 26, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43905 Recalled Products This lot is potentially contaminated with foreign tablets (Ondansetron 8mg). Affected products: A. Olanzapine 2.5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02311968 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 2.5 mg Lot or serial number: C302666 B. Olanzapine 5 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02311976 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 5 mg Lot or serial number: C302667 C. Olanzapine 10 mg DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02311992 Dosage form: Tablet Strength: Olanzapine 10 mg Lot or serial number: C302669 Recalling Firm: Pro Doc Ltd. 2925 Industrial Blvd. Laval H7L 3W9 CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Pro Doc Ltd. 2925 Industrial Blvd. Laval H7L 3W9 CANADA REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Action Over Landfill Odors Stalls ---------------------------------------------------------- Ian Bauer, writing for Milpitas Post, reports that a San Francisco law firm's prior class-action lawsuit over odors allegedly emanating from the Newby Island Landfill and Resource Recovery Park on the Milpitas-San Jose border has stalled, after a judge ruled the existing suit was legally insufficient as presented to the court. In 2012, the Evans Law Firm, in conjunction with Detroit-based Macuga, Liddle & Dubin PC, filed a suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Republic Services of Santa Clara County (named in the suit as International Disposal Corp. of California) regarding the San Jose landfill at 1601 Dixon Landing Road, on behalf of Milpitans Peter Ng and Dolly Wu, and other unnamed residents. The law firms' suit -- that largely seeks monetary damages and asks for odor mitigation from the dump's operator -- is separate from an ongoing legal battle over odor between City of Milpitas and the landfill operator that is on appeal. Currently, Milpitas officials are mulling possible litigation against Republic that might look to close the landfill permanently. Under the Evans Law Firm's suit, the firm "alleges negligence and nuisance in the operation of this landfill, and seeks damages for all persons residing within a two-mile radius of the landfill, which encompasses over 10,000 homes and over 30,000 residents," an Evans Law Firm statement reads. "Despite numerous complaints to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regarding noxious odors from this facility, Republic Services Inc. continues to expand its operations at Newby Island." But following challenges by the waste company on the plaintiff's allegations of odor nuisance that hinged on air modeling data, the court ruled in January to deny the lawsuit's assertions. On Jan. 23, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan in part ruled the plaintiff's class-action case was "overly broad" and the members of the class action could not be easily identified as Milpitas residents or persons living within the vicinity of the landfill. The judge also asserted the case itself was not a class action per se. "The court finds that plaintiffs have not sufficiently carried their burden of establishing the existence of an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the proposed class members," Judge Kirwan wrote in his ruling. "For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied without prejudice." Republic Services, in a written statement issued on Jan. 27, was pleased with the judge's decision. "The court issued the ruling based on the current evidence in the record as well as a lack of an ascertainable class and the absence of a well-defined community of interest among proposed class members," Republic Services' statement reads. "As part of the proceedings, the court considered the plaintiff's air modeling data and concluded that it was insufficient to demonstrate an odor nuisance affecting the proposed class. In addition, the court considered expert reports about other odor sources in the immediate area, including the South Bay and the organic nature of the coastal marine wetlands and estuarine streams." Moreover, the company claimed it has "invested substantially in highly advanced odor mitigation technology, and maintains industry-leading management practices." Ingrid Evans, a civil trial attorney, said the ruling of denial without prejudice does not bar her plaintiffs -- who she says number in the hundreds -- from refiling the suit. "Our motion was denied but the issues can be addressed . . . meaning we can bring it again," Ms. Evans said. Saying there are plans to refile the same case with the court soon, Ms. Evans suggested the initial class action -- where a large group of plaintiffs have allegedly been harmed by the same common defendant -- can be brought back as a mass action, also known as a mass tort. In a mass action, claims often involve injuries to a distinct group of individuals who likely reside in the same geographic area. Typically, mass actions are smaller cases than class action suits. Ms. Evans added a trial date had been set for this summer. According to court documents, the suit "alleges that Republic recklessly and willfully failed to take adequate safety measures to protect the nearby public from the noxious odors, pollutants, and air contaminants caused by its day-to-day operations; the landfill includes facilities for the processing of solid waste, compost, construction and demolition material, and gas-to-energy, as well as a recyclery." The suit states "odors, pollutants and air contaminants invading the plaintiffs' property from the landfill (have) frequently forced nearby residents to forego the use of their yards, having to stay inside with doors and windows closed, and interferes with the plaintiffs' ability to freely use their property. The suit alleges the landfill constitutes a public and private nuisance, and that Republic Services Inc. should be held responsible for negligence and nuisance in the operation of their business." Besides Republic, the lawsuit also seeks court action against up to 100 unnamed defendants, described as "Does" in the suit, who are "legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts described above." The plaintiffs' suit states those defendants may be named later as the case proceeds. If the case were to proceed in the future, the lawsuit seeks a trial by jury and an award of "restitution, actual and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest" and "an order that the entrance of . . . odors upon plaintiffs' property constituted a nuisance." In addition, the suit seeks a "temporary, preliminary and permanent order for injunctive relief requiring defendants to expeditiously repair or correct the operation of the facilities in a manner that is practically abatable and economically feasible as determined by plaintiffs' expert, so that odors, pollutants and air contaminants no longer invade plaintiffs' property." The plaintiffs also ask for any "further relief as the court deems just and proper." Ms. Evans is working with Macuga, Liddle on this case. According to the firm's website, Macuga, Liddle & Dubin focuses on class-action lawsuits involving pet food recalls, basement flooding, environmental contamination, governmental liability and consumer law cases. Among its cases, Macuga, Liddle & Dubin has investigated odor complaints from the Riverview Land Preserve -- a municipal solid waste landfill owned by the City of Riverview, Mich., a 12,500- person suburb about 20 miles southwest of Detroit. Ms. Evans' lawsuit comes after her firm sent letters and an accompanying question-and-answer survey in 2012 to Milpitas residents regarding odors allegedly emitted from Newby Island. Evans Law Firm sent out similar letters to Milpitas residents less than a month ago -- containing question-and-answer surveys or "data sheets." QUADRA GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, New United Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- New United, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Quadra Group Development LLC d/b/a Astra Estimating and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01585 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. Quadra Group Development LLC is an Ohio limited liability business consulting company with its principal place of business in Tallmadge, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Michael Good, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd, 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com buslit@andersonwanca.com SANDOZ CANADA: Recalls Polytopic Creams --------------------------------------- Starting date: February 19, 2015 Posting date: February 24, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-43871 Product recalled due to Out of Specification result for the ingredient Polymixine B at 18 months stability testing. Affected products: Polytopic Cream DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 00422908 Dosage form: Cream Strength: Gramicidine 0.25 mg/g Polymyxine B 10000 unit/g Lot or serial number: 667906 Recalling Firm: Sandoz Canada Inc. 145 Jules-Leger Boucherville J4B 7K8 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Sandoz Canada Inc. 145 Jules-Leger Boucherville J4B 7K8 Quebec CANADA SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Violating Communications Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Smith and Daniel Boyd, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-00550-SRN-HB (D. Minn., February 19, 2015) seeks relief pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter F. Barry, Esq. Patrick J. Helwig, Esq. BARRY & HELWIG, LLC 2701 University Ave. SE, Suite 209 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3236 Telephone: (612) 379-8800 Facsimile: (612) 379-8810 E-mail: pbarry@lawpoint.com phelwig@lawpoint.com SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT: Accused of Discrimination by Macedonian Engr. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pellumb Ameti v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and United Technologies Corporation Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00235-JCH (D. Conn., February 19, 2015) alleges that Sikorsky unlawfully discriminated against the Plaintiff, based on his color/national origin/religion (Darker Skin/Appears Middle Eastern/Muslim Faith), in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mr. Ameti is a resident of Oxford, Connecticut, and worked for Sikorsky at its Stratford, Connecticut location. He was hired in 2008 as a Staff Engineer at Sikorsky in Stratford. According to the complaint, his National Origin is Macedonia and he appears as though he is from the Middle East, although he is not. He has darker skin color and belongs to the Muslim faith. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and United Technologies Corporation are Delaware corporations headquartered in Connecticut. Sikorsky is wholly-owned subsidiary of UTC. Sikorsky designs and builds some of the world's most advanced helicopters for military use and is a leading defense contractor. Sikorsky helicopters are relied upon by all five branches of the United States armed forces, along with military services and commercial operators in 40 nations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene N. Axelrod, Esq. Michael C. McMinn, Esq. AXELROD & ASSOCIATES, LLC 8 Lunar Drive Woodbridge, CT 06525 Telephone: (203) 389-6526 Facsimile: (203) 389-2656 E-mail: eaxelrod@axelrodlegal.com mmcminn@axelrodlegal.com SOBEYS INC: Recalls Compliments Fruit Cocktail in Light Syrup ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 16, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Sobeys Inc. Distribution: Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9638 Brand name Common name Size Code(s)on UPC ---------- ----------- ---- product --- ------- Compliments Fruit 398 ml BB/MA 2015MR28 0 55742 50499 6 Cocktail in BB/MA 2015MR29 Light Syrup BB/MA 2015MR30 BB/MA 2015MR31 SPRING LAKE PARK, MN: To Implement Traffic Education Program ------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia Alveshere, writing for ABC Newspapers, reports that on hold for more than a year with threat of legal action, Spring Lake Park's traffic education program is back on the table and will be implemented in the coming months. The City Council Dec. 16, 2013, established the voluntary program, which allows individuals who receive traffic citations for offenses found on the statewide payables list to pay a fee, go through an online education program, pass a test and have the offenses wiped from their records. The next month, before Spring Lake Park's program was up and running, a Wabasha County District Court judge decided the county's traffic education program was illegal under Minnesota law, and a class action lawsuit sprung up elsewhere in the state, including several jurisdictions within Anoka County: Centennial, Circle Pines, Coon Rapids, Lexington and Lino Lakes. So, Spring Lake Park put its program on the back burner. The judge in Wabasha County ruled that a class action lawsuit was inappropriate for this matter. The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. Attorneys have requested a review by the Minnesota Supreme Court, but the city attorney's office found that the Supreme Court will not likely grant the review. "Our program is different than the one in Wabasha, and I don't think we need or should want to wait any longer to do this," City Attorney Jeff Carson said. "We're comfortable now making this recommendation given the state of litigation." Unlike the traffic education program in Wabasha County, the programs in Anoka County, including the one in Spring Lake Park, are court-based. Tickets are filed with the court and the program works as a plea bargain. In Wabasha County, tickets were never filed with the court if the required class was completed. The City Council Feb. 2, 2015, reaffirmed the resolution establishing the traffic education program and a new fund devoted to public safety, capital improvements, traffic calming, signage, community education and other purposes as approved by the council. "It seems like such a good idea," Council Member Bob Nelson said. "Here's something that really works, and they've got to keep throwing monkey wrenches in it." Mr. Carson offered an explanation: "The higher governmental authorities have never liked it when cities found ways to take care of things on their own, including the fines," he said. Fees collected from people who enroll in the traffic education program will be split 25-75 between the city's general fund and the newly created program fund. Spring Lake Park Police Chief Doug Ebeltoft will wait a little longer to implement the traffic education program so that software to run the program will only have to be installed once, as his department is awaiting technology upgrades in squad cars in the next few months. "I'm trying to be fiscally prudent and responsible," Mr. Ebeltoft said. Drivers will be able to participate in the traffic education program up to two times each year. Juveniles and commercial driver's license holders are ineligible for the program. Mr. Ebeltoft is excited to see the program come to fruition. "It's something that we've been patiently waiting for." SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Bowermaster, and Miranda R. Balog, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Squaretwo Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00362 (M.D. Fla., February 20, 2015), alleges that the Defendants use unfair or unconscionable means of debt collection, specifically by impermissibly increasing the amount of debts due from already financially strapped Florida consumers without the lawful ability to do so. Squaretwo Financial Corporation is a Delaware debt collection company, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Harrison Lercher, Esq. Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq. J. Andrew Meyer, Esq. LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA 3900 First St N Ste 100 St. Petersburg, FL 33703-6109 Telephone: (727) 327-3328 E-mail: glercher@leavenlaw.com ileavengood@leavenlaw.com ameyer@leavenlaw.com STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Garnishee Orders ----------------------------------------------------------------- Philani Nombembe and Jerome Cornelius, writing for Times Live, report that a group of security guards, cleaners and farmworkers from Stellenbosch could rewrite the law on microlending. They are applicants in a groundbreaking class action by the Stellenbosch University Legal Aid Clinic that began on Feb. 16. The clinic has hauled 14 micro-lenders before the Cape Town High Court for allegedly deceiving court clerks into issuing emolument orders (commonly known as garnishee orders) that deduct as much as 50% of debtors' salaries. The case is expected to have far-reaching implications for unscrupulous credit providers. The law clinic wants sections of the Magistrates' Court Act that "permits a clerk of court to authorize and issue a court order attaching a debtor's earnings" declared unconstitutional. The National Credit Regulator and the ministers of justice and correctional services and of trade and industry are cited as respondents. The SA Human Rights Commission has been admitted as a friend of the court. The clinic's counsel, Anton Katz SC, said the debtors include farmworkers, cleaners and security guards who "support their families on salaries of between R1200 and R8000 a month". The microlenders had failed to conduct proper "affordability studies" before granting the loans, some of which carried interest rates of up to 60% a year, he said. "The ability of people to earn an income and support themselves and their families is central to the right to human dignity. Any legislation that deprives a person of their means of support or impairs the ability of people to access their socioeconomic rights will constitute a limitation of the right to dignity," said Mr. Katz. At the centre of the controversy is law firm Flemix and Associates, which helped the 14 microlenders collect debt. Mr. Katz said the firm had advised its client to apply for garnishee orders in "alien jurisdictions", including Beaufort West, Kimberley, Johannesburg and Hankey. This was done to avoid certain "restrictions" at the Stellenbosch Magistrate's Court. He urged the court to report the firm to the law society. "This undermines the entire South African court structure," said Mr. Katz. "[It is] trickery, this process is frowned upon as it impedes on fairness." Judge Siraj Desai ordered that the debtors' names not be published. One of the applicants, a 44-year-old lay Aids counsellor, said she had been pressured into signing documents that resulted in R1015 of her R5000 salary being docked every month. She later learnt that an entity known as Mavava Trading 279, from which she had never received a loan, had also obtained a garnishee order against her via the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court in 2013. Mavava and SA Multiloan are also respondents in the case. In court papers, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services Michael Masutha denies that sections of the Magistrates' Court Act are unconstitutional. He says making magistrates responsible for the issuing of garnishee orders would overburden the courts. Experts said on Feb. 16 that clarity on the law was needed. Clark Gardner, CEO of financial investment company Summit, said: "There are between 2.5million and 3million garnishee orders in circulation, and many people have more than one. Outstanding debt, which stands at R75-million, is getting worse. "But the magistrate's courts are pulling up their socks. It's getting harder for debt collectors." He said the problem was a lack of enforcement. "The law is only as good as it is enforced. The court issues on a debt, but there's no one telling them [the credit providers] when to stop, so the orders often don't stop." Jurisdiction was also a problem. "There are no restrictions on where the garnishee can be applied, making it harder to stop. The consumer doesn't have authority to dispute [the order], because the court is not in their jurisdiction," Gardner said. Deputy credit ombudsman Reana Steyn said: "The fact is that in many instances the correct legal process was not followed in obtaining the [garnishee orders]. Consumers struggle to obtain statements and information about their indebtedness. Exorbitant costs and fees are at times added to accounts." She said the Marikana commission had put garnishee orders in the spotlight. Research by the Pretoria University Law Clinic in 2013 showed that the private sector with the highest number of employees with garnishee orders was the mining industry -- 12.9% of the workforce. Ms. Steyn highlighted the importance of the current court case for reform. "From what our office has observed there has been an increase in the number of complaints from consumers in this regard." Paul Slot, director at Octogen debt counsellors, said the case was testing the current practice -- and abuse -- of a law. "If you play a game for too long, you forget the rules. The magistrate's court process was written long ago. People have started to interpret the act in different ways. It [this case] will stop the abuse of the process. It will definitely have an impact on debt collectors," he said. The court case was set to continue on Feb. 17. STRATASYS LTD: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- City Of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stratasys, Ltd., David Reis and Erez Simha, Case No. 1:15-cv-00927 (E.D.N.Y., February 20, 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. Stratasys, Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of additive manufacturing (AM), more commonly known as three-dimensional printing (3D printing). AM systems such as 3D printers create models used in the engineering, prototyping, and manufacturing of end parts used in various industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 490-9550 Facsimile: (212) 986-0158 E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com - and - Joseph E. White III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 60 l Boca Raton, FL 33486 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 STRATEGIC PARASECURITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Nobel Gaubert v. Strategic Parasecurity Services Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-20714 (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Strategic Parasecurity Services Inc. owns and operates a private security company and maintains a corporate office in Coral Gables, FL. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100 Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 921-9994 Facsimile: (305) 574-0132 E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com SYNCHRONY BANK: Discovery on Jurisdiction in Gym Suit Ordered ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge ordered discovery on jurisdiction for a class action alleging that JP Morgan Chase and Synchrony Bank provided One World Fitness with unauthorized lines of credit against the gym's customers. The case is Valerie McMullen v. Synchrony Bank, et al., Case No. 14-1983, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. TAKATA CORP: 3 Suits From E.D. Louisiana Included in Airbag MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- Three class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The lawsuits are: (1) Primeaux, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02551. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20685-FAM to the proceeding; (2) Gilbert Art, LLC v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02520. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20684-FAM to the proceeding; and (3) Burch, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02703. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20698-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. The Burch Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph F. Rice, Esq. Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq. Kevin R. Dean, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com jflowers@motleyrice.com kdean@motleyrice.com - and - Val Patrick Exnicios, Esq. LISKA, EXNICIOS & NUNGESSER 1515 Poydras Street 14th Floor, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 410-9611 Facsimile: (504) 410-9937 E-mail: vpexnicios@exnicioslaw.com TAKATA CORP: "Arnold" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Arnold v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03556, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20689-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Timothy Morrison, Esq. Jay F. Hirsch, Esq. Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq. Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq. POPE, McGLAMRY, KILPATRICK, MORRISON & NORWOOD, P.C. Lenox Overlook, Suite 300 3391 Peachtree Road, N.E. P.O. Box 191625 (31119-1625) Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 523-7706 Facsimile: (404) 524-1648 E-mail: timmorrison@pmkm.com kimjohnson@pmkm.com carolinemcglamry@pmkm.com - and - Thomas P. Willingham, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS P. WILLINGHAM, P.C. 3800 Colonnade Parkway, Suite 330 Birmingham, AL 35243 Telephone: (205) 298-1011 Facsimile: (205) 298-1012 E-mail: tom@tpwpc.com TAKATA CORP: "Considine" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Considine, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-02958, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20688- FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: "Leger" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Leger v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03392, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20700-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: Three Suits From Pennsylvania Included in Airbag MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Three class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The lawsuits are: (1) Vukadinovic v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06648. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20696-FAM to the proceeding; (2) Raiken, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06391. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20694-FAM to the proceeding; and (3) Schafle, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06628. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20695-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TATITLEK SUPPORT: Removes "Chalupa" Class Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Chalupa v. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc., Case No. CIVDS1500452, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00298 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges four claims for relief stemming from his employment with the Defendant. The Plaintiff's claims allege "failure to pay overtime," "failure to provide meal and rest periods," and "failure to provide accurate wage statements" under the California Labor Code, as well as a derivative claim for violations of the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: James W. Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON LAW OFFICE 3877 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (213) 291-0648 Facsimile: (877) 571-0091 E-mail: jj@johnstonlawoffice.com - and - Larry R. Hoddick, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. HODDICK, P.C. 