/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150313.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 52 Headlines ACB RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ACTION TEMPORARY: Faces "Flexter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ALIBABA GROUP: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in N.Y. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA AMERIPRISE FIN'L: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Allegations AMIA INVESTMENTS: Homebuyers Mull Contract Breach Class Action AMSCAN HOLDINGS: California Appeals Court Revives "Aguirre" Suit ANTHEM INC: Faces "Moran" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Moran" 2nd Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Paracha" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Pierpont" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Notice of Factors for Any Proposed Settlement APPLE INC: Acknowledges MacBook Pros' Graphics Hardware Issues AVIS BUDGET: Accused of Retaliation and Discrimination in N.Y. BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Payday Loan Class Action BLUE CROSS: E.D Mich. Judge Narrows Claims in Kent Companies Suit CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Court Dismisses "Whitby" Case With Prejudice CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Gas Royalty Payments CHICAGO: Ruling in "Stefanski" Action Reversed CIGNA CORP: Pa. Affirms Trial Court's Order in Rift With Insurers CITY FISH: Recalls Smoked Salmon Products Due to Listeria CONRAD INDUSTRIES: Faces "Virgen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CR BARD: In Indemnification Dispute With Sofradim CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports DESTINATION WILD: Faces "Irvine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ELITE FORCE: Faces "Humphries" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ENGAGETEL INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Spiegel" Suit Says ENVIRO KLEEN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hernandez" Suit Says EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Judge Denies Motion to Certify FLSA Suit FIAT CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Models With Takata Airbags FIAT CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Models With Takata Airbags FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Sued in New York Over Violations of FDCPA FORD MOTOR: "Edwards" Case May Proceed as Class, 9th Cir. Says FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: First Circuit Tosses Lexapro Class Action FOREST RIVER: Recalls 2015 Travel Trailers Due to Incorrect Label GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Mourino" Suit Over Product Misbranding GRANITEPOL & HOME: Faces "Vergara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GREEN TREE SERVICING: Bid to Dismiss "Longest" Class Suit Denied H&R BLOCK: 9th Cir. Affirms "Madar" Claim Disallowance HARPERSVILLE, AL: Blames JSC for Debtors' Prison Claims HOSPIRA INC: Recalls 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injections Due to Hair HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Magnesium Sulfate in 5% Dextrose Injections HULU LLC: Judge May Knock Out Remaining Claims in Privacy Suit IDAHO: Inmates Medical Records May Have Been Destroyed INDECO FINISHES: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime INSTAMED COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Consumer Reports JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Jury Awards $2.5MM in Risperdal Suit JEFFERIES LLC: Court Dismisses Rieckborn Securities Class Action JUICI PATTIES: Recalls Jamaican Chicken Patties Due to E. Coli KITSON STORES: Sued Over Inflated Bottled Water Prices LENOVO GROUP: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Pre-Loaded Superfish Spyware LINDEN MAYFIELD: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LSI TITLE: 11th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Clements" State Claims LOCKHEED MARTIN: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $62 Million MATERNAL SCIENCE: Recalls Healthy Mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drinks MILLERCOORS: Judge Bans Expert Testimony in Bottle Injury Suit MOVE INC: Sued in Arizona for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act MRS BPO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. NATE'S CORP: Faces "Mongiove" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Concussion Settlement Faces Criticisms NATIONAL SPOT: Faces Class Action Over Client Code Changes NETFLIX INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Suit NORMARK INC: Recalls Lithium Lazer(TM) Ice Augers NORTH CAROLINA: App. Court Rules in Favor of Beltway Landowners PANDORA MEDIA: Motion to Strike Copyright Class Action Rejected PEBBLEWORKS POOL: "Vansickle " Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT REXALL SUNDOWN: NY Court Dismisses "Lary" TCPA Class Suit RIDE RIGHT: Faces "Hatton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ROYAL APPLIANCE: Recalls Dirt Devil(R) Turbo Tool Attachments RUST-OLEUM CORP: "Fernandez" Suit Included in Restore Product MDL SECURITAS SECURITY: Arbitration of "Edwards" Case Denied SESA FLEET: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SPRAM LLC: Recalls Aluminum Front Wheel Hubs Due to Fall Hazard SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Real Estate Tax Overcharges SUPREME SERVICE: "Kervin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime TAKATA CORP: "Holland" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: "Marino" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: Safety Regulators Impose Fine in Airbag Probe TELLABS INC: Ill. Court Rejects "Wiggins" Securities Class Suit TRANSUNION: Loses Consumer Class Action Arbitration Bid UNITED STATES: Court Wants Detention of Asylum-Seekers Halted UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims WELLMARK INC: Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Judgment in "Mueller" WHEELS ASSURED: Doesn't Pay Drivers Properly, Suit Claims WILD GEESE: "Howard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages YELLOWPAGES.COM LLC: App. Ct. Upholds Decertification of Gray Suit * Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cases Down in 2014 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: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 7,000 PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Has $248.4MM Insurance Coverage ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Has $36MM Insurance Receivable ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had 1,065 Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hennessey Fails in Bid to Junk "Vellucci" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: SB Decking Wins Summary Judgment in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Refuses to Review Ruling in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Trust, 3 Cos. Dismissed from "Lee" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Flips Summary Ruling in "Latter" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Applies Tenn. Law in "Jones" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Jeffrey" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Hall" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Order Aiding Discovery in PI Suit ********* ACB RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Chehebar, an infant by parent and natural guardian Sara Chehebar, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and Sara Chehebar v. ACB Receivables Management Inc., and John Doe 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-01556-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., March 2, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com ACTION TEMPORARY: Faces "Flexter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Flexter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Action Temporary Services, Inc., d/b/a Action Total Staffing, Case No. 2:15-cv-00754 (S.D. Ohio, February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Action Temporary Services, Inc. owns and operates a staffing agency with its principal place of business in Zanesville, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Joseph F. Scott, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 815 Superior Ave., E. Ste. 1325 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (440) 498-9100 Facsimile: (216) 621-1094 E-mail: rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com jfscld@yahoo.com ALIBABA GROUP: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-00811, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Alibaba securities between October 21, 2014 and January 28, 2015, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Alibaba securities during the Class Period, you have until March 31, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Alibaba is a China-based online and mobile commerce company in retail and wholesale trade, as well as cloud computing and other services. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the soundness of the Company's business operations, the strength of its financial prospects, and ongoing regulatory scrutiny. Specifically, Alibaba failed to disclose that Company executives had met with China's State Administration of Industry and Commerce in July 2014, just two months before Alibaba's $25+ billion initial public offering in the United States, and that regulators had then brought to Alibaba's attention a variety of highly dubious -- even illegal -- business practices that the SAIC advised Alibaba it was then actively clamping down on and which threatened the core of Alibaba's business. On January 28, 2015, before the opening of trading, various members of the financial media reported that the SAIC, China's main corporate regulator, had released a white paper accusing Alibaba of engaging in the very illegal conduct disclosed to Alibaba executives in July 2014. On this news, the price of Alibaba ADSs dropped 4%, or $4.49 per ADS, closing at $102.94 per ADS on January 28th, on unusually high volume of approximately 42 million shares trading. On January 29, 2015, before the market opened, Alibaba issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter 2014 ended December 31, 2014. The Company reported revenues of just $4.22 billion for the 4Q 2014, significantly under-achieving the $4.45 billion target defendants had led the investment community to expect based on Alibaba's bullish statements throughout the Class Period concerning its ongoing purported strong revenue growth. The Company also disclosed that its profits had fallen to $964 million, or 37 cents per share, a 28% decline from the financial results for the fourth quarter 2013, a decline Alibaba largely attributed to expenses from giving shares to employees. The Company also attributed challenges generating revenues from transactions on its mobile platforms, where advertising is less profitable than on personal computers, and which comprised a larger percentage of sales in the quarter than in the previous quarter. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Alibaba ADSs plummeted another $8.64 per ADS to close at $89.81 per ADS on January 29, 2015, a one-day decline of approximately 9%, again on extremely unusually high volume of more than 76.3 million shares trading. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moshe Gutman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01064 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com AMERIPRISE FIN'L: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Allegations -------------------------------------------------------------- EDMUND SAYWARD, SR. and MARC ABBOTT et al, Plaintiffs, v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-12770-GAO, (D. Mass.) is putative class action arising from allegations that defendant Pepperidge Farm, Inc. classified its distributors as independent contractors rather than employees in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, Section 148B. The putative class consists of "[a]ll person who performed services as distributors of Pepperidge Farm pursuant to Consignment Agreements in Massachusetts at any time from October 2, 2010 to the present." The distributors argue that as a result of being characterized as independent contractors they improperly have been denied employee benefits and overtime compensation. Pepperidge Farm has moved to strike the class allegations. In an opinion and order dated February 27, 2015, District Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr., denied the defendant's Motion to Strike saying "the Complaint contains allegations that the various distributors engaged in uniform work activities. Accepting these allegations for present purposes, the Court cannot determine, at this time, that it is completely implausible for the distributors to satisfy Rule 23(b) [Fed. R. Civ. P.]." A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/7A8Tpafrom Leagle.com. Marc Abbott, Plaintiff, represented by Ian J. McLoughlin -- imcloughlin@shulaw.com -- Shapiro, Haber & Urmy, LLP, Adam J. Shafran -- ashafran@rflawyers.com -- Rudolph Friedmann LLP & Thomas V. Urmy, Jr. -- turmy@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP. Edmund Sayward, Plaintiff, represented by Ian J. McLoughlin, Shapiro, Haber & Urmy, LLP, Adam J. Shafran, Rudolph Friedmann LLP & Thomas V. Urmy, Jr., Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J. Puma -- mpuma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Paul C Evans -- pevans@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP, Lisa Stephanian Burton -- lburton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Peter J. Mee -- pmee@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. AMIA INVESTMENTS: Homebuyers Mull Contract Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Chung, writing for News.com.au, reports that an investment firm is accused of delaying the construction of a housing development to demand more money. The NSW Department of Fair Trading says it is willing to investigate the case on behalf of the group of Western Sydney first home buyers, who are furious after being informed that they may have to pay up to an additional $800,000 to $1 million for townhouses they purchased off the plan last year. One buyer, who did not wish to be named, signed the contract and paid the deposit for the $550,000 property in May. She said the buyers were initially led to believe the eight townhouses would be ready by December. In October, the development in Western Sydney's Punchbowl was purchased from its original developer, Lynton Developments, by a company called AMIA Investments Pty Ltd. The new developer informed the buyers that their contracts were being rescinded under a 'sunset clause', which allows for either the buyer or the vendor to pull out if the completion date is not met within a given time period. The buyer said up until the sunset date on February 10, the group were led to believe they would be moving in some time last month. On February 13, they received notice that AMIA Investments was rescinding. Buyers were informed at a meeting with the real estate agent that they would have to pay up to an additional $100,000 each to go ahead with the purchase. The woman says she can't afford to pay the extra money. "Punchbowl isn't exactly a great area," she said. "I believe this was something that was planned in advance, that it was purposely delayed. We signed our contracts and paid our deposit in good faith, and now we're left with nothing because someone wants more money." A spokeswoman for LJ Hooker, which sold the properties, declined to comment. The agent involved is set to lose up to $100,000 in commissions as a result of the contracts being rescinded. The buyers are now considering their legal options, including a potential class action. A spokeswoman for Fair Trading NSW said the agency would be willing to investigate whether there had been a breach of consumer protection laws. "It is Fair Trading's experience that most matters of this type turn on the conditions of the contract that the consumer has signed," she said. "Consequently, their role is likely to be confined to whether there is any evidence of false or misleading representations having been made in the marketing of the property." She reminded consumers to ensure they fully read the terms and conditions of the contract when buying off the plan. "Consumers should seek their own independent legal advice and check