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite C5 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Telephone: (760) 636-5256 Facsimile: (760) 299-4220 E-mail: lhoddick@dc.rr.com The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com - and - John R. Giovannone, Esq. Jon D. Meer, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 333 S. Hope Street, Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: jgiovannone@seyfarth.com jmeer@seyfarth.com TEXAS BRINE: Wants to Halt Evacuation Assistance Check Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- David J. Mitchell, writing for The Advocate, reports that Texas Brine Co. is asking the Louisiana Office of Conservation to allow it to stop $875 evacuation assistance checks the company pays weekly to a few remaining residents and property owners in Bayou Corne. Texas Brine has been making the payments at a total cost of nearly $12 million since Aug. 17, 2012, two weeks after the sinkhole appeared near the Bayou Corne community in Assumption Parish and forced a mandatory evacuation order still largely in place. Texas Brine attorney Troy Charpentier said the company recently made its case in a hearing at the state Department of Natural Resources that methane and stability conditions around the sinkhole have improved greatly and merit an end to the checks. "We think we've proved neither the subsidence nor the gas pose any risk to the residences," Mr. Charpentier said. Office of Conservation scientists believe years of salt dome mining by the Houston company triggered formation of the sinkhole when mining got too close to the outer face of the dome, a large, solid, underground salt deposit. A breach opened in the hollow cavern created by years of past mining, and surrounding sediments filled the void. The sinkhole's formation also cracked open natural deposits of methane gas that posed an explosion risk to homes if the invisible and odorless gas built up inside or under the homes, the scientists said. Under pressure from Gov. Bobby Jindal in 2013 to allow people who wanted to leave to be made whole, Texas Brine directly bought out 65 property owners and, more recently, bought out another 87 in a $48.1 million federal class-action settlement. Mr. Charpentier said the few remaining weekly checks go to residents who continue to live in eight homes in Bayou Corne and to five landowners who were excluded from the class-action. Residents who continued to collect evacuation assistance checks through the end of 2014 -- the checks were retroactive to the start of the evacuation on Aug. 3, 2012 -- took in about $112,000 per family. Donaldsonville attorney Sidney Marchand III, who attended the hearing in January at DNR, represents some of the families who remain in Bayou Corne and who have their own pending damages lawsuit against Texas Brine. He said his clients oppose ending the weekly checks. "The payments were started when the evacuation order was issued, and it's still in effect, and they feel subject to the evacuation order, they have to be ready to evacuate, and nothing has changed. The payments should continue," Mr. Marchand said. Residents who took home buyouts from Texas Brine continued to receive their evacuation assistance payments until sales closed. "Equal treatment is a factor," Mr. Marchand said of his clients, who aren't seeking home buyouts but have damage claims against Texas Brine. With exception of one property in bankruptcy, buyouts through the class-action suit were completed by Jan. 31, said Sonny Cranch, Texas Brine spokesman. Underpinning Texas Brine's bid to end the weekly checks is its assessment of conditions in and around the sinkhole. Both the threat of gas and the sinkhole's instability were factors in the evacuation order that came the same day the sinkhole was discovered, Aug. 3, 2012, parish officials have said. Under the terms of a 1982 salt dome drilling permit with the Office of Conservation, Texas Brine must provide assistance to residents required to evacuate "if the area of collapse appears to threaten any residents." Mr. Charpentier said the company's experts and officials believe the 31-acre sinkhole is not a threat to homes. They pointed out that the breached cavern, whose once-great empty space drove the sinkhole's formation, has been completely filled with surrounding sediments. The sinkhole is now only finding its final, natural shape along its edges, they claim. Meanwhile, gas removal is winding down, and methane has not been measured in homes over the past two years, Mr. Charpentier said. Methane gas still bubbles in area bayous, however, and tremors still periodically intensify and rattle around the sinkhole and in the nearby dome. Bruce Martin, Texas Brine vice president of operations, said the bubble sites are greatly diminished and the tremors are not as severe as they had been previously. The mandatory evacuation remains in place over Bayou Corne but has been reduced a notch to "voluntary" in nearby Grand Bayou while authorities seek to verify Texas Brine's claims that the gas risk there has been mitigated. Parish officials have said they expect Texas Brine to submit data soon that could result in a similar voluntary order for the northern half of Bayou Corne. Patrick Courreges, DNR spokesman, said on Feb. 13 that the Office of Conservation, which is part of DNR and oversees salt dome mining, is evaluating the request and has 30 days from the Jan. 28 hearing to make a decision. TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2015 Yaris Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 72 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015070TC ID number: 2015070 Manufacturer recall number: SRC R04 On certain vehicles, the rear axle hub bearing assembly bolt may not have been tightened properly. This could cause the bolts to become loose and detach from the hub assembly, which could damage the rear brake components. This could increase stopping distances and could also potentially cause wheel lock up, resulting in vehicle instability increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect bolts and tighten to specification. If bolts are missing, the rear axle hub bearing assembly and rear brake components will be replaced. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- TOYOTA YARIS 2015 TRINITY UNIVERSAL: Court Tosses Bid to Remand "Burton" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS E. BURTON, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ALPHA PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, MERASTAR INSURANCE COMPANY, KEMPER CORPORATION and SYDNEY MARIE GARBEDIAN, Defendants, NO. CV 14-242-M-DWM, (D. Mont.) alleges that Mr. Burton suffered bodily and property damage as a result of an automobile accident and that his insurer, Trinity Universal Insurance Company, aided and abetted by the other defendant insurance companies, Alpha Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Financial Indemnity Company, Merastar Insurance Company, and Kemper Corporation, illegally sought subrogation from the at-fault driver before he was made whole. Plaintiff claims Defendants are part of a common scheme to deny insured Montanans appropriate benefits through wrongful collection of subrogation funds and seeks to represent a class of individuals who have suffered similar injuries. Defendants removed the case on the theory that it is a class action with diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy of more than $5 million. Plaintiff is unhappy with Defendants impeding his choice of forum and has filed a motion to remand. Plaintiff insists removal was improper because Defendants have failed in their burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy meets the necessary $5 million threshold for class action diversity jurisdiction. According to District Judge Donald W. Molloy, "Plaintiff argues that Defendants have failed to meet their burden because Defendants' amount in controversy calculation is excessive as to the compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief sought in the Complaint. However, Defendants have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees at issue exceed $5,000,000.00." Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied, ruled Judge Molloy. The Court further ordered that Defendants' Motion to Compel Appraisal and Dismiss or Stay or, Alternatively, Dismiss Counts Three Through Eight and Dismiss the Action as to Kemper Corporation, is no longer stayed. Plaintiff's Response must be filed no later than March 17, 2015. Defendants' optional Reply must be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)(C). A copy of the February 24, 2015 ruling is available at http://is.gd/LrvrdGfrom Leagle.com. Dennis E. Burton, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alan J. Lerner -- lerner@lernerlawmt.com -- LERNER LAW FIRM, Allan M. McGarvey, McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, Judah M. Gersh, VISCOMI & GERSH, PLLP & Brian Joos, VISCOMI & GERSH, PLLP. Trinity Universal Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Peter F. Habein -- phabein@crowleyfleck.com -- CROWLEY FLECK PLLP. Alpha Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Peter F. Habein, CROWLEY FLECK PLLP. Financial Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Peter F. Habein, CROWLEY FLECK PLLP. Merastar Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Peter F. Habein, CROWLEY FLECK PLLP. Kemper Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter F. Habein, CROWLEY FLECK PLLP. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: California Court Rulings Ominous, Atty. Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Marshall Martin, Esq., in an article for Albuquerque Journal, reports that two federal courts in California have just sent an ominous message to Uber and Lyft. Whether the message will reach New Mexico or have nationwide impact is uncertain. Former Lyft and Uber drivers brought separate class-action suits against Uber and Lyft under California wage and hours laws, alleging they were "employees" and therefore due minimum wage, and other employee benefits and protections. Uber and Lyft are Internet application-based transportation companies, often referred to as "car-booking companies." The basic Uber and Lyft business models are similar: A customer uses a mobile phone application to summon a driver who uses his or her own automobile to transport the customer to a destination. The driver must insure the automobile for liability. Usually, the fare is collected by credit card over the application. Uber and Lyft consider the drivers to be independent contractors, not employees. In New Mexico, Uber and Lyft have been under attack by taxicab interests and the Public Regulation Commission for not complying with state motor carrier law. In January, in two separate cases, O'Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc. and Cotter v. Lyft Inc., two federal judges in California stated in court that they have concluded that Uber and Lyft drivers are company employees and not independent contractors. The courts have not released formal opinions. It is difficult to judge how broad the final court opinions will be. In addition, the cases are at the start of the class-action litigation process that is long and uncertain, and usually ends in settlements. However, the message is grim for Uber and Lyft, and it may be replayed in several states, including New Mexico -- although the California cases do not directly control New Mexico Uber and Lyft operations. What are the practical implications of the Uber and Lyft drivers being employees under New Mexico or federal law? Without attempting to compile a complete list, under New Mexico law, the companies might be required to obtain workers' compensation insurance, meet the state wage and hour requirements, and pay unemployment compensation and minimum wage. Employees would be due federal wage and hour, minimum wage, overtime and other benefits. What looks like a simple, innovative business model using modern technology may be seriously impaired if the Uber and Lyft drivers are employees. It is difficult to predict how the New Mexico courts or governmental agencies would decide the question of Lyft and Uber driver classification as employees. The state Legislature's current legislative efforts to deal with regulation of car-booking companies may impact the final decision. Some minimal precedent exists in the business model in which taxicab companies use taxi drivers who own their own cabs but use the taxicab companies' dispatch service. Such arrangements have resulted in the drivers being considered independent contractors in New Mexico to date, usually based on skillfully drafted agreements between the company and drivers. The car-booking business may be a harbinger of many different types of Internet application-based business. However, it is in a state of flux, with litigation and controversy surrounding it. If Uber did not have enough problems, Bloomberg just reported that Google -- in 2013, a $258 million investor in Uber -- is looking at getting into the business in direct competition with Uber, perhaps using robot cars. Technology may make legal decisions irrelevant. Attorney Marshall G. Martin is in private practice in Albuquerque. He has experience in complex litigation, including securities, antitrust and lender liability law. He also has represented banks, and private and public companies. He can be reached at 505-768- 1500 or mgm@marshallgmartin.com. UNITED COLLECTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sungsoo Park, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. United Collection Bureau, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-01306-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., February 19, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com UNITED INSURANCE: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------ In CELESE M. COOK et al., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant and Appellant, NO. A139456, United appealed the denial, in part, of its motion to compel arbitration. This appeal raises a single issue: Did the trial court correctly deny United's petition to compel arbitration of plaintiff Celeste Cook's cause of action filed pursuant to Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA))? According to the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three, in an opinion entered February 25, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/XV2NpVfrom Leagle.com, "[b]ecause our Supreme Court has held that an arbitration agreement requiring an employee to relinquish the right to bring a representative PAGA action in any forum is contrary to public policy, the trial court was correct to deny arbitration. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian).) We affirm." UNITED KINGDOM: 500 Investors Join Class Action Against FCA ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Walmsley, writing for Citywire, reports that the number of EEA Life Settlements investors set to take action against the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in a bid to secure compensation for the fund's failure has swelled over seven times to 513, with the group looking to claim GBP60 million from the regulator. In January New Model Adviser(R) reported the group, which at the time had around 70 investors with a total of GBP7 million in the fund, had joined forces in a potential class action against the regulator to claim compensation from it after the fund's suspension. The group's numbers have increased dramatically in the month after its launch. The EEA Life Settlements Action group closed its registration this week with 513 investors and will send an initial letter outlining its legal argument to the regulator. If no settlement is reached, the group will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. Under UK law the FCA is exempt from liability in damages, which is why the investors turned to the European Court of Human Rights. In November 2011 the FCA's predecessor, the Financial Services Authority sparked outrage when managing director Margaret Cole branded life settlement funds "toxic". The GBP600 million EEA Life Settlements was the largest of those funds, and was forced to suspend trading after it was struck by a wave of redemptions directly following Ms. Cole's comments. The group, founded by investor Peter Lihou in February 2014, has claimed the FSA "restricted the right of investors to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions through a disproportional use of force". This, the group claimed, is in breach of Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act. The group has a total of œ47 million invested in the fund, and are looking to claim this back from the FCA, alongside œ13 million in loss of returns. The returns were calculated on a basis of 8% per year for three years to 1 June 2015. Peter Lihou, an investor in EEA Life Settlements, founded the group and said he was 'delighted' with the progress and its case could set a legal precendence for other investors. "When I first started this off I was asked how many investors I wanted if we took this to the European Court of Human Rights, and I optimistically suggested 500, and we have got just over that." "If we win in court it will set a legal precedent for investors in other funds that were equally affected by the FSA's comments on life settlements. If a legal precedent is set the total value of claims could be in the billions," he said. The FCA did not comment on the case but a spokesman referred to comments made by the regulator's director of supervision Nausicaa Delfas in September 2014 that the FCA believed Cole's intervention was "justified". UNITED STATES: VA to Help Homeless Vets in L.A. After Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Hlad, writing for Stars and Stripes, reports that the Department of Veterans Affairs released a plan on Feb. 13 to use a 387-acre tract of land in west Los Angeles to help end veteran homelessness in the city. There's a real focus on getting homeless veterans into housing quickly, said Gary Blasi, one of the attorneys with Public Counsel, which represented veterans in a lawsuit against the VA over the use of its West Los Angeles campus. There is also a new focus on providing immediate temporary housing for homeless veterans while they wait for permanent housing to become available, Mr. Blasi said. Recently, veterans have been waiting about 100 days for that permanent housing, and did not have access to "bridge" housing before. And instead of just providing housing to veterans, the plan includes increasing the support services and therapy for those already in permanent housing, so they can succeed there and not return to the streets. "Nobody falls through the cracks," Mr. Blasi said. The plan specifies that within the next 100 days, the VA will hire experienced people to help get homeless veterans into permanent housing, increase funding to support for veteran families, and make temporary housing available for those who cannot immediately move into permanent housing. By April, 650 veterans will get homes through a partnership with the Home for Good organization, according to the plan. Beyond 100 days, the VA will coordinate with the Los Angeles mayor's office to improve access to affordable housing, work with the Department of Labor and other organizations to increase job opportunities and access to federal, state and local services for homeless veterans, and open a 62-bed work therapy facility on the West LA campus. In 2011, attorneys working on behalf of homeless veterans filed a class-action suit against the VA, saying its benefits programs discriminated against veterans who are homeless as a result of severe mental disabilities. The lawsuit also accused the VA of misusing its West LA campus. The land was deeded to the federal government in 1888 to provide a home for disabled veterans, but it currently houses several rental tenants, including a hotel laundry facility and the UCLA baseball stadium. Los Angeles has the largest concentration of homeless veterans in the country, and although the West campus had previously housed thousands of veterans, much of the land has been rented for other uses for the past several decades, Mr. Blasi said. "This was a huge resource, and there wasn't a single unit of permanent supportive housing on it," he said. In late January, the VA agreed to a settlement that required officials to create a plan for using the land to house homeless veterans. During a January swing through the Los Angeles area, VA Secretary Robert A. McDonald said he was sending $50 million and 400 workers to the region, according to a Los Angeles Times report. The VA is expected to immediately begin working to return the property to its intended use, but won't release its master plan for the campus until October. Ending veteran homelessness is a real challenge, Mr. Blasi said, but it is "nothing compared to what the veterans have done." "We have to step up," he said. VAUGHN ENERGY: "Wedel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Dustin Wedel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vaughn Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00093 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Vaughn Energy Services, LLC supplies a range of directional survey services and technologies to the oilfield industries with its corporate headquarters is located in Robstown, Nueces County, Texas located within this District and Division. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.co VICTORY CHRISTIAN: "Mauldin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Kristy Mauldin, Jennifer Briggs and Adrienne Romero, on behalf of themselves and those employees similarly situated v. Victory Christian Center of Austin, Incorporated, Case No. 1:15-cv-00153 (W.D. Tex., February 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Victory Christian Center of Austin, Incorporated owns and operates a state-licensed childcare center with its principal place of business is within Travis County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kerry Vincent O'Brien, Esq. O'BRIEN LAW FIRM PC 1011 Westlake Drive Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 410-1960 Facsimile: (512) 410-6171 E-mail: ko@obrienlawpc.com VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gabe Allen v. Vitel Communications, Inc. d/b/a JNET Communications, LLC, SCI Companies, and David Jefferson, Case No. 3:15-cv-01363 (D.N.J., February 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a communications installation services company in New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA Lawrence Office Park Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com WA ANGELS: Former Players Mull Wage Suit Against Owner ------------------------------------------------------ WAToday reports that a storm in a D-cup is brewing between former players and the owner of a lingerie-clad gridiron team in Perth, with both sides threatening legal action. A number of players from the Western Australian Angels team have grabbed their skimpy outfits and walked away from the Legends Football League after a spat with owner and founder Mitchell Mortaza. Fairfax Media understands Mr. Mortaza still owes players and coaches around $30,000 in payments after he cancelled the 2014/15 season two weeks before it was about to kick off. The defecting Angel players are planning to play in a breakaway national competition called the Ladies Gridiron League as the West Coast Angels. Former WA Angels coach J.R Rogers says Mr. Mortaza still owes him $6500. He said a number of former support staff were organizing a class action in the America state of Nevada, where the company is registered. It's not the first time Mr. Mortaza has been dragged to the courts. Former players in American Legends Football sued Mr. Mortaza in August last year, saying he wrongly classified them as independent contractors in order to skimp on their wages. But Mr. Mortaza has hit back, saying he was planning to take out a court injunction against the West Coast Angels for using a similar name and outfit to his Perth franchise team. He claimed Mr. Rogers had not returned equipment and would not be paid until he did so. "He knows that and is under contractual obligation to return [items of equipment]," he told Fairfax Media. The stoush between Mr. Mortaza and former staff and players of WA Angels doesn't end there. Former LFL player Nicole Harvey said a number of players were fuming their photos had popped up on the WA Angels Facebook page promoting tryouts for the Legends Football League 2015/16 season. The Facebook page also describes the new LGL as a "knockoff" competition. "I'm sitting next to a girl now who is in that photo and she is furious," Ms Harvey told Fairfax Media. "It implies she is playing for the Legends Football League, when she is not." Mr. Mortaza again returned serve saying he owned the images in question and was free to do what he liked with them. Former LFL players, including Ms Harvey and quarterback Leah Werner, say Mr. Mortaza failed to respect them as athletes and reacted in an over-the-top manner to losses. Ms. Harvey said players from the LGL were planning to protest at the tryouts for the new LFL season at Charles Court Reserve in Nedlands on February 21. "We are going to train next to them to show the [new] girls how it is done," she said. Ms. Werner said Mr. Mortaza failed to make good on promises concerning the Angels' on-field apparel. "He made a promise he would make the uniforms bigger, but he made them smaller," she said. Mr. Rogers said players and staff were shocked when the season was cancelled two weeks from the start of the season. "It was really shocking for the girls who altered their life plans and sacrificed a lot to be ready for the start of the season," he said. "Two of the girls from the states who were coming to Australia were actually at the airport waiting to come to Perth to play when they found out." Mr. Mortaza said he cancelled the 2014/15 season because he couldn't secure TV rights. "We had a successful first year so and as we don't fill stadiums, we rely on television coverage," he said. WET SEAL: Appellate Court Dismissed Challenge to Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------- Presiding Justice Norman L. Epstein of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four affirmed the order of the trial court in the case ELIZABETH MONTANO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE WET SEAL RETAIL, INC., Defendant and Appellant, NO. B244107 (Cal. App.) The plaintiff Elizabeth Montano filed a putative class action against Wet Seal, alleging that it failed to offer all required meal and rest periods to its California non-exempt retail employees; failed to provide all regular and overtime pay when due or when employment terminated; and failed to provide accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements, in violation of the Labor and Business and Professions Codes, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7, and Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. She brought this action on behalf of herself and, as a class action, on behalf of all persons similarly situated and damaged by the alleged conduct during the specified time period. Her complaint included a representative claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) (Lab. Code, Section 2699). Montano propounded various discovery requests to Wet Seal, which responded with objections but no substantive information. After an unsuccessful effort to meet and confer, Montano filed a motion to compel discovery responses. Wet Seal moved to compel arbitration of Montano's individual claims based on the mutual agreement to arbitrate claims, in which Montano had signed, and to stay the action pending completion of arbitration. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration and granted the motion to compel discovery. Wet Seal timely appealed from the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court affirmed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the challenge to the discovery order as non-appealable. A copy of Presiding Justice Epstein's decision dated January 7, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/QIDDmIat Leagle.com. Ryan D. McCortney -- rmccortney@sheppardmullin.com -- Jason M. Guyser -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, for Defendant and Appellant Matthew R. Bainer -- mrbainer@scalaw.com -- Molly A. DeSario -- mdesario@scalaw.com -- at Scott Cole & Associates, for Plaintiff and Respondent The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Four panel consists of Presiding Justice Norman L. Epstein and Associate Justices Thomas L. Willhite, Jr. and Nora M. Manella. WILLIAM SONOMA: Suit Over Unpaid OT Sent Back to Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that truck divers suing William Sonoma for unpaid overtime persuaded a federal judge to send their case back to Middlesex County Superior Court. The case is Camillo Echavarria, et al. v. William Sonoma, Inc., J&J Trucking, Inc. (a/k/a JJP), MXD, INC. (f/k/a Exel Direct, Inc.), ABC Corp., & Jane and John Does, Case No. 3:14-cv-07207- AET-LHG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Shark RAW Helmets Due to Non-compliance ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 20, 2015 Posting date: February 20, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-43799 This recall involves Shark RAW Helmets in sizes medium and extra- large. The products have serial numbers sewn on the chip strap label of the helmets. The serial numbers for the recalled products fall within one of the following ranges: 050418/J-035343 to 050418/J-045065 DOT/X64-004061 to DOT/X64-007110 Shark Helmets S.A.S. has determined that certain Shark RAW Helmets in size medium and extra-large failed impact attenuation requirements during testing. In the event of an accident, the helmet could fail to prevent injuries, posing a hazard to consumers. Neither Health Canada nor Shark Helmets S.A.S. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to this product. Approximately 349 recalled helmets were sold in Canada through various retailers. The recalled products were sold from November 2013 to August 2014. Manufactured in Portugal. Manufacturer: Shark Helmet S.A.S. Marseille FRANCE Distributor: Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd. Toronto Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled helmets and return them for a free replacement in the same size. Consumers can return the helmet to their nearest Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd. Dealer or return it by mail to Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd. For more information, consumers may contact Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd. at 1- 416-498-1911, Monday to Friday, from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm EST. Consumers may also visit Yamaha Motor Canada's website for instructions on how to return your helmet. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/jkkRy7 * Central European Borrowers Mull Suit Over Swiss Franc Loans ------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa Gera and Alison Mutler, writing for Associated Press, report that on Jan. 15, the Swiss national bank ended a policy meant to limit the franc's value against the euro -- causing the franc to surge. That move by one of Europe's richest countries is adding to the financial despair of hundreds of thousands of people across some of the poorest regions of the continent due to mortgages taken out years ago in Swiss francs. Many of the borrowers were in their 20s and 30s who took out loans in the boom years before the crisis of 2008. They were supposed to be the first generation to benefit fully from the economic promise that came with the fall of communism and the entry into the European Union. Mortgages in foreign currencies were particularly popular because they came with lower interest rates. Instead, these borrowers now find themselves stuck in a new kind of servitude, their fates tied to the ups and downs of a currency that many have never held in their hands. The pain of the borrowers is turning into a key political issue in many countries, primarily Poland and Croatia, where elections are on the horizon. Many of the borrowers feel they were tricked by the banks into financial products that are now called "toxic" -- and have been banned in many countries. They want governments to push banks to give them some relief. It's a tricky position for leaders: do you force banks to take a financial hit to help people who willingly entered into risky contracts? Responses by governments have varied. The Hungarian government forced banks in November to convert Swiss franc loans to the local currency at the exchange rate of the time. In hindsight, the timing prevented financial disaster for many Hungarian borrowers come January. The government of Croatia, where there are 60,000 such loans, froze the franc-kuna exchange rate at pre-Jan. 15 levels for one year to help borrowers. Other countries, like Poland and Romania, are still debating what to do, but have ruled out a Hungarian-style solution. Polish authorities are urging banks to take voluntary steps to help borrowers. Wiktor Nozycki, a 31-year-old Pole who has a mortgage on an apartment in Poznan, says what the Polish authorities have proposed primarily benefits the banks and that he considers the government and bankers to be acting like gangsters. "No one warned the consumers about any risks," he said. "Banks here are above the law." The anger is huge in Poland, where there are more than 550,000 outstanding loans, and class-action lawsuits against banks are in the works. In Slovenia an association of affected citizens is also threatening to sue the banks. Economist Piotr Bujak with Bank PKO BP said many of the accusations against the banks are unfair and that customers were generally informed of the exchange rate risks. "As long as the servicing of mortgages in Swiss francs was cheaper, customers were happy, while now they want others -- banks, taxpayers -- to cover the increased costs," Mr. Bujak said. Many borrowers now owe more on their homes than they are worth and cannot sell without incurring significant loss, also because property prices have fallen since the boom years. The media have reported cases of people so desperate they have sought treatment in psychiatric hospitals. In Romania, the suicide of a borrower prompted a consumer protection agency to investigate whether the loans were fairly handled. * Clinic Launches Registry to Track Illegal Billing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a community-oriented medical clinic in one of Montreal's poorest neighborhoods has launched an online registry to keep track of illegal and abusive billing practices in Quebec. The Pointe St-Charles Community Clinic decided to launch the registry to help residents complaining of excess medical fees. "Some doctors are charging fees in some clinics," said Genevieve McCready, a member of the clinic's "fight for health" committee. "Some of those fees are illegal, so the doctors are not allowed to charge them, but they still do it. Some doctors charge way over what it actually costs -- for example, it could be an anaesthetic to get stitches, and people can be charged $45 for this anaesthetic, while it costs $2 or $3 for the doctor." Ms. McCready said other fees may be technically legal, but they contribute to the restrictions people on fixed incomes face when trying to get appropriate medical care. She said the committee has heard from some patients who decided not to continue seeking care after being informed of doctors' fees they couldn't afford. Abusive and illegal fees Ms. McCready pointed out, as one example, an invoice a woman received after taking her two-month-old son to get vaccinated. The clinic she went to charged her $10 for a physician's assistant and $15 for each vaccine -- vaccines that are in accordance with the province's immunization schedule and which are usually covered by the province's public health insurance plan (RAMQ). The woman's bill totalled $55, but that visit should have cost her nothing. Ms. McCready said RAMQ is aware of clinics and doctors charging illegal and abusive fees, and it has the right to impose penalties. However, she said RAMQ chooses not to enforce the law. She said RAMQ reimburses people on a case-by-case basis who take the time to call and complain about excessive or illegal fees. "We want to build this registry," Ms. McCready said. "We want people to fill in the registry, so we can get a good portrait of what's happening in Quebec, and therefore we can put pressure on the government and the RAMQ to apply the law with the coercive methods that they actually have." She said the clinic will collect all the data and issue a report in a year's time to paint a better picture of what's going on in the province's medical clinics. Ms. McCready also said people can also choose to join a class- action lawsuit for medical overbilling led by lawyer Bruno Grenier. * Huge Jury Verdicts Foretell Bad News for Carmakers ---------------------------------------------------- Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that huge jury verdicts against companies over fatal flaws in their products made a comeback last year, which may foretell more bad news for carmakers with defective parts. Absent for a decade, billion-dollar verdicts returned in product- defect suits in 2014. The largest was for $23.6 billion in favor of the family of a smoker who died at 36. Coming in second was one for $9 billion to a New Yorker who linked his bladder cancer to a diabetes medication. The re-emergance of huge verdicts comes at a bad time for the auto industry. It experienced a year of almost constant recalls, congressional hearings and scores of lawsuits against companies such as General Motors Co. and the air-bag maker Takata Corp. "People now come into the jury room really suspicious, instead of wondering is this ambulance-chasing lawyer trying to squeeze money out of a company," said Erik Gordon, a law and business professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "Jurors now come in expecting to hear a story of corporate wrong-doing and are being very receptive to these stories." The biggest awards were for punitive damages, meant to punish companies for bad conduct and not to cover actual losses. One silver lining for the companies: based on past court rulings, it's unlikely anything close to the initial verdict amounts will ever be paid. Of the 10 largest punitive verdicts against corporations in U.S. history, none survived post-trial trimming by judges, according to Bloomberg data. The largest, $145 billion in a Florida tobacco class-action in 2000, was tossed out entirely on appeal. Haunting Effect Even so, that case continues to haunt the tobacco industry, as multiple findings on the companies' blameworthiness are being used in individual cases, including the one that produced last year's $23.6 billion award. After being slashed, large punitive verdicts often have lingering effects, said attorney Victor Schwartz, who represents defendants in complex lawsuits. "It can affect their business," Schwartz said in a phone interview. "It can affect the reputation of the company. The stock can go down." Some effects become permanent, he said. "No one would name any product a Pinto again," a reference to a Ford Motor Co.'s model linked to deaths from exploding fuel tanks. Big verdicts attract more plaintiffs and raise the ceiling for settlement talks, said Gordon, the Michigan academic. "When it's knocked down, the story is on page 6" he said. "It's the initial headline that attracts the attention." Mark Behrens, an appellate defense attorney, said the threat of punitive damages increases the risk to the companies he represents. Settlement Impact "Punitive damages are used as leverage by the plaintiffs' lawyers, both as a tool to force a settlement before trial and after a verdict to inflate the value of the settlement," he said. The family of Michael Johnson Sr., a Florida laborer who had smoked since his early teens, was awarded $16.9 in actual damages and $23.6 billion in punitive damages by a jury in Pensacola, Florida The verdict was cut to $16.9 million, the same amount as the jury's compensatory verdict. The trial judge offered Reynolds the choice of paying or getting a new trial on punitive damages. Reynolds chose the new trial. The company doesn't consider any of the verdict justified, said Jeff Raborn, assistant general counsel for R.J. Reynolds. "We believe the entire verdict should be set aside," Mr. Raborn said in an e-mailed statement. In the drug company case, Terrence Allen and his wife sued Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. and Eli Lilly & Co., contending he developed cancer because of their diabetes drug Actos. The jury awarded them $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $9 billion in punitive damages. Reduced Awards The trial judge sliced Takeda's punitive damages to $27.7 million and Lilly's to $9.2 million. The remaining judgment is still too high, a Takeda spokesman said in an e-mailed statement. "We believe a damage award of any amount is not justified based on the evidence presented in this trial and have multiple grounds for appeal," said Kenneth D. Greisman, general counsel of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. Lilly is also appealing. "The evidence did not support claims that Actos caused the plaintiff's bladder cancer," Candace Johnson, a Lilly spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. Switch Recalls Amid this anti-company sentiment, GM has settled multiple death and injury claims connected to its 2014 ignition switch recalls, primarily through a program overseen by attorney Kenneth Feinberg that is an alternative to litigation. The company still faces lawsuits throughout the U.S. by accident victims claiming product defects that aren't part of the Feinberg process. "The public is well aware of the poor choices GM made in the name of economy," said Mark Lanier, who won the $9 billion Actos verdict and represents GM accident victims. He said he'd take a GM case to a jury "right now in a heartbeat." The ninth-biggest verdict last year was against a car company, Hyundai Motor Co., over the deaths of two Montana teenagers, cousins Tanner and Trevor Olson, for which the families blamed a steering defect. It was the largest ever against that company. Of a total award of $248 million, $240 million was for punitive damages. Confidential Accord The suit was settled on confidential terms, Jim Trainor, a Hyundai spokesman, said in an interview. The company didn't admit any wrongdoing or concede any flaws in the vehicle, he said. John Bohyer, the Olsons' lawyer, confirmed the settlement and declined to comment further. The tobacco and Actos verdicts were the only ones for more than $1 billion in 2014. The rest of the top five were against Trinity Industries for $525 million over alleged withholding of information from the U.S. over changes to its highway guardrail system; Royal Philips NV for $466.7 million in a medical-device patent-infringement suit by Masimo Corp.; and Medtronic Inc., $393.6 million in an Edwards Lifesciences Corp. heart-valve device patent case. * Transport Canada Recalls Certain Vehicles Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 20, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 574 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015078TC ID number: 2015078 Manufacturer recall number: 215-C On certain vehicles, the tie rod end clamp bolts may not have been tightened to the correct specification. As a result, the tie rod ends could loosen, corrode, and eventually separate from the tie rod, resulting in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace tie rod assembly where the factory installed assembly has not been replaced. * Transport Canada Recalls Certain Vehicles Due to Incorrect Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 18, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: RV Chassis Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Label Units affected: 260 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015074TC ID number: 2015074 On certain vehicles, the certification and tire and loading information labels do not contain correct tire dimension and tire pressure information. The labels incorrectly indicate a tire size of ST225/75R15D with 65 PSI while the correct tire size is ST205/75R15D with 50 PSI. As a result, the tire may inadvertently be overinflated and the vehicle may be fitted with incorrect replacement tires. Overinflated tires may lead to poor vehicle handling characteristics and increase the risk of tire failure, which could result in a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: manufacturer will mail updated labels. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against multiple lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the company's Stearns division, 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. Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 700 claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending multi- defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are numerous individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these matters. Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water Management platform operates in the commercial construction market for water management products and the municipal water and wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat Composites Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, 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. In connection with the acquisition of The Falk Corporation, Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to those indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and that, with respect to these claims, those indemnity obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations. Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100 claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date. Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings, aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water Management platform operates in the commercial construction market for water management products and the municipal water and wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat Composites Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend itself against various lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "Various lawsuits, claims and proceedings have been or may be instituted or asserted against us relating to the conduct of our business, including those pertaining to product liability, environmental, safety and health, intellectual property, employment and contract matters. Although the outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to us, we believe the disposition of matters that are pending or have been asserted will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. "We (including our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of our products many years ago. Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most of the costs. However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which occurred on January 31, 2007. We are also responsible for half of the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC's) divested measurement and flow control business. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our products or products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. We defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants. "We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley subsidiary. Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We believe that this arrangement will continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of the asbestos liability. "The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. "We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses. In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some instances, the divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is possible that we might be responsible to satisfy those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so. "In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive component systems business, semiconductor systems business and Rockwell Collins avionics and communications business, the spun- off companies have agreed to indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities related to the respective businesses, including environmental and intellectual property matters. "In connection with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale." Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Rockwell Automation) is a provider of industrial automation power, control and information solutions that help manufacturers achieve a competitive advantage for their businesses. The Company operates in two segments: Architecture & Software and controls Products & Solutions. In the United States, Canada and certain other countries, the Company sells primarily through the independent distributors in conjunction with its direct sales force. In the remaining countries, the Company sells through a combination of its direct sales force. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 41,000 AO Respiratory Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- There were 41,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims against Cabot Corporation's American Optical Corporation subsidiary in connection with the unit's respiratory 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 exposure in connection with a safety respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary. In exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to May 1982. The respirator liabilities generally involve claims for personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators that are alleged to have been negligently designed and/or labeled. "As of both December 31, 2014 and September 30, 2014, there were approximately 41,000 claimants, respectively, in pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory products. We have a reserve to cover our expected share of liability for existing and future respirator liability claims. At December 31, 2014 and September 30, 2014, the reserve was $12 million and $13 million, respectively. Cash payments related to this liability were $1 million and $2 million in the first three months of fiscal 2015 and 2014, respectively." Cabot Corporation (Cabot) is a global specialty chemicals and performance materials company. The Company's principal products are rubber and specialty grade carbon blacks, fumed metal oxides, inkjet colorants, aerogels and cesium formate drilling fluids. Cabot and its affiliates have manufacturing facilities and operations in the United States and approximately 20 other countries. The Company operates in four business segments: Reinforcement Materials; Performance Materials; Advanced Technologies; and Purification Solutions. It is organized into three geographic regions: The Americas; Europe, Middle East and Africa, and Asia Pacific. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Trezza" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in a memorandum and order dated Feb. 24, 2015, remanded to the Twenty- Second Judicial Circuit Court for the State of Missouri the asbestos-related lawsuit styled ANTHONY TREZZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 84 LUMBER CO., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14CV01282 AGF (E.D. Mo.). A full-text copy of Judge Fleissig's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Up09h1from Leagle.com. Anthony Trezza, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, Esq., NAPOLI AND BERN & Sean Patrick Barth, Esq., NAPOLI AND BERN. Peggy Trezza, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, NAPOLI AND BERN & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI AND BERN. 84 Lumber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., HERZOG CREBS LLP & James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP. American Biltrite Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. Bird, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Esq., FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P., Michael R. Dauphin, Esq., FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Robert J. Brummond, Esq., FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Esq., FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, Esq., HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, Esq., HEYL AND ROYSTER. Conwed Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Mark D. Bauman, Esq., HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON. Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM. DAP, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. DOMCO Products Texas Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Esq., BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.. Eaton Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by J. Todd Applegate, Esq., PITZER SNODGRASS, P.C. & Brian J. Connolly, REEG LAWYERS, LLC. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ &Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. FMC Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq., POLSINELLI PC & Marcie J. Vantine, Esq., SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Robert Drake Andrekanic, CRIVELLO AND CARLSON. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq., ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Anita Maria Kidd, Esq., ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Esq., ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, Esq., ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP. Goulds Pumps, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Mark D. Bauman, HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON. Honeywell International Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield, Esq., POLSINELLI PC. J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Stephen J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD. John Crane, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Albert J. Bronsky, Esq., BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Agota Peterfy, CARMODY MACDONALD P.C.. Kohler Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq., JOLEY AND OLIVER. Navistar, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC. Patterson Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Leslie G. Offergeld, WALKER AND WILLIAMS, P.C.. Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Esq., WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC, Mary Dianne Rychnovsky, Esq., Williams Venker & Sanders LLC, Matthew E. Pelikan, Esq., WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC & Ross S. Titzer, Esq., WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC. Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ,Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. RSCC Wire & Cable LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Schneider Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq., LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP, Charles S. Anderson, Esq., LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP, Matthew J. Morris, Esq., LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP &Matthew W. Schuh, Esq., LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP. Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP &Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP. Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP. Young Group Ltd., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Anastasios T. Foukas, Esq., SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Anastasios T. Foukas, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John D. Risvold, Esq., SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens' Bid to Exclude Testimony in PI Suit OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the asbestos exposure cases captioned GARY SUOJA, individually and as special administrator for the estate of Oswald F. Suoja, Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant, NO. 99-CV-475-BBC (W.D. Wis.), and BARBARA CONNELL, individually and as special administrator for the estate of Daniel Connell, Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Defendant, NO. 05-CV-219-BBC (W.D. Wis.), Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, granted as unopposed defendant Owens-Illinois's motions to exclude (1) expert testimony related to the theory that "any exposure" to asbestos, no matter how slight, could have caused the diseases at issue in these cases; (2) evidence of experiments conducted by William Longo and his company Materials Analytical Services that are related to asbestos exposure; and (3) expert testimony from Barry Castleman. A full-text copy of Judge Crabb's order dated Feb. 13, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/cRv5tefrom Leagle.com. Suoja, Delores Agnes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Jill A. Rakauski, CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. Oswald F. Suoja, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Jill A. Rakauski, CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD.. Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew John Fischer, Esq. -- mfischer@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Brian O'Connor Watson, Esq. -- bwatson@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Esq. -- ecasmere@schiffhardin.com - - Schiff Hardin, LLP, Rachel Allison Remke, Esq. -- rremke@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP & Robert H. Riley, Esq. -- rriley@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF, HARDIN & WAITE. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Reconsider Fibro Summary Judgment Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David C. Norton of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, issued an order dated Feb. 19, 2015, granting a motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs Terence J. Sparkman and Leonard Sparkman from a Dec. 29, 2014, order granting defendant Goulds Pumps, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. The court, in the December order, based its ruling on the plaintiffs' failure to establish exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured or otherwise supplied by Goulds, and further determined that Goulds was not subject to a duty to warn consumers about potential dangers from exposure to parts of its product which it did not manufacture or otherwise supply. Judge Norton, in granting the motion for reconsideration, agreed with the plaintiffs that ignoring the holding in Garvin v. Agco Corp., No. 2012-CP-40-6675 (Richland, S.C., Ct. Common Pleas, Dec. 10, 2014), amounts to manifest injustice. The Plaintiffs assert that Garvin indicates that the South Carolina Supreme Court would not adopt the bare metal defense; rather, it would impose a duty to warn consumers about potential dangers from exposure to parts of its product which it did not manufacture or otherwise supply. The Plaintiffs further contend that there is sufficient evidence of exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured or otherwise supplied by Goulds. The case is TERENCE J. SPARKMAN AND LEONARD SPARKMAN, personal representatives of the estate of ELIJAH SPARKMAN, JR., deceased, Plaintiffs, v. GOULDS PUMPS, INC. and RESEARCH-COTTRELL, INC. n/k/a AWT AIR COMPANY, INC; Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-02957-DCN (D.S.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Norton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/GX0j3Yfrom Leagle.com. Terrence J Sparkman, Plaintiff, represented by John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice, V Brian Bevon, Motley Rice, William Christopher Swett, Motley Rice & Benjamin David Cunningham, Motley Rice. Leonard Sparkman, Plaintiff, represented by John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice, V Brian Bevon, Motley Rice, William Christopher Swett, Motley Rice & Benjamin David Cunningham, Motley Rice. Goulds Pumps Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Moffatt Grier McDonald, Esq. -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, Scott E Frick, Esq. -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd & William David Conner, Esq. -- dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd. Research-Cottrell Inc, Defendant, represented by David Michael Burkoff, Esq. -- dburkoff@HunterMaclean.com -- Hunter Maclean Exley and Dunn, Erik David Nadolink, Esq. -- nadolink@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, John Michael Fitzpatrick, Esq. -- fitzpatrick@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLp, Nicholas J Laybourn, Esq. -- nlaybourn@HunterMaclean.com -- Hunter Maclean Exley and Dunn, Robert Bates Lovett, Esq., Hunter Maclean Exley and Dunn & Saunders Aldridge, Esq. -- saldridge@HunterMaclean.com -- Hunter Maclean Exley and Dunn. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fraser's Bid to Dismiss "McCrossin" Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, on Feb. 23, 2015, issued an order denying defendant Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the asbestos-related wrongful death and survivorship lawsuit filed by Connie M. McCrossin. The case is CONNIE M. McCROSSIN, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN L. McCROSSIN, Plaintiff, v. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DE LAVAL TURBINE, INC.; LOCKHEED SHIPBUILDING COMPANY; LONE STAR INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to PIONEER SAND & GRAVEL COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; and FRASER'S BOILER SERVICE, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05382- RJB (W.D. Wash.). A full-text copy of Judge Bryan's Decision is available at http://is.gd/tI2dLGfrom Leagle.com. Connie M. McCrossin, Plaintiff, represented by Brian F Ladenburg, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Chandler H Udo, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Anna D Knudson, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Glenn S Draper, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC & Matthew Phineas Bergman, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC. IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne, Esq. -- jhorne@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, Esq. -- mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. Lockheed Shipbuilding Company, Defendant, represented by Guy Glazier, Esq. -- glazier@glazieryee.com -- GLAZIER YEE, Geoff J M Bridgman, Esq. -- gbridgman@omwlaw.com -- OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC, Jeffrey D Dunbar, Esq. -- jdunbar@omwlaw.com -- OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC & Robert Gregory Andre, Esq. -- randre@omwlaw.com -- OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC. Lone Star Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Howard (Terry) I. Hall, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Zackary A Paal, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero, Esq. -- dkero@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. Fraser's Boiler Service Inc, Defendant, represented by Melissa K Roeder, Esq. -- mroeder@forsberg-umlauf.com -- FORSBERG & UMLAUF & William Chris Gibson, Esq. -- cgibson@forsberg-umlauf.com -- FORSBERG & UMLAUF. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in NY PI Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of New York, in a decision dated Feb. 24, 2015, denied a motion to dismiss an appeal in the lawsuit styled IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to RUBY E. KONSTANTIN, ETC., Respondent, v. 630 THIRD AVENUE ASSOCIATES, ET AL., Defendants, TISHMAN LIQUIDATING CORPORATION, Appellant, MOTION NO. 2015-45 (N.Y. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/5iNFimfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Can't Annual Eagle & USF&G Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, in an opinion dated Feb. 25, 2015, reversed a trial court's grant of a summary judgment in favor of OneBeacon America Insurance Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company annulling a settlement agreement between Eagle, Inc., and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. OneBeacon, as the insurer of Eagle, is a named defendant in an underlying asbestos exposure lawsuit. Pearson Long filed a petition for damages against his employers and various manufacturers of asbestos containing products alleging asbestos exposure from 1958 to 1979. During the years of alleged exposure, OneBeacon issued several primary Comprehensive General Liability policies of insurance to Eagle. USF&G issued the primary CGL policies to Eagle from 1977 to 1980. The coverage in the CGL policies issued by OneBeacon and USF&G to Eagle provided for defense costs. OneBeacon and USF&G shared in the defense costs of the litigation until USF&G notified OneBeacon that all funds associated with the policies issued to Eagle had been exhausted and USF&G was no longer obligated to pay costs and expenses for Eagle's defense. That assertion was based on the terms and conditions agreed upon by USF&G and Eagle in a 2003 Settlement Agreement. Subsequent to USF&G's withdrawal from participating in Eagle's defense, OneBeacon filed a third party demand against USF&G seeking to have the trial court declare that USF&G was obligated to pay its share of the defense costs and for reimbursement of expenses expended on USF&G's behalf. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of OneBeacon, granting its motion for summary judgment. According to the trial court's judgment, it concluded that pursuant to La. R.S. 22:1262 and Washington v. Savoie, the Settlement Agreement violated Louisiana law. USF&G appeals that judgment. In reversing the trial court, Judge Roland L. Belsome, writing for the Court of Appeals, held that the plain language of La. R.S. 22:1262 prohibits insurers and insureds from retroactively rescinding or annulling policy contracts by agreement post- concurrence to the detriment of an injured third party. Similar to the Washington holding, the focus of the statute is to protect third party tort victims, not insurance companies that contracted to cover a particular risk, Judge Belsome said. Simply put, the protections set forth in Washington and La. R.S. 22:1262 do not apply to OneBeacon, Judge Belsome added. Accordingly, Judge Belsome did not find that OneBeacon can have the settlement agreement between USF&G and Eagle declared null and void. The case is PEARSON LONG, v. EAGLE, INC., ET AL., NO. 2014-CA-0889 (La. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/xw131Pfrom Leagle.com. Samuel M. Rosamond III, Esq. -- srosamond@twpdlaw.com -- Adam D. deMahy, Esq. -- ademahy@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor Wellons Politz & Duhe APLC, 1515 Poydras Street, Ste 1900, New Orleans, LA 70112, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES/ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE, COMPANY AND ONEBEACON INSURANCE. Simeon B. Reimonenq, Jr., Esq. -- sreimonenq@lawla.com -- Katherine O. Hannan, Esq. -- khannan@lawla.com -- LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD, 601 Poydras St, Ste 2775, New Orleans, LA 70130, Frank Winston, Jr., Esq. -- fwinston@steptoe.com -- Sarah D. Gordon, Esq. -- sgordon@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1795, COUNSEL FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT/APPELLANT. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Laurent" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants BMW of North America, LLC, Daimler North America Corporation, and Volkswagen Group of America, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the wrongful death and survival action filed by Scott Laurent arising from death of his father, Frederick Laurent, who contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos. In an order and reasons dated Feb. 25, 2015, Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, granted the motion after finding that the Plaintiff has failed to show that there exists a genuine factual dispute precluding summary judgment or that the Court should defer ruling on the motion pending discovery. The case is LAURENT, v. NEW ORLEANS CITY ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2022 (E.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at http://is.gd/bjLQj4from Leagle.com. Scott Laurent, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin C. Schoenberger, Kevin C. Schoenberger, APLC. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Janika D. Polk, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Amber B. Barlow, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton Ziffer, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Monique M. Weiner, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. New Orleans City, Defendant, represented by Derek M. Mercadal, City Attorney's Office & Cherrell R. Simms, City Attorney's Office. American Honda Motor Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Andrew D. Weinstock, Esq. -- andreww@duplass.com -- Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Pfister & Weinstock. McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Stephen Jared Austin, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Humphries" Suit Remanded to La. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lance M. Africk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated Feb. 20, 2015, remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, the asbestos-related lawsuit styled JOHN CALVIN HUMPHRIES, v. ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Section I, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5426 (E.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Africk's decision is available at http://is.gd/Wf81gSfrom Leagle.com. John Calvin Humphries, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, as successor to Commercial Union Insurance Company and Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, formerly known as American Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Eagle, Inc., formerly known as Eagle Asbestos & Packing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Watson Redfearn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Bayer CropScience, Inc., as successor of liability to Rhone Poulenc AG Company formerly known as Amchem Products, Inc. formerly known as Benjamin Foster Company, Defendant, represented by Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C. & James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C.. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Jason K. Elam, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP. Riley Power, Inc., formerly known as Babcock Borsig Power, Inc. formerly known as DB Riley, Inc. formerly known as Riley Stoker Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Douglas R. Elliott, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey, Theodore Leighton White, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Anco Insulations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Hebert Baglio, Esq. -- jbaglio@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Esq. -- astout@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Douglas R. Elliott, Esq. -- lpugh@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Duris Lee Holmes, Esq. -- dholmes@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Jennifer E. Adams, Esq. -- jadams@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Margaret M. Joffe, Esq. -- mjoffe@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey, Theodore Leighton White, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Esq. -- wharrison@dkslaw.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Watson Redfearn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford's Summary Judgment Win in PI Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated Feb. 26, 2015, affirmed the order by the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about Oct. 27, 2014, denying defendant Ford Motor Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the asbestos-related complaint filed by Raymond Finerty. The case is RAYMOND FINERTY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ABEX CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., Defendant-Appellant. RAYMOND FINERTY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, ABEX CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, 190187/10, 14344, 14343 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/OMCf7Lfrom Leagle.com. Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York (Elliott J. Zucker, Esq. -- ejzucker@arfdlaw.com -- of counsel), for appellant. Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (Amber R. Long of counsel), for respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 62 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Desimone" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth A. Desimone, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Emilio J. Marchionne, and 62 of the defendants in an asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit, have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) to dismiss all claims against those defendants with prejudice and without costs. The parties state that the remaining defendant, Yarway Corporation, has filed for bankruptcy and is not included in the motion. Judge George A. O'Toole of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, found the terms of the joint motion for dismissal proper and, accordingly, granted the motion. The 62 defendants and all of the claims as to those defendants are dismissed with prejudice and without costs. In light of the representation that the remaining defendant has filed for bankruptcy protection, the case is stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy. The case is ELIZABETH A. DESIMONE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of EMILIO J. MARCHIONNE, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13- 10223-GAO (D. Mass.). A full-text copy of Judge O'Toole's Order dated Feb. 25, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/AXOV8jfrom Leagle.com. Elizabeth A. Desimone, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Wainwright, Thornton Law Firm LLP & David J. McMorris, Thornton Law Firm LLP. A.W. Chesterton Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by John T. Hugo, Esq. -- jhugo@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Meghan J. Donegan, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Shaina A. Rasmussen, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Sarah E. O'Leary, Governo Law Firm LLC. Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant and Claimant, represented by Brian D. Gross, Esq. -- bgross@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Meghan J. Donegan, Esq., Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Shaina A. Rasmussen, Esq., Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. API Heat Transfer Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by John J. Robinson, McCarter & English, LLP, Patrick J. Comerford, McCarter & English, LLP & Stephen P. Hall, Esq. -- stephen.hall@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP. Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam C. Martin, Esq. -- amartin@cetllp.com -- Cetrulo LLP & Francis M. Lynch, Esq. -- flynch@cetllp.com -- Cetrulo LLP. Aurora Pump Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Craig R. Waksler, Esq. -- cwaksler@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Jennifer A. Whelan, Esq. -- jwhelan@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Katharine S. Perry, Esq. -- kperry@apslaw.com -- Adler, Pollock & Sheehan PC & Michael Kiely, Esq. -- mkiely@apslaw.com -- Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.. BW/IP International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Brian D. Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Meghan J. Donegan, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. BWIP, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant represented by Brian D. Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Shaina A. Rasmussen, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Carrier Corporation a/k/a Bryant Heating & Cooling Systems, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan F. Tabasky, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Esq. -- jperritano@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan J. Donegan, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Carrier Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Esq. -- jpierce@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Jonathan F. Tabasky, Esq. -- jtabasky@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Esq. -- mdeluzio@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Meghan L. Riordan, Esq. -- mriordan@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Shaina A. Rasmussen, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony M. Moccia, Esq. -- amoccia@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. Cornell Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Katharine S. Perry, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan PC. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Bryna Rosen Misiura, Governo Law Firm LLC. Defense Liaison Counsel, Cross Defendant, represented by Francis M. Lynch, Cetrulo LLP, Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Esq. -- lcetrulo@cetllp.com -- Cetrulo & Capone LLP & Stephen T. Armato, Esq. -- sarmato@cetllp.com -- Cetrulo LLP. Dunham-Bush, Inc.;, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by John Egan, Esq. -- jegan@rubinrudman.com -- Rubin & Rudman LLP. Electro Dynamic Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Clinton J. Wolbert, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP. Electro Dynamic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Clinton J. Wolbert, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Jonathan F. Tabasky, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Meghan J. Donegan, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Shaina A. Rasmussen, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Flowserve Corporation f/k/a The Duriron Co., Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Brian D. Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Shaina A. Rasmussen, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Brian D. Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Meghan J. Donegan, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Flowserve US, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John J. Bogdanski, Esq. -- jbogdanski@hl-law.com -- Howd & Ludorf LLC, Joni K. Mackler, Esq. -- jmackler@hl-law.com -- Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Mark J. Claflin, Esq. -- mclaflin@hl-law.com -- Howd & Ludorf & David A. Brosnihan, Esq. -- dbrosnihan@hl-law.com -- Howd & Ludorf, LLC. FMC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Kevin J. Fleming, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Paul E. Dwyer, Jr., Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Katharine S. Perry, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan PC. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Stephen P. Hall, Holland & Knight, LLP & Patrick J. Comerford, McCarter & English, LLP. Goulds Pumps Incorporated, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by A. Bernard Guekguezian, Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman & Guekguezian LLP & Kara L. Lisavich, Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman & Guekguezian LLP. Graver Technologies LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Harsco Corporation, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by John S. Stadler, Esq. -- jstadler@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody, LLP. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by A. Bernard Guekguezian, Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman & Guekguezian LLP & Deirdre Kirby Lydon, Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman & Guekguezian LLP. ITT Corporation as Successor to Bell & Gossett, Hoffman Pumps and Kennedy Valves, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kathleen A. Federico, Esq. -- kfederico@melicklaw.com -- Melick & Porter, LLP, Robert S. Ludlum, Esq. -- rludlum@melicklaw.com -- Melick & Porter, LLP & Theodorus D.J. Urbanski, Esq. -- durbanski@melicklaw.com -- Melick & Porter, LLP. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Jonathan F. Tabasky, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Meghan J. Donegan, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Shaina A. Rasmussen, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Marmon Wire & Cable LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Marotta Controls, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kathleen A. Federico, Melick & Porter, LLP, Robert S. Ludlum, Melick & Porter, LLP & Theodorus D.J. Urbanski, Melick & Porter, LLP. Marshall Engineered Products Company, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Egan, Rubin & Rudman LLP. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by James W. Sexton, Esq. -- sexton@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP. Milwaukee Valve Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Francis M. Lynch, Cetrulo LLP. Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Susan A. Jackson, Esq. -- sjackson@cetllp.com -- Cetrulo LLP. Owens-Illinois Glass Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Mitchell, Esq. -- dmitchell@bernsteinshur.com -- Bernstein Shur Sawyer & Nelson & Peter J. Rubin, Esq. -- prubin@bernsteinshur.com -- Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson. Owens-Illinois, Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Mitchell, Bernstein Shur Sawyer & Nelson & Peter J. Rubin, Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Susan A. Jackson. Quaker Chemical Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Susan A. Jackson. Rapid American Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Mark G. Furey, Thompson, McNaboe, Ashley & Bull. Roper Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Katharine S. Perry, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan PC. Roth Pump Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by James W. Sexton, Litchfield Cavo LLP. Selby, Battersby & Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Susan A. Jackson. Sepco Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Francis M. Lynch, Cetrulo LLP. Spirax Sarco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam C. Martin, Cetrulo LLP & Francis M. Lynch, Cetrulo LLP. Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Kevin J. Fleming, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Paul E. Dwyer, Jr., Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP. Taco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kevin E. Young, Esq. -- kyoung@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Nathaniel J. Dudley, Esq. -- ndudley@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. The Fairbanks Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. The Gorman-Rupp Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Cheryl A. Enright, Morrison Mahoney LLP. Tyco Valves & Controls, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Kevin J. Fleming, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Paul E. Dwyer, Jr., Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Patrick J. Comerford, McCarter & English, LLP & Stephen P. Hall, Holland & Knight, LLP. Viad Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Peter C. Netburn, Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing. Viking Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Yarway Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey D. Adams, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Patrick S. Tracey, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Todd S. Holbrook, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. York International Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joel F. Pierce, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Maria E. DeLuzio, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP & Meghan L. Riordan, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP. Yuba Heat Transfer LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Katharine S. Perry, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Anco's Insurance Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- From approximately 1972 through the early 1980s, Anco Insulations, Incorporated, sold, installed, repaired, and distributed insulation materials that contained asbestos. As a result, Anco was named a defendant in approximately 2,700 asbestos-related lawsuits filed in Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi. In 1987, National Union Fire Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, issued a primary general liability insurance policy to Anco for the policy period January 1, 1987 to January 1, 1988. The Policy did not contain an asbestos exclusion. In September 2007, Anco filed a complaint seeking a declaratoy judgment against several of its excess liability insurers. National Union was not named as a defendant in the initial complaint. During the course of discovery, Anco became aware of the existence of the Policy and of the fact that it did not contain an asbestos exclusion. In April 2009, Anco forwarded all suits to National Union and tendered them to National Union under the Policy. Anco also added National Union as a party-defendant to its pending declaratory judgment action against its excess insurers. A federal district court granted National Union's motion for partial summary judgment, reasoning that, because Anco had failed to tender claims timely under the terms of the Policy, National Union was not obligated to reimburse Anco for any legal costs that it incurred in defending the untimely tendered lawsuits. The district court also granted National Union's motion for partial summary judgment on Anco's claim for statutory penalties under La.R.S. Sections 22:1973, 22:1892. In an opinion dated Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly ruled that National Union was not obligated to reimburse Anco for legal costs because Anco had failed to tender claims timely under the terms of the Policy and that Anco is precluded from asserting claims for statutory penalties under La.R.S. Sections 22:1973, 22:1892. The appeals case is ANCO INSULATIONS, INCORPORATED, a Louisiana Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant-Cross Defendant- Appellee. ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN GUARANTEE; LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross Claimants-Appellants, NO. 13-31313 (5th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/BCPQX9from Leagle.com. ********* 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 * * *