the conditions of the contract closely," she said. Sunset clauses or put and call notices are common in off-the-plan contracts as a way of protecting both the buyer and the vendor, but are sometimes used by developers in this manner. "When markets are rising, developers can trigger the sunset clause to make the contracts null and void and resell the properties at higher prices," said property analyst Terry Ryder, founder of Hotspotting.com.au. "It doesn't surprise me that it resurfaces from time to time." Glenn Byres, NSW executive director of the Property Council of Australia, said when buying off the plan people should be able to have faith in what they are buying and the security of a contract. "Given its importance to the housing market and buyers, we need to ensure everyone can have comfort in the system," he said. "That's why we'd always encourage any buyer to take their time, get good advice on any fine print and that could also include being clear about the track record of who they are buying from." Alex Sapounas, a conveyancing specialist with CM Lawyers, said these situations could arise when contracts were weighted towards the developer. "Is it legal? Probably yes. Is it ethical? No. It's a cautionary tale that really you need to find out the history of that developer before you sign any contract," he said. CM Lawyers principal Christine Manolakos added that proving a development has been intentionally delayed to trigger a sunset clause would be extremely difficult. "The buyers would have to have evidence of that, get a statement from someone who worked on the site originally. It would be very hard to prove," she said. "It's obviously unethical behavior, but unfortunately there's not much they can do." Paul Sant -- paul.sant@turnerfreeman.com.au -- partner at Turner Freeman Lawyers specializing in property law, said it was important to include a clause in the contract requiring the vendor to do everything possible to get the plan registered. "This all started many years ago, I remember the case, it was an LJ Hooker site at Seven Hills. They sold a residential development off the plan, but the area was rezoned and they realized they could make more money by turning it into a shopping centre, so they just waited for the sunset clause to kick in," he said. "From that time on, certainly in my practice I always put a clause in my contracts requiring the developer to exercise everything in their power to get the thing done." AMSCAN HOLDINGS: California Appeals Court Revives "Aguirre" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California reversed the order striking and dismissing the class allegations and denying class certification of the lawsuit AGUIRRE v. AMSCAN HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. C073059. The matter is remanded to the trial court for consideration of whether class certification is proper given the appellate court's determination that there exists an ascertainable class. Plaintiff shall recover her costs on appeal. Plaintiff Dionne Aguirre sued defendants Amscan Holdings, Inc., and PA Acquisition, doing business as Party America (collectively Party America) on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, alleging Party America violated Civil Code1 section 1747.08 of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 by routinely requesting and recording personal identification information, namely ZIP Codes, from customers using credit cards in its retail stores in California. The trial court found that plaintiff's proposed class of "[a]ll persons in California from whom Defendant requested and recorded a ZIP code in conjunction with a credit card purchase transaction from June 2, 2007 through October 13, 2010" is not an ascertainable class due to "plaintiff's inability to clearly identify, locate and notify class members through a reasonable expenditure of time and money [citation] bars her from litigating this case as a class action." Plaintiff appealed. In its Feb. 11, 2015 Order, available at http://is.gd/0j1wFafrom Leagle.com, the appellate court concluded that the trial court applied an erroneous legal standard in determining the proposed class is not ascertainable and erred in its conclusion. ANTHEM INC: Faces "Moran" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Maureen Moran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-at-00283 (E.D. Cal., February 27, 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: Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Marisa C. Livesay, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com livesay@whafh.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: burt@whafh.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Moran" 2nd Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Maureen Moran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00460 (E.D. Cal., February 27, 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: Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Marisa C. Livesay, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com livesay@whafh.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: burt@whafh.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Paracha" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ibrar Paracha and Mark Krack, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15- cv-00349 (S.D. Ind., February 27, 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: Jonathan Charles Little, Esq. Syed Ali Saeed, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE, LLP 1433 N. Meridian Street, Suite 202 Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (812) 320-3367 Facsimile: (888) 422-3151 E-mail: jon@sllawfirm.com ali@sllawfirm.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Pierpont" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Pierpont, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00292 (D. Conn., February 27, 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: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. David R. Scott, Esq. Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com david.scott@scott-scott.com ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203 Weston, Florida 33326 Telephone: (954) 315-3454 Facsimile: (954) 315-3455 E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com ANTHEM INC: Notice of Factors for Any Proposed Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Alsup issued a notice regarding factors to be evaluated for any proposed class settlement in the case captioned CLIFF SOJOURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM, INC., Defendant, NO. C 15-00637 WHA, (N.D. Cal.). The March 3, 2015 notice, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/c9lSDpfrom Leagle.com, provides that the factors to be evaluated are: 1. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION 2. DUE DILIGENCE 3. COST-BENEFIT FOR ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS 4. THE RELEASE 5. EXPANSION OF THE CLASS 6. REVERSION 7. CLAIM PROCEDURE 8. ATTORNEY'S FEES 9. DWINDLING OR MINIMAL ASSETS 10. TIMING OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 11. A RIGHT TO OPT OUT IS NOT A CURE-ALL 12. INCENTIVE PAYMENT 13. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS Cliff Sojourner, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah Suzanne Dixon -- ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com -- Gomez Trial Attorneys & John Paul Fiske -- Fiske@TheGomezFirm.com -- Gomez Iagmin Trial Attorneys. APPLE INC: Acknowledges MacBook Pros' Graphics Hardware Issues -------------------------------------------------------------- Business Insider, citing MacRumors, reports that after successfully battling a class action lawsuit last year, Apple is finally acknowledging a long-running issue with MacBook Pros' graphics hardware and has begun offering free repairs. The lawsuit was brought against Apple in late 2014 by customers who claimed the MacBook Pros they purchased in 2011 had severely defective graphics cards, and Apple should be forced to pay for the repair. It clearly wasn't an isolated problem: A Change.org petition calling on Apple to issue replacements for affected models has been signed almost 40,000 times. In January, Apple successfully had the lawsuit dismissed, with the judge ruling that the "plaintiffs have failed to allege that Apple's logic boards were unfit for their ordinary purposes or lacked a minimal level of quality." But it seems that Apple has now had a change of heart. The company announced on Feb. 20 that it will repair affected products free of charge. There's no indication of how many MacBooks Pros have been affected by the issue over the last four years -- Apple just says a "small percentage . . . may exhibit distorted video, no video, or unexpected system restarts." The program was set to begin on Feb. 21 in the US and Canada, and on Feb 27 elsewhere in the world. It was set to run until Feb 27, 2016. Customers who have experienced the issue can take their devices into Apple Stores (and authorized retailers), or call up and order a postage-paid box to send it in. The affected models are: MacBook Pro (15-inch Early 2011) MacBook Pro (15-inch, Late 2011) MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2012) MacBook Pro (17-inch Early 2011) MacBook Pro (17-inch Late 2011) MacBook Pro (Retina, 15 inch, Early 2013) AVIS BUDGET: Accused of Retaliation and Discrimination in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Iris Lawson v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., and Trish Homernuk individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-01510-GBD (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff was discriminated against, was retaliated against, and had her personal medical information disseminated and used to humiliate her by the Defendants solely due to her disability, perceived disability, and in retaliation for exercising her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Avis Budget Group, Inc. is a foreign business corporation duly organized in the state of Delaware, with headquarters located in Parsippany, New Jersey. The Company owns and operates a number of offices, including an office under their name located in White Plains, New York. Trish Homernuk is an employee of Avis, holding the position of "Airport Manager." The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse C. Rose, Esq. PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 620 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 248-7431 E-mail: jrose@theroselawgroup.com BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Payday Loan Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Ben Bedell, writing for Law.com, reports that while acknowledging that governments have "sought to protect desperately poor people from the consequences of their own desperation" by prohibiting usurious loans, a federal judge dismissed the claims of a class of "payday loan" borrowers -- who were charged interest as high as 1,200 percent -- against a bank that processed the transactions. Eastern District Judge Arthur Spatt ruled in Costoso v. Bank of America, 14-cv-4100, that Jeanette Costoso was bound by her account agreement with Bank of America, which "expressly insulates the defendant from liability for permitting withdrawals from the plaintiff's account." Ms. Costoso had argued that the agreement -- and common law principles of unjust enrichment, conversion, and unconscionability -- required Bank of America to reject the automated debits she had authorized her lenders to make to repay the short-term loans. She said her agreement incorporated the rules of the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) barring debits an account holder has authorized if such debits are "otherwise invalid" under applicable law. The complaint did not allege Bank of America had any actual notice that the six payday lenders in her case were engaged in illegal lending. But Ms. Costoso said the bank should have known the loans totalling $2,150 that she obtained over the Internet were prohibited by New York's usury law, New York Banking Law Sec. 14- a, which bars loans carrying annual interest above 16 percent. Ms. Costoso had authorized the lenders to automatically debit her checking account through the Automated Clearing House (ACH) system, which is governed by the NACHA rules, to repay the loans. They carried annual interest rates between 500 percent and 1,200 percent and had to be repaid within weeks. Ms. Costoso said the debits caused her account balance to drop below zero, forcing her to pay overdraft fees. Court records show Ms. Costoso had filed for personal bankruptcy in 2005, listing $24,000 in debts and $4,800 in assets, and a job that paid $1,200 a month. Judge Spatt's ruling said the NACHA provisions in the account agreement were not binding on the bank and, in any event, did not apply to consumer loans since a "plain reading" of the agreement provided that a separate federal regulation applied. Judge Spatt said, however, that even if the rules applied, they protected the bank, not Ms. Costoso. Since Bank of America received the debit request from an originating bank where the payday lenders have accounts, and the originating bank vouches for the validity of the debit, Bank of America "could rely on that representation and debit the plaintiff's account as directed." Ms. Costoso argued that notices from various New York state and federal bank regulatory agencies alerting the banking industry to illegal payday lender practices should have raised red flags. A key red flag, the complaint said, is a far higher than normal number of overdrafts, or "returned items," caused by a payday lenders' debits to borrowers' accounts. Bank of America, the nation's largest consumer bank, acknowledged it maintained a computerized screening system designed to detect illegal transactions, as required by the NACHA rules. But the system "does not provide financial institutions in [Bank of America]'s position with sufficient information to determine if a transaction in which an ACH payment is being made is illegal," the bank said in its motion to dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b)(7). "Imposing on banks an obligation to police the purposes for which a customer makes ACH payments, with its attendant potential liability, also would cause an efficient ACH payment system to grind to a halt," the bank said (See also plaintiff's opposition to motion to dismiss). An October 2014 study of the online payday loan industry by the Pew Charitable Trust found that abusive practices were widespread. A typical borrower paid $520 in interest for a $375, two-week loan. The study concluded that "consumers' banks and the Automated Clearing House system play a crucial role in enabling online payday lending." The study noted that the NACHA had enacted rules last August that flag companies that generate overdraft returned items at a rate over 15 percent, or 10 times that of typical companies. The Costoso action was filed in July 2014. Pew commended JPMorgan Chase for policy changes that make it easier for customers to stop unwanted or unauthorized withdrawals and close accounts, for limiting customers' overdraft fees to one per lender in a 30-day period. Judge Spatt's ruling quoted the state Court of Appeals case Schneider v. Phelps, 41 N.Y.2d 238 (1977) dicta that "law-making authorities in almost all civilizations have recognized that the crush of financial burdens causes people to agree to almost any conditions of the lender and to consent to even the most improvident loans," but he held that Ms. Costoso had failed, "on these facts," to state a claim against intermediary banks, such as Bank of America. Ms. Costoso and the plaintiffs were represented by Darren Kaplan of Darren Kaplan Law Firm; Hassan Zavareei, a partner at Tycko & Zavareei; Jason Alperstein -- alperstein@kolawyers.com -- a partner at Kopelowitz Ostrow; Sathya Gosselin, a partner of Hausfeld LLP; and Stephen Six -- six@stuevesiegel.com -- a partner at Stueve Siegel Hanson. Bank of America was represented by Maria Earley -- mearley@sidley.com -- a partner at Sidley Austin. BLUE CROSS: E.D Mich. Judge Narrows Claims in Kent Companies Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed portions of the claims raised by plaintiffs in the case, KENT COMPANIES, INC., and KENT COMPANIES, INC. EMPLOYEE HEALTH PLAN, Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-13070 (E.D. Mich.) Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) has been the third- party administrator of plaintiffs' self-insured employee benefit Plan since June 19, 2001, when the parties executed their Administrative Services Contract (ASC). In its new system begun in 1993, plaintiffs allege that BCBSM submitted inflated hospital bills to its customers, and then pocketed the difference between the amounts actually paid to the hospital and the inflated amounts wrongfully charged to the customer, coining its new system retention reallocation. According to the plaintiffs, the allegedly hidden fees consisted of four components, the Other Than Group ("OTG") subsidy, the Contingency/Risk surcharge, the Retiree surcharge, and the Network Access fee. In addition to the hospital claim mark-ups, plaintiffs also allege that BCBSM had another fraudulent scheme by which it intentionally overstated physician/professional claims as part of a program known as the Physicians Group Incentive Program (PGIP). Under the PGIP, plaintiffs allege that BCBSM inflated the amount charged by a professional, resulting in an increased charge to plaintiffs without reporting the additional fee. Plaintiffs filed a nine-count complaint on August 7, 2014. Count I alleges that BCBSM breached its fiduciary duty in violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104, and count II alleges that BCBSM engaged in self dealing in violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1106. Counts III through IX allege various state claims. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claims as time-barred and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Also before the court is plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability only. Judge Steeh denied BCBSM's motion to dismiss without prejudice as to plaintiffs' ERISA claims and granted as to plaintiffs' state law claims. Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied without prejudice. A copy of Judge Steeh's opinion and order dated February 26, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/bI8IF6from Leagle.com. Kent Companies, Inc. and Kent Companies, Inc. Employee Health Plan, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin A. Anderson -- baanderson@varnumlaw.com -- Kyle Patrick Konwinski -- kpkonwinski@varnumlaw.com -- Perrin Rynders -- prynders@varnumlaw.com -- Aaron M. Phelps -- amphelps@varnumlaw.com -- at Varnum LLP Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, Defendant, represented by Kathleen A. Lang -- klang@dickinsonwright.com -- Kimberly J. Ruppel -- kruppel@dickinsonwright.com -- at Dickinson Wright PLLC CHELSEA INVESTMENT: Court Dismisses "Whitby" Case With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action captioned LANDON WHITBY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHELSEA INVESTMENT CORPORATION, etc., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14CV1633-LAB (BLM), (S.D. Cal.) was brought under the Fair Housing Act by tenants of an apartment complex in San Diego, the Windwood Village Apartments. They allege Defendants discriminated against them based on familial status, i.e., being families with children. The Defendant identified as MMA PHR CIC, L.P. moved to dismiss for improper service. It contended that Plaintiffs served Elizabeth Zepeda in an effort to effect service on it, but that this was ineffective. This Defendant argued that there is no such entity as MMA PHR CIC, L.P., that Zepeda instead worked for Chelsea Investment Corporation as a Risk Coordinator/Risk Manager and was neither an officer nor agent of MMA PHR CIC, L.P. It also alleged that personal service was not followed by mailing, as required by law. Defendants James Schmid, Lynn Harrington Schmid, and the Schmid Family Trust also moved to dismiss, because the complaint failed to allege what control they had over the apartment complex or its management. District Judge Larry Alan Burns, in order dated February 27, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/To1GHVfrom Leagle.com, granted the two motions to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The motion for leave to amend was granted in part. The proposed amended complaint attached as an exhibit to the motion for leave to amend is unacceptable in its present form, Judge Burns held. "Plaintiffs may, within 14 calendar days of the date this order is entered in the docket, file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies addressed in the motions to dismiss and conceded in the motion for leave to amend. They should also take care that the amended complaint addresses concerns raised in Defendants' oppositions to the motion for leave to amend. They may add Daud and Shokria Nawaey as Plaintiffs, but no one else. They may correct or clarify the names or identities of Defendants sued in the original complaint, but must not name any Defendants except those they allege to be liable for Fair Housing Act violations at the Windwood Village Apartments. After filing the amended complaint, they should re-serve the Defendant they erroneously sued as MMA PHR CIC, L.P., within 14 calendar days. Except as expressly modified in this order or by Magistrate Judge Major, the case management dates set by Judge Major remain in place," ruled Judge Burns. Landon Whitby, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson -- matthew@wilsonlawcorp.com -- Wilson Law Corporation. Ruth Carolina Whitby, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Ioulia Kouprina, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. William Jhandi, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Teresa Jhandi, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Brett Jenson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Miranda Jenson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Jeannette McGhee, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Adrian Whittenburg, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Consuelo Guerrero, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Victoria Nayak, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Tammy Cole, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Oleksandra Martynshyn, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wilson, Wilson Law Corporation. Chelsea Investment Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert Michael Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin. CIC PHR, LP, Defendant, represented by Colin Howard Walshok, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin LLP & Robert Michael Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin. PHR Inclusionary, LLC, Defendant, represented by Colin Howard Walshok, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin LLP & Robert Michael Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin. Pacific Southwest Community Development Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert Michael Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin. MMA PHR CIC, L.P., Defendant, represented by Robert Michael Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin. CIC Management Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Michael Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin. Conam Management Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert Michael Juskie, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin. The Schmid Family Trust, Defendant, represented by Janice Patrice Brown -- brown@brownlawgroup.com -- Brown Law Group & Vanessa Rae Negrete -- negrete@brownlawgroup.com -- Brown Law Group. James J. Schmid, Defendant, represented by Janice Patrice Brown, Brown Law Group & Vanessa Rae Negrete, Brown Law Group. Lynn Harrington Schmid, Defendant, represented by Janice Patrice Brown, Brown Law Group & Vanessa Rae Negrete, Brown Law Group. Rosie Terriquez, Defendant, represented by Colin Howard Walshok, Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin LLP. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Gas Royalty Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Gibbons, writing for The Times Tribune, reports that a suit filed in federal court accuses Chesapeake Energy Corp. of using unlawful monopoly power over natural gas pipeline systems to reduce gas royalty payments to landowners. The claims, filed on behalf of more than 90 plaintiffs owning a total of 6,000 acres in Bradford, Wyoming, Susquehanna and Sullivan counties, allege Chesapeake guaranteed its spinoff gas firm, Access Midstream, would have exclusive rights to gas gathering on its wells in the region. "They've got a monopoly on the gathering system, that's what's driving all this," said attorney Thomas McNamara of Indik & McNamara PC in Philadelphia, one of three firms that filed the suit. "They can basically charge whatever they want." Facing huge debts in 2011, Chesapeake sold $4.76 billion in unwanted assets to Access Midstream, a company spun out of Chesapeake, according to a ProPublica investigation published last March mentioned repeatedly in the lawsuit. Access had exclusive rights to ship gas from Chesapeake, which would then pay Access large sums for the gathering service. Chesapeake recouped its costs with deductions from the gas royalty checks owed to the plaintiffs and others, the suit states. According to ProPublica, some landowners with Chesapeake leases have seen 94 percent of their royalty payments going to "post- production costs." Chesapeake spokesman Gordon Pennoyer declined to comment on the litigation. Attorneys claim Chesapeake's business practices violated a suite of federal antitrust laws, including the Clayton Act, Sherman Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They are seeking to stop the deductions, collect damages and recover past royalties and attorney's fees under the antitrust statutes and because of contractual breaches and tortious conduct. The suit focuses mostly on Chesapeake as a gas production company but also names Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC, Statoil USA Onshore Properties Inc. and Mitsui E&P USA LLC as defendants because of their relationships to plaintiffs' leases. Chesapeake faces a series of legal battles across the U.S. over its business practices, including royalty deductions. In November, the company revealed in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it received subpoenas from the federal Department of Justice and several states. It also faces trial over fraud and racketeering charges in Michigan. Last February, then-Gov. Tom Corbett sent a letter to Chesapeake CEO Doug Lawler saying the company's royalty deductions have "caused a significant erosion of trust and goodwill." He added he would ask state Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane to examine the issue. The state attorney general's office has filed no charges against Chesapeake, though Capitolwire reported her office issued subpoenas "throughout the energy industry." In the state legislature, a bill that would have addressed royalty deductions died in the state House in last October. Another pending class-action suit in Pennsylvania's Middle District is awaiting approval on an $11 million settlement. If that settlement goes through, certain landowners holding Chesapeake leases would have to opt out to participate in other litigation over the royalty issue. CHICAGO: Ruling in "Stefanski" Action Reversed ---------------------------------------------- Justice Mary K. Rochford of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division, reversed a circuit court order in the case NELLI STEFANSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant and Counterplaintiff-Appellant, NO. 1-13-2844 (Ill. App.) Nelli Stefanski was employed by the City of Chicago, and was covered by the City's Medical care plan. Stefanski was injured in an automobile collision caused by a third-party tortfeasor and received medical services in connection with this collision, which were paid for in full or in part by the Plan. She retained an attorney, who obtained an $18,000 settlement from the third-party tortfeasor as compensation for plaintiff's personal injuries. The City's attorneys, without participating in the recovery of the settlement, nevertheless asserted a claim against plaintiff's recovery pursuant to subrogation and reimbursement language contained in the Plan's documentation. Under protest, plaintiff's attorney arranged for $2,900 to be paid to the City by the third- party tortfeasor. Stefanski filed a lawsuit against the City and sought declaratory relief and damages for unjust enrichment on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former beneficiaries of the City's medical insurance plan who had: (1) received medical services paid by the City's self-funded insurance plan for personal injuries caused by third-party tortfeasors; (2) employed the services of an attorney to collect damages from such tortfeasors; and (3) received recoveries from such tortfeasors that were reduced due to the City's improper refusal to reduce its subrogation claim to account for its share of the attorney fees incurred by plaintiff, in violation of the so-called "common fund doctrine." On November 6, 2009, the City filed a combined motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to sections 2-615, 2-619, and 2- 619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The circuit court entered a written order granting plaintiff's motion for class certification and also granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class on counts I and II of the complaint, and denied the City's motion for summary judgment. The City filed a petition for leave to appeal. Justice Rochford reversed and vacated the judgment of the circuit court granting plaintiff's motion for class certification. A copy of Justice Rochford's opinion dated February 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/0RbKdLfrom Leagle.com. The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division panel consists of Justices Mary K. Rochford, Bertina E. Lampkin and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall. CIGNA CORP: Pa. Affirms Trial Court's Order in Rift With Insurers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William H. Platt of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order of the trial court in the appealed case entitled CIGNA CORPORATION, Appellant, v. EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY, INC. AND NUTMEG INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees, NO. 3538EDA 2013 (Pa.) On December 21, 1998 Cigna Corporation amended its retirement plan, retroactive to January 1, 1998, converting its traditional defined benefit pension plan to a cash balance plan. Cigna assured plan participants in the notification materials that the conversion would not affect benefits accrued as of December 31, 1997. In 2001 Cigna was involved in a class action suit entitled Amara v. Cigna, brought by its plan participants, alleging in essence that the plan amendments had the net effect of reducing benefits or benefit accruals for some plan participants in violation of ERISA. Cigna was insured under a multi-line insurance policy, including professional liability and fiduciary liability. The primary insurer was Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's of London. Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. and Nutmeg Insurance Company were excess carriers whose obligations were determined on a follow-form basis to the Lloyd's of London policy In 2012, Cigna filed a complaint against Executive Risk and Nutmeg Insurance a declaratory judgment to declare coverage under the fiduciary liability provisions of the policy for claims made against it in the underlying class action, Amara v. Cigna. Executive Risk and Nutmeg Insurance denied coverage under policy exclusion for deliberately fraudulent or criminal acts or omissions. Executive Risk and Nutmeg Insurance filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Cigna's complaint with prejudice in an order and opinion dated October 18, 2013, and docketed on October 21, 2013. Cigna filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. Cigna appealed, challenging the trial court's application of fraudulent acts exclusion. Judge Platt affirmed the trial court's order in his opinion dated February 27, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/z8vrUpfrom Leagle.com The Superior Court of Pennsylvania panel consists of Judges William H. Platt, Christine L. Donohue and David N. Wecht. CITY FISH: Recalls Smoked Salmon Products Due to Listeria --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: City Fish, Fanny Bay Oysters Seafood Shop, Sandyview Farms, Whitecourt IGA, Sobeys Country Hills, IGA Lakeview, Leduc Co-op Grocery Ltd., Hay River Northmart Food Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Possibly National, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9687 The food recall warning issued on February 21, 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. Industry is recalling Salish Seafoods brand Candy Smoked Salmon from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers, food service establishments, retailers, and distributors should not consume, serve, use, or sell the recalled product, sold refrigerated, described below. The following product has been sold in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan and may have been sold in other provinces and territories. Please note that some product packages may not bear the same brand, product name or lot code as the product described below, or a brand at all. Also, this product 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 products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by 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) UPC ---------- ----------- ---- on product --- ---------- Salish Seafoods Candy Smoked Variable Lot # 6919, None Salmon Lot # 6920, Lot # 6932 and Lot # 6949 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/xylqjF CONRAD INDUSTRIES: Faces "Virgen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Virgen, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Conrad Industries, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00465 (W.D. La., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. Conrad Industries, Inc. is in the business of boat construction with its principal place of business in Morgan City, Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. COSTALES LAW OFFICE 3801 Canal St Ste 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 914-1048 Facsimile: (504) 272-2956 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com CR BARD: In Indemnification Dispute With Sofradim ------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that, facing multidistrict litigation over its Uretex Sling pelvic mesh product, medical device maker C.R. Bard is claiming in federal court in Newark that the product's French supplier breached a contractual obligation to indemnify it. Meanwhile, the supplier, Sofradim Production of Trevoux, France, has filed cross-claims alleging it is actually owed a duty of indemnity by Bard. Bard has asked the court to find that Sofradim is obligated to defend it against any past, present or future claims related to injuries from the product under a 2002 contract giving Bard the right to sell the product in the United States and Canada. Bard sued Sofradim in state court in Union County, New Jersey, on Jan. 22, and the French company removed the case to federal court on Feb. 26. Bard, based in New Providence, New Jersey, contends that the litigation by users of the product arises from the use or sale of the product, which makes Sofradim liable under the contract. Sofradim, for its part, contends that the core allegations concern Bard's negligence in its development, design, labeling, storing, handling, promoting, advertising or distributing of the product, which are Bard's responsibilities under the contract. The Uretex Sling, which is used for surgical treatment of incontinence in women, has been linked to complications such as chronic pain, inflammation and adverse reactions. Suits related to the Uretex Sling and other surgical devices for incontinence treatment in women have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation in the Southern District of West Virginia. Sofradim has brought cross-claims in the MDL seeking a declaration that the 2002 contract absolves it of the duty to defend Bard from its willful default or negligence, and that Bard has a duty to defend and indemnify Sofradim from the suits. As of Feb. 9, products liability suits involving claims by approximately 14,090 plaintiffs concerning Bard's surgical incontinence products for women have been filed against the company in various federal and state courts, the company said in its most recent 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company did not break down how many of those cases involve products made by Sofradim. In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and four others in Canada that relate to the company's surgical incontinence products are pending, the company said. None of those actions has been certified. On top of that, approximately 1,800 claims have been threatened against the company but have not been filed, the company filing said. A judgment of $3.6 million was entered against the company by a California court in July 2012 in the first state court case involving Bard incontinence products, the company said in its 10-K. An appellate court affirmed the decision in November 2014, and the company has petitioned for review by the California Supreme Court. The first trial in the MDL resulted in a $2 million judgment against Bard. That decision is on appeal. The suits against Bard and Sofradim over the Uretex product generally seek medical monitoring, compensatory and punitive damages, a judicial finding of defect and causation, and attorney fees. Vito Pinto -- vpinto@lindabury.com -- of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper in Westfield, New Jersey, representing Bard, did not return a call about the case, nor did Sofradim's lawyers, William O'Kane Jr. -- wo'kane@archerlaw.com -- of Archer & Greiner in Haddonfield, New Jersey, and Marshall King -- mking@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in New York. CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Zinno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CTPartners Executive Search Inc., Brian M. Sullivan and William J. Keneally, Case No. 1:15-cv-01476 (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 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. CTPartners Executive Search Inc. provides retained executive search services and maintains headquarters at 1166 Avenue of the Americas, 3rd Floor, New York, New York 10036. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 110 West A Street, Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com - and - W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 802-1486 Facsimile: (212) 602-1592 E-mail: scotth@johnsonandweaver.com DESTINATION WILD: Faces "Irvine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ John P. Irvine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Destination Wild Dunes Management, Inc., Destination Hotels & Resorts, Inc., and Lowe Hospitality Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00980 (D.S.C., March 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a lodging management company headquartered in Colorado with over 30 independent, luxury and upscale hotels, resorts and golf clubs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Scott Falls, Esq. FALLS LEGAL 245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250 Charleston, SC 29492 Telephone: (843) 737-6040 Facsimile: (843) 737-6140 E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elena Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Distribution Management Services, Inc. d/b/a DMS Packaging Services and David Walters, Case No. 1:15-cv-01769 (N.D. Ill., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Distribution Management Services, Inc. provides the operational infrastructure for its subsidiary companies, specializing in automated order handling, fulfillment and shipping of small package goods. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulask, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com ELITE FORCE: Faces "Humphries" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Humphries, Jeffrey Liu and Kevin O'hara, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. Elite Force Staffing, Inc. and Steven W. Worrell, Case No. 3:15-cv-00112 (E.D. Va., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Elite Force Staffing, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that owns and operates a staffing agency with its headquarters at: 991 Chester Rd. Chester, VA 23831. The Plaintiff is represented by: Virginia Rae Diamond, Esq. ASHCRAFT & GEREL LLP 4900 Seminary Rd, Suite 650 Alexandria, VA 22311 Telephone: (703) 931-5500 Facsimile: (703) 820-0630 E-mail: vdiamond@ashcraftlaw.com ENGAGETEL INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Spiegel" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Marshall Spiegel, individually and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Engagetel, Inc., Dennis Carlson, Arash Akhavan, ARG Group, Wyoming Corporate Services, Gerald Pitts, John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01809 (N.D. Ill., February 28, 2015), seeks to obtain redress for all persons who have received unsolicited robocalls on their cellular telephones, and landlines for individuals on the federal do not call list. Engagetel, Inc. is a Wyoming corporation that provides caller ID spoofing services. Wyoming Corporate Services is engaged in the business of providing telemarketers with so-called shelf corporations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher V. Langone, Esq. 207 Texas Lane Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone: (607) 592-2661 E-mail: langonelaw@gmail.com ENVIRO KLEEN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Hernandez" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Adriana Hernandez, Felix Diaz-Santiago, Juan Vasquez, Otilio Hernandez, Evaristo Reyes-Arrioja, and Norma Guzman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Enviro Kleen, Inc., Michael Malone, Scott Alter, John And Jane Does 1-10, and John Doe Corporations and Other Entities 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv- 01468 (D.N.J., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. Enviro Kleen, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation that provides commercial cleaning and janitorial services. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Zatuchni, Esq. ZATUCHNI & ASSOCIATES, LLC 287 South Main Street Lambertville, NJ 08530 Telephone: (609) 243-0300 E-mail: davidz@zatuchniassociates.com EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Judge Denies Motion to Certify FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge in Newark has denied a motion to certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action for unpaid overtime by employees of Express Scripts Holding Co. The suit sought to recover six years of unpaid overtime on behalf of 170 former employees of Medco Health Solutions Inc., who began working for Express Scripts when the two companies merged in April 2012. But the plaintiff failed to make the "modest factual showing" that those workers were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law, U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler of the District of New Jersey said in denying the motion. The workers were categorized as exempt from overtime by Medco, and plaintiff Roberta Henry claims in her suit that she routinely worked more than 40 hours per week but received no overtime pay. Meanwhile, Express Scripts provided overtime pay to workers with similar job descriptions, according to suit. Nearly two years after the merger, on Jan. 12, 2014, Express Scripts adopted a uniform set of job classifications that made Ms. Henry and others eligible for overtime. The suit sought relief under the FLSA for Ms. Henry and others whose status was changed to nonexempt but were not paid for overtime work before the reclassification. In an FLSA collective action, the plaintiff must "produce some evidence, beyond pure speculation, of a factual nexus between the manner in which the employer's alleged policy affected her and the manner in which it affected other employees," Judge Chesler said. In her factual showing, Ms. Henry cited Express Scripts' decision to reclassify 170 employees as nonexempt, and said it did not review the job duties that those workers performed in the prior three years, and did not pay back overtime wages to any of the 170 reclassified employees. But Judge Chesler said Ms. Henry failed to offer facts to suggest that the employees' previous classifications as exempt were incorrect at the time, that the previous classifications as exempt originated in a common policy that would render those employees as similarly situated or that the previous classifications as exempt resulted in FLSA violations. The facts presented by Ms. Henry are not sufficient to infer any FLSA violations, and reclassification alone does not show the act was violated, Judge Chesler said. Judge Chesler cited Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a 2012 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that described the first step of the certification process as determining whether similarly situated plaintiffs do in fact exist. By failing to provide evidence of a common policy or plan that violated the law, Ms. Henry could not show that similarly situated plaintiffs exist, Judge Chesler said. Ms. Henry worked at the Express Scripts facility in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, with the title of senior security administration analyst, according to the suit. She did not supervise other employees or exercise independent judgment or discretion with respect to matters of significance. The amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, not counting costs or interest, the plaintiff said in court documents. Ms. Henry's suit claimed Express Scripts showed a reckless disregard for compliance with the FLSA by its failure to analyze the job duties of the plaintiff and other employees to determine whether they were performing exempt duties. The suit sought damages for a six- year period and requested unpaid overtime wages, attorney fees, prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The merger of Express Scripts, of St. Louis, and Medco Health, which was based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, was valued at $29 billion. Both companies are in the business of prescription benefit management. The lawyer who brought the FLSA claim, James Boyan III -- jboyan@pashmanstein.com -- of Pashman Stein in Hackensack, New Jersey, declined to comment on the case. Stephen Payerle -- spayerle@mdmc-law.com -- and John Peirano Jr.-- jpeirano@mdmc-law.com -- of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter in Morristown, New Jersey, representing Express Scripts, did not return calls seeking comment. FIAT CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Models With Takata Airbags ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV Notification type: Service Campaign Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 1000 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015093TC ID number: 2015093 Manufacturer recall number: P40 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) Canada is conducting a voluntary Safety Improvement Program involving Takata driver and/or passenger airbag inflators installed in certain vehicles that were originally sold or ever registered in certain high humidity areas of the United States. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) will replace the driver and/or passenger inflator on affected vehicles, depending on the vehicle involved. Owners who believe their vehicles may have been originally purchased or registered in Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands should contact a Fiat Chrysler Automobile (FCA) dealer. This action is not being conducted under the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- DODGE CHARGER 2005, 2006, 2007 CHRYSLER ASPEN 2007 DODGE MAGNUM 2005, 2006, 2007 DODGE RAM 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 DODGE DAKOTA 2005, 2006, 2007 DODGE DURANGO 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 CHRYSLER 300 2005, 2006, 2007 FIAT CHRYSLER: Recalls Multiple Models With Takata Airbags ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV Notification type: Service Campaign Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 1000 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015094TC ID number: 2015094 Manufacturer recall number: P78 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) Canada is conducting a voluntary Safety Improvement Program involving Takata passenger airbag inflators installed in certain vehicles that were originally sold or ever registered in certain high humidity areas of the United States. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) will replace the passenger inflator on affected vehicles. Owners who believe their vehicles may have been originally purchased or registered in Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Guam, American Samoa and Saipan should contact a Fiat Chrysler Automobile (FCA) dealer. This action is not being conducted under the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- DODGE CHARGER 2005 DODGE MAGNUM 2005 DODGE RAM 2003, 2004, 2005 DODGE DAKOTA 2005 DODGE DURANGO 2004, 2005 CHRYSLER 300 2005 FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Sued in New York Over Violations of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-01060 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com FORD MOTOR: "Edwards" Case May Proceed as Class, 9th Cir. Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Gene Edwards appealed the district court's denial of her motion for class certification in her action against Ford Motor Company. Ms. Edwards alleges that Ford violated California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and Unfair Competition Law when it sold and serviced 2005-07 Freestyle vehicles without informing customers of a known defect in the electronic throttle control (ETC) system that caused the Freestyles to "surge," or accelerate unexpectedly. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of class certification for abuse of discretion. On February 27, 2015, the Ninth Circuit held in a memorandum, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/8HzrLofrom Leagle.com, that "the district court erred in holding that materiality under the CLRA would require individualized proof. Under the CLRA, each potential class member must both have "an actual injury and show that the injury was caused by the challenged practice." But the need for an individual determination of damages does not, by itself, defeat class certification. A manufacturer has a duty to disclose a known defect that poses an unreasonable safety hazard. Because materiality is governed by an objective "reasonable person" standard under California law, an inquiry that is the same for every class member, a finding that the defendant has failed to disclose information that would have been material to a reasonable person who purchased the defendant's product gives rise to a rebuttable inference of reliance as to the class." The Ninth Circuit, therefore, reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. The case is GENE EDWARDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-55331. FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: First Circuit Tosses Lexapro Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sindhu Sundar and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that the First Circuit on Feb. 20 tossed a proposed class action claiming that the labels on Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s antidepressant Lexapro overstated its efficacy, finding that federal rules preempt state claims that don't fit the specific scenario the Supreme Court addressed in its landmark Wyeth v. Levine decision. A three-judge panel affirmed a lower court ruling against plaintiffs Randy and Bonnie Marcus, who claimed that Forest misled patients by not indicating on Lexapro's label how it fares compared to a placebo -- according to the plaintiffs, Lexapro is no more effective than one. The appeals panel ruled that their claims are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, differentiating their claims from the case in the high court's 2009 Levine decision. In that decision, the high court found federal rules don't necessarily shield brand-name makers from liability for an FDA-approved label on its drug. But the First Circuit ruled that Levine held only that the FDA's so called CBE, or "Changes Being Effected," rule allows brand-name makers to independently update their product labels based on newly-acquired information. But the plaintiffs in the Forest case had not claimed the drugmaker failed to factor in any new information it acquired after the label was approved, but rather that the FDA had prematurely approved Lexapro's label, the panel said in its opinion. "We can find no precedent -- and plaintiffs point to none -- that would have allowed Forest to use the CBE procedure to alter the FDA label in the manner that plaintiffs allege is necessary so as to render it not 'misleading,'" the panel said. "Indeed, plaintiffs seem to concede this in their prayer for relief, as they ask the court to 'direct Forest to seek FDA approval of a new [drug] label.'" The plaintiffs filed their suit against Forest in 2013 in California federal court, accusing the drugmaker of hiding material information about the drug's efficiency and violating California state consumer protection laws, including the state's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, according to court documents. Forest has previously faced litigation over Lexapro. In March, it agreed to pay between $7.7 million and $10.4 million to settle multidistrict litigation accusing it of misleading Missouri parents into buying Celexa and Lexapro for children, although the drugs were only approved for adults. The settlement class included all parents and other third parties in Missouri who purchased Celexa for a patient under the age of 18 between Jan. 1, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2013, or purchased Lexapro for a minor between Aug. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2013. Circuit Judges Sandra L. Lynch, Bruce Selya and William Kayatta sat on the panel for the First Circuit. The plaintiffs are represented by R. Brent Wisner -- rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com -- of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC and Pendley Baudin & Coffin LLP. Forest Pharmaceuticals is represented by Edwin G. Schallert -- egschall@debevoise.com -- of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen PC. The case is In re: Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, case number 14-1290, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. FOREST RIVER: Recalls 2015 Travel Trailers Due to Incorrect Label ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Label Units affected: 10 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015092TC ID number: 2015092 On certain fifth wheel trailers, the Federal Certification label may not contain the correct Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). The label incorrectly indicates a GVWR of 9525.5 kg (21,000 lb) instead of 8164.7 kg (18,000 lb). This could lead to vehicle overloading, which would result in poor vehicle handling characteristics, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Updated labels will be mailed to owners of affected vehicles, along with instructions for proper installation. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FOREST RIVER 2015 GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Mourino" Suit Over Product Misbranding ----------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Mourino, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated v. GNC Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 01427 (C.D. Cal., February 27, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's mislabeling and improper marketing of its St. John's Wort, Ginseng, Echinacea, and Saw Palmetto herbal supplements. Specifically by representing that the Supplements have St. John's Wort, Ginseng, Echinacea, and Saw Palmetto ingredients that they do not have. GNC Holdings, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that owns and operates a network of retail stores, selling health, wellness and performance products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplement products, sports nutrition products and diet products, throughout the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. William A. Baird, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com GRANITEPOL & HOME: Faces "Vergara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Dilfonso Vergara, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. GranitePol & Home Design Center, Inc., and Sylvia Skorska-Placek, Case No. 1:15-cv-01807 (N.D. Ill., February 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. GranitePol & Home Design Center, Inc. offers installation of natural stone kitchen and bathroom countertops, fireplaces, table tops, kitchen sinks, bathroom sinks and shower walls services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com GREEN TREE SERVICING: Bid to Dismiss "Longest" Class Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Christina A. Synder denied Green Tree Servicing LLC, et al.'s motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint filed by Carlene Longest, et al. Instead, the judge ordered GT Servicing to answer. Commenced in October 2014, the class action is asserted on behalf of a proposed Florida class and a proposed California class. The action alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, among other things. Under the action, plaintiffs allege that defendant GT Servicing, a residential mortgage loan servicer, and defendant GT Insurance, GT Servicing's affiliated insurance entity, "charg[e] residential borrowers for the cost of procuring force-placed insurance from Assurant Inc. and its subsidiaries . . . but a portion of such cost is returned, transferred, kicked-back or otherwise paid to [defendants]. [Defendants] do no meaningful work for the sums received, and therefore the payments amount to an unearned kickback designed to encourage the referral of business at extraordinary high prices." The action is CARLENE LONGEST v. GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC CASE NO. 2:14-CV-08150-CAS(RZX), (C.D. Cal.). A copy of the court's Feb. 9, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/0Qul6zfrom Leagle.com. Caleb Marker -- c.marker@rlollp.com , Hart Robinovitch, Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs. Erik Kemp, Attorneys Present for Defendants. H&R BLOCK: 9th Cir. Affirms "Madar" Claim Disallowance ------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling in ARABELLA LEMUS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAUL SINGH MADAR, Objector-Appellant, v. H&R BLOCK ENTERPRISES, INC., a Missouri corporation, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-16628. Paul Singh Madar appealed pro se from the district court's order disallowing his claim against a class action settlement fund. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing Madar's claim to a portion of the settlement where Madar's claim was not timely received, and Madar "made no showing that [his] claim was treated in a fashion inconsistent with those of other claimants similarly situated." A copy of the Court's February 27, 2015 memorandum is available at http://is.gd/28fvdZfrom Leagle.com. HARPERSVILLE, AL: Blames JSC for Debtors' Prison Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Kent Faulk, writing for al.com, reports that Harpersville and Childersburg are blaming a private probation company for getting them sued by indigent municipal court defendants who claim the two cities operated debtors' prisons. The two north Alabama cities say in a lawsuit that Judicial Correction Services Inc. raised fees without permission, used threats to collect money, and some of its employees wore badges and claimed to be "probation officers" when they were not. The lawsuit also states that JCS and its insurance company should pay for defending them against the lawsuits by the city court defendants. The lawsuits against Harpersville in state court and against Childersburg in federal court are still pending. A Cincinnati Insurance company spokeswoman declined comment. "We respect the rights of all parties to have their issues heard and resolved in a court of law. For that reason, we don't comment on ongoing litigation," Betsy Ertel, with the insurance company's corporate Communications, stated in an email. Both Harpersville and Childersburg face lawsuits from city court defendants who say they were jailed after they could not keep up with payments on court fines and costs. One judge more than two years ago called Harpersville's situation a "debtor's prison" and took over that court. Harpersville claims in the lawsuit that four JCS employees were negligent because they allegedly represented to others that they were probation officers and some carried badges with a seal. That gave the appearance that they were probation officers who spoke for the cities. "The individual defendants never told anyone with these municipalities that they were going to refer to themselves as 'probation officers' and did not get permission from anyone from these municipalities to carry badges," the lawsuit states. "Had these municipalities known that the individual defendants were making representations that they were 'probation officers' and carrying badges, these municipalities would have ordered the individual defendants to immediately stop." The two cities claim that as a result of the JCS employees' negligence Harpersville lost its ability to operate a municipal court and both Childersburg and Harpersville face liability to the court defendants who have sued. Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. AMIC has been defending Harpersville and Childersburg from the allegations in lawsuits against the two cities. JCS also went beyond its authority and terms of its contracts with the two cities when it used threats of revoking probation, increasing fines and costs, and jail time for purposes of collection, the cities lawsuit states. The company increased the monthly fee defendants had to pay from $35 to $45 a month, the lawsuit states. To the extent that Harpersville and Childersburg may be held liable for the claims in the lawsuits, filed against the cities by city court defendants, JCS is the one that's responsible, the lawsuit states. JCS is the "proximate cause" of the damages claimed by the city court defendants, the lawsuit states. Therefore both cities should be entitled to be defended and protected from liability by JCS and its insurance company, Cincinnati Insurance Company, which is also named as a defendant. The lawsuit also seeks costs of the lawsuits they've had to defend, the lawsuit claims. Lisa Borden -- lborden@bakerdonelson.com -- whose firm -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. -- represents plaintiffs in the Harpersville case, said there is an element of finger pointing with the new lawsuit. "I think the important point is that in earlier litigation JCS's defense was 'we're just doing what the city told us.' Now the cities say JSC was doing things that the cities didn't know about and didn't approve of," she said. Ms. Borden says JCS and the towns have called the process probation but it's not. "These people don't have powers of arrest," she said. Alabama laws also states that probation officers shall have powers of arrest, which private probation companies do not, Borden said. The plaintiffs in lawsuits against Harpersville and Childersburg were charged with offenses that normally only carry fines and no jail time, Ms. Borden said. Also, according to state law, probation can't last more than two years but many of the city courts extended the probation to allow the indigent person to keep on making payments "interminably," she said. People ended up being required to pay much more than their original fine because of the additional fees being added on by JCS, Ms. Borden said. Then people were being put in jail because they couldn't keep up with the payments, she said. Nobody was determining whether the people were indigent during the process and needed to be appointed an attorney to defend them, Borden said. JCS, and cities it has contracted with to provide services, have been sued in Alabama and other states regarding similar "debtors' prison" claims. In January the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit against JCS in Georgia claiming the private company's debt collection practices led to poor people being jailed because they couldn't pay. In that suit, the ACLU claims a black teenager in DeKalb County, Ga., was locked up five days because he could not afford to pay $838 in fines and fees to the county and JCS -- despite the fact that he tried his best to make payments. Last year the city of Montgomery in August agreed to change its procedures and to no longer jail people who can't afford to pay fines and costs associated with minor traffic violations. The agreement was part of a settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by the group Equal Justice Under Law. In July 2012 Shelby County Circuit Judge Hub Harrington took control of all cases in Harpersville after he said the town was running a "debtors prison" and "judicially sanctioned extortion racket" with JCS. His ruling came as part of a lawsuit filed in 2010 by people who had been jailed for non-payment of fines. Then in August 2012 two Shelby County residents and one Talladega County resident filed a federal lawsuit against Childersburg and JCS claiming that they had illegal fees imposed on them and were jailed multiple times when they couldn't pay the money. The issue in Alabama and elsewhere has been highlighted in national and international publications. JCS has challenged the allegations -- disputing that fees reached into the thousands and thousands of dollars. It is the municipal judge who sets fines, court costs and length of probation, the company has said. HOSPIRA INC: Recalls 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injections Due to Hair ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hospira, Inc. (NYSE: HSP), announced that it will initiate a voluntary nationwide recall of one lot of 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP, 250 mL VisIV(TM) flex container (NDC 0409-7983-25, Lot 45-110-C6, Expiry 1MAR2016) to the user level due to one confirmed customer report of particulate in a single unit. The foreign particle was confirmed by Hospira as human hair free- floating within the solution. To date, Hospira has not received reports of any adverse events associated with this issue for this lot. In the unlikely event that the particulate breaks and pieces are able to pass through the intravenous catheter, injected particulate material may result in localized inflammation, phlebitis, allergic reaction, granuloma formation or microembolic effects (IV only) and/or low-level allergic response. Capillaries which may be as small as the size of a red blood cell, approximately seven microns in diameter, may become occluded. Patients with preexisting condition of trauma or other medical condition that adversely affects the microvascular blood supply are at an increased risk. However, the likelihood of these risks is low as there is no evidence indicating that IV injection of inert particles results in harm to patients when only a small amount over a limited period of time is administered. Delay of therapy may occur due to observation of particulate at the point of care. However, this delay is likely to be of negligible clinical significance as this medication is administered by a health care provider and remediation is readily available. This lot was distributed nationwide from December 2014 through January 2015. Hospira has initiated an investigation to determine the root cause and corrective and preventive actions. Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Customers should notify all users in their facility. Customers who have further distributed the recalled product should notify any accounts or additional locations which may have received the recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the consumer level. Hospira will be notifying its direct customers via a recall letter and is arranging for impacted product to be returned to Stericycle in the United States. For additional assistance, call Stericycle at 1-888-714-5079 between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday. Hospira will provide allocation credits and make replacement product available for contracted customers. For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira using the information provided below. Hospira Contact Contact Information Areas of Support --------------- ------------------- ---------------- Hospira Global 1-800-441-4100 To report adverse Complaint Management (8am-5pm CT, M-F) events or product (ProductComplaintsPP complaints @hospira.com) Hospira Medical 1-800-615-0187 Medical inquiries Communications or medcom@hospira.com (Available 24 hours a day/7 days per week) Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178 This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Hospira, Inc. is the world's leading provider of injectable drugs and infusion technologies, and a global leader in biosimilars. Through its broad, integrated portfolio, Hospira is uniquely positioned to Advance Wellness(TM) by improving patient and caregiver safety while reducing healthcare costs. The company is headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill. Learn more at www.hospira.com. HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Magnesium Sulfate in 5% Dextrose Injections ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hospira, Inc., (NYSE: HSP) has announced a voluntary recall of one lot of Magnesium Sulfate in 5% Dextrose, Inj., USP, 10 mg/mL (NDC: 0409-6727-23, Lot 42-120-JT, Expiry 1DEC2015) to the user level due to confirmed customer reports of an incorrect barcode on the primary bag labeling. The barcode on the overwrap is correct; however, there is potential for the primary container barcode to be mislabeled with the barcode for Heparin Sodium 2000 USP units/1000 mL in 0.9% Sodium Chloride Inj. The product is labeled with the correct printed name on the primary container and overwrap. If the incorrect barcode on Magnesium Sulfate in 5% Dextrose, Inj., USP, 10 mg/ mL is not detected prior to dispensing or administration to a patient, and the product is administered based on the printed name, patient harm is unlikely since the barcode on the overwrap and readable text on the primary container and overwrap are correct. However, if detected, there is the potential for delay in treatment of magnesium sulfate in 5% dextrose, that can result in life-threatening seizures, stroke, cerebral hemorrhage and maternal death, and attendant risks to the fetus, including fetal demise. Administration of the magnesium sulfate drug product to a patient who is prescribed heparin and in whom the magnesium sulfate is contraindicated can result in serious adverse events related to the drug's pharmacologic action and may require medical intervention. Although serious in nature, the likelihood of this risk to occur is low due to the high detectability of this nonconformance. To date, Hospira has not received reports of any adverse events associated with this issue for this lot. Magnesium sulfate in 5% dextrose injection, USP, is a prescription product administered intravenously for the prevention and control of seizures in preeclampsia and eclampsia, respectively. The product is packaged in 50/100 mL container bags and sold 24 bags per carton (NDC: 0409-6727-23, Lot 42-120-JT, Expiry 1DEC2015). The lot was distributed nationwide in the U.S. to wholesalers, distributers and hospitals from October 2014 to January 2015. Hospira has initiated an investigation to determine the root cause and corrective and preventive actions. Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Customers should notify all users in their facility. Customers who have further distributed the recalled product should notify any accounts or additional locations which may have received the recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the consumer level. Hospira will be notifying its direct customers via a recall letter and is arranging for impacted product to be returned to Stericycle in the United States. For additional assistance, call Stericycle at 1-866-382-9260 between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday. Patients should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to using this drug product. For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira using the information provided below. Hospira Contact Contact Information Areas of Support --------------- ------------------- ---------------- Hospira Global 1-800-441-4100 To report adverse Complaint Management (8am-5pm CT, M-F) events or product (ProductComplaintsPP complaints @hospira.com) Hospira Medical 1-800-615-0187 Medical inquiries Communications or medcom@hospira.com (Available 24 hours a day/7 days per week) Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178 This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Hospira, Inc. is the world's leading provider of injectable drugs and infusion technologies, and a global leader in biosimilars. Through its broad, integrated portfolio, Hospira is uniquely positioned to Advance Wellness(TM) by improving patient and caregiver safety while reducing healthcare costs. The company is headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill. Learn more at www.hospira.com. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm437036.htm HULU LLC: Judge May Knock Out Remaining Claims in Privacy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler said she didn't want the Feb. 26 hearing in a privacy suit against Hulu LLC to feel like "a wake." But the Northern District of California judge put the case on life support, at the very least, indicating that she's leaning toward knocking out the remaining claims in a 2011 suit under the Video Privacy Protection Act. Plaintiffs lawyers argue that Hulu broke the 1988 law, which bars the disclosure of users' viewing choices, by placing Facebook's "Like" button on its video viewing pages. The placement resulted in users' viewing history and identities being transmitted to Facebook via browser cookies. Judge Beeler previously trimmed the lawsuit, knocking out claims last April related to Hulu's sharing of anonymized data with a metrics firm. In June she denied plaintiffs' first bid for class certification. The judge's "wake" metaphor prompted a Monthy Python-inspired response of "I'm not dead yet" from the plaintiffs' lawyer, Scott Kamber of KamberLaw. But arguments from Hulu's lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers and Covington & Burling seemed to persuade Beeler. O'Melveny & Myers partner Victor Jih -- vjih@omm.com -- argued on Feb. 26 that no evidence in the record suggests that Hulu knew that demographic information was being collected by Facebook regardless of whether users pressed the "Like" button. The Hulu case shows some of the difficulties plaintiffs have found applying the VPPA to modern streaming technology. The law, which was passed after a newspaper printed the rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, made it illegal for a "video tape service provider" to knowingly hand over a user's personally identifiable information. It carries statutory damages of $2,500 per violation. Just what it means to "knowingly" disclose user information was a point of contention between the parties that Beeler addressed early in the Feb. 26 hearing. Hulu argued that it must have "actual knowledge" of a disclosure to violate the VPPA. The plaintiffs claimed in their reply brief that they "need only demonstrate that Hulu voluntarily provided user-specific information and videos watched." Judge Beeler seemed ready to side with Hulu, over objections from plaintiffs lawyer Kamber that the company's argument amounted to a lawyer-driven abstraction of what was actually going on between Hulu and Facebook. Hulu had to have knowledge that Facebook was getting its user IDs and viewing information broadcast back to it, he said, because the social network's entire business of placing targeted ads on Hulu's site relies on precisely that sort of data. "For us to lose in this instance," he said, would mean that Beeler wasn't "making every reasonable inference in the plaintiffs favor." Had the plaintiffs brought their own affirmative motion for motion for summary judgment, he said, the burden of proof would have fallen on them. Here, the burden is on Hulu, he said. As a final point, Mr. Kamber said Hulu had to have at some point become aware of its disclosures, possibly as a result of the lawsuit. He pointed in particular to the company's eventual move in the wake of the litigation to stop including the names of video titles in the URLs of viewing pages. Plaintiffs have argued that the adjustment, more than a year after the suit was filed, was made with an eye to compliance with the VPPA. Judge Beeler wasn't without sympathy to Mr. Kamber's argument. The information she's learned about web-tracking during the course of litigation, she said, has convinced her to use three separate browsers for different functions to shield her own privacy on the Internet. IDAHO: Inmates Medical Records May Have Been Destroyed ------------------------------------------------------ According to The Associated Press' Rebecca Boone, reports from a state investigator and three staffers at an Idaho prison suggest that inmates' medical records may have been intentionally changed or destroyed in violation of a federal court order. The reports surfaced in connection with a whistleblower lawsuit brought by a former mental health care provider at the Idaho State Correctional Institution. The state prison is already under close federal court scrutiny because of a long-running class-action lawsuit over substandard health care and other problems, including missing inmate medical records. As a result of that lawsuit, the federal court has placed the prison under its oversight until the problems are fixed. Idaho Department of Correction Director Kevin Kempf told lawmakers earlier this year that he hoped the federal oversight would end in 18 months. On Feb. 19, the attorney in the whistleblower case, Andrew Schoppe, sent a letter to U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill alleging the potential destruction of evidence. Idaho Department of Correction spokesman Jeff Ray said the department couldn't comment on the matter because of the pending litigation. If the reports are accurate, the state corrections agency could be at risk of sanctions from a federal judge, including years of additional oversight by the court. The allegations of evidence tampering arose in a 4th District Court lawsuit brought by Diana Canfield, a former mental health clinician at the Idaho State Correctional Institute. In her lawsuit, Ms. Canfield contends she felt forced to resign after she was targeted and harassed by her supervisor for pointing out that the state wasn't following its own handbook for inmate mental health care. The lawsuit said Ms. Canfield was about to be fired because her supervisor, deputy warden Shell Wamble-Fisher, accused her of tampering with medical records to make it seem she had seen inmates she never examined. Ms. Canfield denied that accusation. A month after Canfield resigned, the Idaho Department of Corrections medical director, Dr. Richard Craig, filed a complaint against her with the Idaho Bureau of Occupational Licenses, which launched a formal investigation. Though most of the prison's medical care is provided by a private company, Ms. Canfield, Ms. Wamble-Fisher, Dr. Craig and the other clinicians mentioned in the lawsuit are Department of Correction employees. Investigator Cindy Stephenson found that the problem was likely with Ms. Wamble-Fisher, not Ms. Canfield. "From everything I have been told, it would appear there is an issue of some type with the supervisor, Ms. Wamble-Fisher," Stephenson wrote in her investigative report. "She had access to all computer records and all hard copy files. Ms. Canfield's notes, documents and information had been altered, removed, or tampered with on multiple occasions based on information I have received from several individuals." Ms. Canfield and other department staffers also filed sworn statements claiming Ms. Wamble-Fisher hid troublesome inmates and made sure that others were readily available when the federal judge sent a special investigator to the prison. They also said Ms. Wamble-Fisher lied to the investigator when she said inmates were never kept for more than a day in holding cells, which have no beds or sinks. INDECO FINISHES: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rolando Torres and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Indeco Finishes of Florida, LLC, and Oswaldo A. Ramos, Case No. 1:15-cv-20814 (S.D. Fla., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate an interior design services company in Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM INSTAMED COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Consumer Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Leroy Fountain, individually, and on the behalf of all others similarly situated v. Instamed Communications, LLC, Case No. 2:15- cv-01048 (E.D. Pa., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for obtaining and using information in consumer reports to conduct background checks on prospective and existing employees without first making proper disclosures. Instamed Communications, LLC is a Pennsylvania corporation that provides services in healthcare clearignghouse and payment transactions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Obinna I. Abara, Esq. ABARA LAW FIRM PLLC 1950 Butler Pike #255 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (215) 360-3260 E-mail: oabara@abaralaw.com - and - Chukwudi Egbuonu, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHUKWUDI EGBUONU 10333 Harwin Dr., Suite 375D Houston, TX 77036 Telephone: (713) 635-9488 Facsimile: (832) 426-5792 E-mail: chuck@celawoffice.com JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Jury Awards $2.5MM in Risperdal Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a Philadelphia jury awarded $2.5 million to the plaintiff in the first of roughly 1,250 Risperdal mass-tort cases in the city's courts. After roughly a day-and-a-half of deliberations, the 12-member jury in Pledger v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals handed down the verdict in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Ramy I. Djerassi's courtroom. The verdict, agreed upon by 11 of the jurors, brought an end to the month-long trial. The jury found defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals negligent in having failed to warn of the potential for Risperdal to cause gynecomastia, a condition in which males grow enlarged breasts. The plaintiff in the case, Austin Pledger, took Risperdal to assist with behavioral symptoms related to autism and claimed to have developed gynecomastia from taking the drug. Kline & Specter co-founder Thomas R. Kline said the verdict set the stage for the rest of the Risperdal cases set to go to trial. He also remarked that, in 37 years of trying drug cases, "I have never seen a worse case of corporate misconduct than I have seen here." That misconduct, Mr. Kline said, was exemplified by Janssen's failure to turn over information to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about Risperdal's ability to elevate levels of prolactin, the hormone that causes gynecomastia. "The documents now in the public domain, including the statistically significant association between elevated prolactin levels and gynecomastia, which was never turned over to the FDA, was seen by the jury for what it was," Mr. Kline said. As for whether the amount of the verdict met his expectations, Mr. Kline said, "The amount of the verdict speaks to the reaction of the jury, not only to the evidence against Janssen -- which was damning -- but to the injury caused to the most vulnerable members of our society." In a Janssen statement issued in response to the verdict, a company spokeswoman said, "We are disappointed and will consider all of our options going forward, including appeals. We firmly believe this verdict should be overturned." The spokeswoman continued, "During the trial, Janssen presented abundant evidence showing that the FDA-approved label properly warned of the medication's potential side effects and the plaintiff's physician was aware of those side effects. The evidence also showed that Mr. Pledger was not harmed by using Risperdal and, in fact, his quality of life was significantly improved during the time he was taking Risperdal." The atmosphere of the trial itself was often combative, with counsel for both parties verbally sparring with each other. Frequent objections were commonplace as well as informal criticisms of expert witnesses tossed around in open court. Closing arguments in the case encapsulated the contentious nature of the trial. Weil, Gotshal & Manges attorney Diane Sullivan, who represented Janssen, noted how much the plaintiff's experts, Dr. Mark P. Solomon and former FDA commissioner Dr. David Kessler, earned as testifying witnesses, and said the plaintiff had failed to bring a specialist in endocrinology, which Sullivan argued would be the medical field most directly related to the plaintiff's allegations. Ms. Sullivan also referred to Dr. Solomon, who is a plastic surgeon, as "the Tom Brady of penile enlargement surgery," and said that as an expert, Kessler "hasn't met a warning label he liked yet." However, Mr. Kline, during the rebuttal portion of his argument, referred to Sullivan's portrayal of Solomon as "disgusting crap," and noted the defendants did not call a pediatric endocrinologist. "I brought in a commissioner of the FDA," Mr. Kline said, before turning to Ms. Sullivan. "Where's your commissioner of the FDA?" Mr. Pledger, a 20-year-old from Alabama, claimed he grew large breasts as a result of taking Risperdal when he was 8 years old, and that -- barring a mastectomy -- the condition is permanent. Mr. Kline alleged that Janssen knew about the increased risk of gynecomastia associated with Risperdal relative to similar drugs, but was not forthright in disclosing that information. Mr. Pledger had used Risperdal beginning in 2002, but stopped after the FDA provided a new warning label in 2006 outlining the risks associated with gynecomastia. Date of Verdict: Feb. 24. Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 120401997. Judge: Ramy I. Djerassi. Type of Action: Products liability. Injuries: Gynecomastia. Plaintiffs Counsel: Thomas R. Kline, Kline & Specter, Philadelphia; Christopher Gomez, Sheller P.C., Philadelphia. Defense Counsel: Diane Sullivan, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Princeton, New Jersey; Kenneth Murphy, Drinker Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia. JEFFERIES LLC: Court Dismisses Rieckborn Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANIKA R. RIECKBORN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERIES LLC (F/K/A JEFFERIES AND COMPANY, INC.), et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV- 03889-WHO, (N.D. Cal.) is a securities class action brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Velti plc securities between January 27, 2011 and August 20, 2013. On the last day of the putative class period, Velti announced its Q2 2013 financial results and disclosed that it had decided to write off approximately $111 million in outstanding accounts receivable. Plaintiffs allege that Velti's reserves and revenues were materially misrepresented throughout the putative class period and bring claims against Velti's accounting firm -- Baker, Tilly, Virchow & Krause, LLP -- and the underwriters of Velti's initial and secondary public offerings -- Jefferies LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, and Canaccord Genuity Inc. -- under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on October 15, 2014. District Judge William H. Orrick ruled on February 27, 2015, that "Plaintiffs must plead facts indicating that uncollectible receivables existed when the alleged misrepresentations were made, and that Velti failed to account for them. They have not done so. For this reason, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted with leave to amend except that to the extent plaintiffs' Section 11 claims are based on the allegation that Velti's "Day sales outstanding" (DSO) figure was misrepresented in the registration statements, those claims are time-barred and are dismissed with prejudice. All sealing motions filed in conjunction with defendants' motions to dismiss are denied. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order." A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/jPemVtfrom Leagle.com JUICI PATTIES: Recalls Jamaican Chicken Patties Due to E. Coli -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 6, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Juici Patties (Canada) Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail Juici Patties (Canada) is recalling Juici Patties brand Jamaican Style unbaked Chicken Patty from the marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination. 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 E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody diarrhea. In severe cases of illness, some people may have seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis or live with permanent kidney damage. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no confirmed illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC ---------- ----------- ---- on product --- ---------- Juici Patties Unbaked Jamaican 1.6 kg 3184 6 24819 Style Patty, (12 pack) 30012 2 Chicken Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/LZYsYl KITSON STORES: Sued Over Inflated Bottled Water Prices ------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press report that a court fight over retail operations at one of the nation's busiest airports led to a charges on March 6 that passengers are being gouged on bottled water prices. Legal papers filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by boutique retailer Kitson Stores said Hudson Group, which operates many shops at Los Angeles International Airport, is exploiting travelers with "hugely" inflated water prices. The two sides have been exchanging accusations over business operations and licensing arrangements at the airport, which attracts 70 million travelers annually. Kitson says New Jersey-based Hudson refused to sell bottled water at the airport's two Kitson shops it operates at $2.55 for a liter. Instead, Hudson charges consumers about $5 a bottle at the stores, the court filing said. Kitson argues that Hudson is trying to force its stores out of the airport because of the friction over water prices. "Water is one of the most basic necessities for travelers and Hudson is taking advantage of the post- 9-11 airport restrictions" by inflating water prices, Kitson attorney Steven Bledsoe said in a telephone interview. "We believe that Hudson has breached its contracts with Kitson and has no right to close the Kitson stores." Hudson attorney Brian Timmons called the Kitson claim a publicity stunt intended to divert attention from its failure to meet contractual obligations. In a statement, he said Hudson is moving forward with plans to terminate the relationship. Last month, Hudson filed a complaint in Superior Court against the boutique company for breach of contract. "Kitson is known for selling pricey items in its high end boutiques," Mr. Timmons said. "Anyone who thinks that Kitson is really motivated here by an altruistic concern over how much consumers are paying for water at LAX has either never shopped at a Kitson store or is really naive." LENOVO GROUP: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Pre-Loaded Superfish Spyware ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Hall, Matthew Kelso, Michael Morici, Jayne Costanzo, Ryan Baumgartner, Laura Burns, Thomas Carney, Beatriz Davis, Dennis Hasty, Wendy Duran and Gabe Duran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Lenovo Group Limited and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv- 00964-NC (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2015) is brought on behalf of all purchasers of affected laptop computers that were manufactured and marketed by Lenovo from August 2014 to the present. The Plaintiffs allege that beginning in August or September 2014, Lenovo secretly pre-loaded spyware called "Superfish Visual Discovery" on the Affected Computers to monitor, intercept, analyze and redirect users' web activity and personal information (including sending and receiving e-mails). They add that Defendant Superfish, Inc., designed the spyware for the purpose of inspecting users' search queries and making advertising suggestions based on the content observed. Lenovo (United States), Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in North Carolina. Lenovo Group Limited is a Hong Kong corporation headquartered in Beijing, People's Republic of China. Lenovo Group is the parent of Lenovo US. Superfish is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Palo Alto, California. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Linda Fong, Esq. Mario Choi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com lfong@kaplanfox.com mchoi@kaplanfox.com - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. David A. Straite, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Ave., 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com dstraite@kaplanfox.com - and - Marc A. Wites, Esq. WITES & KAPETAN, P.A. 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (954) 570-8989 Facsimile: (954) 354-0206 E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com LINDEN MAYFIELD: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Narciso Perez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Linden Mayfield, LLC d/b/a Chef Vince's Zeal, and Vincent Pecora, Case No. 1:15-cv-01778 (N.D. Ill., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate Chef Vince's Zeal restaurant in Schaumburg, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulask, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com LSI TITLE: 11th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Clements" State Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge William Pryor of the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, affirmed the dismissal in part and remanded the case of PATRICIA L. CLEMENTS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LSI TITLE AGENCY, INC., a division of Lender Processing Services, Inc., LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. FAIR III, LLC, WILLIAM EVE FAIR III, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-11636 (11th Cir.) Patricia L. Clements refinanced a mortgage with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which hired LSI Title Agency, Inc. to provide mortgage refinancing services for the transaction. LSI contracted the Law Offices of William E. Fair III, LLC to provide a closing attorney, and the Law Offices arranged for Sean Rogers to serve as a closing attorney. After the refinancing, Clements filed a putative class action in a state court against LSI, the Law Offices, Fair, and other unnamed defendants. The defendants removed the complaint to the district court, and Clements filed an amended complaint. Clements alleged that LSI routinely had non-attorneys prepare all of the documents for the closing and that the Law Offices and Fair arranged for a licensed attorney, Rogers, to witness the signing of the documents, in violation of Georgia law. Clements alleged two violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Sections 2601-2617, which makes it illegal for any person to accept any portion of a settlement charge unless that person rendered a service for the charge. LSI, the Law Offices, and Fair moved to dismiss the amended complaint on two grounds. They argued that, because Clements received a credit for the exact amount of the mortgage closing costs, which included the $300 settlement fee and the $125 recording charges, she failed to allege an injury and lacked standing. They argued, in the alternative, that Clements failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court ruled that Clements lacked standing and dismissed the amended complaint. Clements appealed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Clement's federal claims, vacated the dismissal of her state claims and remanded the case for the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state claims. A copy of Judge Pryor's order dated March 2, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/OQujD8from Leagle.com. The Eleventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges William Pryor and Adalberto Jordan and District Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala. LOCKHEED MARTIN: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $62 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Lockheed Martin has agreed to pay $62 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the defense contractor of mismanaging employee retirement accounts and using funds with excessive fees. The settlement still needs to be approved by a judge. Lockheed Martin agreed to settle in December, but terms of the settlement were disclosed for the first time on Feb. 20. In settling the case, Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin did not admit to any wrongdoing. The lawsuit, which was first filed in 2006, said Lockheed Martin's retirement accounts charged high fees and too much of employees' savings were held in low-yielding funds. More than 100,000 participants in Lockheed Martin's retirement accounts were represented in the lawsuit, according to Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, the St. Louis-based law firm that represented the plaintiffs. Some current and former members of Lockheed Martin's 401(k) retirement plans will be eligible to receive compensation. The payment amounts will be decided by the court. MATERNAL SCIENCE: Recalls Healthy Mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drinks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maternal Science, Inc. of Montvale, NJ, is voluntarily recalling healthy mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drink because it contains undeclared milk (whey protein isolate). People who have an allergy to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. healthy mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drink is manufactured for and distributed by Maternal Science, Inc. and sold nationwide through limited retailers and via internet sales. healthy mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drink is packaged in a plastic bottle with a white label containing 12 fl oz per bottle (see labels below). The affected lots entered the marketplace on April, 2014. The lots affected are listed below. Product name Package Lot# Date Best UPC Code ------------ Size ---- By -------- ------- --------- healthy mama(R) 12 fl oz. 14275-11 10/2015 810758020058 Boost It Up! bottle Mighty Mango with Ginger healthy mama(R) 12 fl oz. 14090-11 03/2015 810758020058 Boost It Up! bottle Mighty Mango To date no illnesses have been reported. The recall was initiated after it was discovered during an internal review that healthy mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drink containing whey protein isolate (milk) was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk. Consumers who are allergic to milk and purchased healthy mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drink are urged not to consume the product. Consumers who purchased the affected lots of healthy mama(R) Boost It Up!(TM) Drink may return it to: ATTN: BOOST IT UP RETURN, 225 Long Ave, Hillside, NJ 07205 for a full refund or exchange. Customers may contact the company at (855) 773-4426, Monday- Thursday, 9AM - 5PM, ET or email Inquiries@healthymama.com for further instructions and claim processing. MILLERCOORS: Judge Bans Expert Testimony in Bottle Injury Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Denney, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge precluded a witness who had worked for a glass manufacturer, but lacked expertise in glass bottle design, from testifying at trial in a products liability suit filed by a bartender whose finger was injured by an exploding beer bottle. Eastern District Judge Denis Hurley granted MillerCoors' motion for summary judgment in Toomey v. MillerCoors, 12-CV-3295, saying that George Pecoraro, the expert witness, had only theorized that William Toomey's accident occurred because Coors Light bottles are too thin to withstand fracture. "In fact, when asked where his methodology came from, Mr. Pecoraro responded, 'my head,'" the judge wrote in his Feb. 17 order. Barring the witness' testimony, Judge Hurley said, Toomey had failed to point to any other evidence upon which a jury could favor his claim that MillerCoors was at fault for the accident. According to court papers, Toomey was injured on May 23, 2009 while working as a bartender in Port Washington. While he was placing pairs of 12-ounce Coors Light bottles into a stainless steel ice bin, the bottle between Toomey's left thumb and forefinger exploded, causing "severe" injuries to his index finger that caused him to miss work for about 26 weeks. To demonstrate that MillerCoors was at fault, the judge wrote, Toomey "relied heavily" on the testimony of Mr. Pecoraro, who owns a litigation consulting business and who had worked for 40 years for PPG Industries, which manufactures panel glass. During his time with PPG, Mr. Pecoraro studied refractories, the ceramic materials that are used to manufacture the furnaces where glass is cooked. He admitted that he never worked in the production of glass containers, including bottles, nor had he designed a glass bottle or worked for or provided consultation services to a company that manufactures glass bottles. But in his expert witness report, Mr. Pecoraro offered the theory that Coors Light bottles are susceptible to fracture because of their relative lack of thickness. He said that, during the formation of glass bottles, tiny cracks form in the bottles, and if the glass isn't thick enough, those cracks could lengthen during the bottling process and during shipping and, eventually, the bottle could fracture in the hand of a consumer. To support his theory, Mr. Pecoraro measured the thickness of three Coors Light bottles and six bottles of various brands of beer, which included two varieties of Sam Adams, Bud Light, Hop Rod Rye, Rockin Red Ale and Rollin' Dirty Red Ale. He broke the bottles and measured the thickness of the glass shards that stuck to the label. He reported that Coors Light bottles were, on average, thinner than the other brands, but he omitted the measurement for the Bud Light bottle, saying that it was too similar in composition and design to the Coors Light bottle. MillerCoors argued that, by omitting that measurement, Mr. Pecoraro selected data that supported his conclusions. The company also questioned the reliability of Mr. Pecoraro's method of measuring the thickness of the glass. The judge wrote that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had articulated that part of a district court's gatekeeping function under Federal Evidence Rule 702, which sets rules for expert witness testimony, is to inquire whether witnesses qualify as experts and whether their opinions are based upon reliable data and methodology. The judge wrote that it was clear that Mr. Pecoraro's testimony was not based on reliable data and that his methodology was not tested or subjected to peer review, "let alone accepted by the scientific community." According to court documents, Mr. Pecoraro charges a $500 retainer, $175 per hour for document review and $225 for deposition testimony. Mr. Pecoraro did not respond to a request for comment. Christopher Dean and Joseph Dell of the Garden City firm Dell & Dean, who represented the plaintiffs, also did not respond to messages seeking comment. Patrick Nolan -- patrick.nolan@quarles.com -- a partner with Milwaukee-based firm Quarles & Brady who represented MillerCoors, said in a statement to the Law Journal that the judge's decision "underscores the need for plaintiffs to prove their case using competent expert opinion testimony that is based upon a reliable scientific methodology." MOVE INC: Sued in Arizona for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Mix, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Move Incorporated, Case No. 2:15-cv-00370-GMS (D. Ariz., March 2, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Christian Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON BANTA CLARKSON PLLC 48 N MacDonald Mesa, AZ 85201 Telephone: (480) 272-5983 E-mail: adam@acandersonlaw.com MRS BPO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Edelstein, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-01062 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com NATE'S CORP: Faces "Mongiove" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Mongiove, Gonzalez Yarinel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nate's Corp., Sand Lane Pharmacy Corp., Vitacare Pharmacy Corp., Boris Natenzon, Angela Natenzon, Bernard Glezerman, and Simon Lorbert, Case No. 1:15-cv-01024 (E.D.N.Y., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate pharmacies with various locations in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. SERRINS FISHER LLP 233 Broadway, Suite 2340 New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 Facsimile: (212) 233-3801 E-mail: michael@serrinsfisher.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Concussion Settlement Faces Criticisms --------------------------------------------------------- Mark Craig, writing for Star Tribune, reports that settlement of the concussion lawsuit is near, but even those who are accepting it aren't sure how much they'll benefit. The league hails the settlement as a landmark moment in its history, an unprecedented 65-year deal with the potential to award $1 billion to thousands who are struggling among the league's roughly 22,000 current retirees, including hundreds of former Vikings. On the other side is a strong chorus of critics who believe the settlement allows the NFL to exclude too many ailing players and lacks impact because there is no minimum payout requirement, other than $112 million to the attorneys who orchestrated the deal. The suit comes amid an intense national focus on head injuries in sports. "Is it a $1 billion settlement? Heck no," said former Viking Bob Stein, an attorney who has represented former players. "It is whatever players filter through all of the hurdles of the settlement's system, which the NFL still controls. I don't think it puts the concussion issue to bed at all." NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy counters that the league has "a high degree of confidence that this settlement -- which has been accepted by more than 99 percent of retirees -- will provide important and generous benefits to retirees and their families." Criticism, even by many who are accepting the settlement, is widespread, however. Four principal concerns exist for critics of the concussion settlement: CTE symptoms in living players that won't be covered; insufficient information and/or ability to understand that information for players who had to decide last fall whether to opt out; no compensation for future diagnoses of CTE; and an eligibility system controlled by the NFL that might be restrictive. "They could promise us everything, but if guys can't get approved, then the settlement is meaningless," said former Vikings guard Brent Boyd, a retired players advocate who has testified before Congress about health problems he and his doctors trace to multiple concussions. "The NFL's history is they'll fight us tooth and nail. They'll delay, deny and hope we die before they have to pay us. I just don't trust these bastards." Judge Anita Brody asked for revisions to initial settlement struck last July. Awards are expected to cover time spent in NFL Europe as well as brain-damaged deaths through her final approval. No date was set for her final approval. More than 50 former Vikings, including Hall of Famers Carl Eller and Mick Tingelhoff, were part of more than 200 lawsuits condensed into the consolidated suit. At least one appeal is expected to be filed, by a group of seven former players including former Gophers All-America center Ben Hamilton. The group filed a detailed formal objection during the settlement process, suggesting an appeal and a possible extension of the litigation process by at least another year. Only a few hundred of the roughly 20,000 NFL retirees opted out of the class-action suit. They maintain legal rights to pursue future individual suits. As part of the settlement, the rights of active players will be handled in the collective bargaining process for the next 65 years. Players who have opted out, like Vikings Hall of Fame safety Paul Krause, are vocal in their opposition. "The NFL is going to win everything, they don't care anything about the old football players, and you can print that," said Mr. Krause. "They're waiting for all of us to die. They got everybody on their side. They have the newspapers on their side, they have judges on their side. Everything is going toward the owners. I've got nothing good to say about the owners." The NFL said it expects about 6,000 of the current retired players to develop Alzheimer's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) or dementia. Under the settlement, payouts would average about $190,000, with diagnoses for younger players reaching up to $5 million. "The sinister part of this is now they're putting out these pictures of [former running back] Kevin Turner, who has Lou Gehrig's disease, and they're saying, 'If you're against the settlement, you're against giving Kevin Turner his $5 million reward," Judge Boyd said. "The fact is 99 percent of the guys who have legitimate concussion symptoms aren't being covered by this. The NFL is saving big money by paying a few guys a lot of money. And they'll take their pictures with those guys because their symptoms are camera-friendly and visible. CTE symptoms are invisible. And all the invisible symptoms are not covered under terms of this settlement." In the seven-player objection that was filed, the primary protest is the future handling of CTE, which has been discovered in the brains of dozens of deceased players, including those who experienced behavior or mood problems in the latter stages of their lives and committed suicide. The settlement would pay up to $4 million only to the families of players who died with CTE between 2006 and the day the settlement is final. "The greatest of the settlement's many flaws is its failure to compensate players who are living with CTE or who die with it after [the deadline]," the objection reads. "CTE is likely to be far and away the most common neurocognitive disease suffered by the class. Yet all class members release their claims related to CTE. . . . Class counsel bargained away the rights of more than 20,000 former NFL players -- many of whom are suffering the serious effects of CTE, fairly called 'football's industrial disease.' This alone is reason to reject the settlement." PR nightmare looming? To avoid "incentivizing" suicide, the settlement would not give awards for future deaths involving CTE, which currently can be reliably diagnosed only after death. Critics want to know why the settlement doesn't make an allowance for the possibility of a reliably acceptable method of testing for CTE in a living brain. In the seven-player objection, Dr. Robert A. Stern of the Boston University School of Medicine stated a "reliably detectable" test to diagnose CTE in the living likely will be available in the next five to 10 years. "As soon as there is a test approved for CTE in living people, it won't be used to include players in the settlement; it will be used to exclude them," Mr. Stein said. "If you want to protect the families or the individuals who have brain injuries, why is this in the settlement?" Mr. Stein said the legal liability for the league will disappear for the most part, but he believes the public relations nightmare could worsen when medical advancements enable living players to be tested for CTE. Those results, he says, will become an embarrassing story line for the league and a settlement that may become outdated by technology. "I guarantee you I'm going to take the test," Mr. Stein said. "Otherwise, especially as you get older, every time you can't remember where the car keys or your glasses are, you worry that you're approaching the edge of the cliff. "It's practically debilitating it's so scary. You see teammates and friends who have just circled the drain, and that's tough." The league counters with the argument that the settlement would give awards to several neurological conditions -- including moderate and early dementia, Alzheimer's disease, ALS and Parkinson's disease -- without the presence of CTE. NATIONAL SPOT: Faces Class Action Over Client Code Changes ---------------------------------------------------------- Rajesh Bhayani, writing for Business Standard, reports that as cases related to the crisis-ridden National Spot Exchange (NSEL) progress, a fresh set of information suggest NSEL brokers might have been taking the system for a ride. According to the NSEL data, brokers modified client codes as many as 300,000 times, which is very unusual. Client codes are changed after the deal on the exchange is done in one name and then transferred in another name and allowed only for bona fide mistakes. "Brokers of the exchange had in the beginning of the day transacted deals in their own names or in names of one or two clients and later internally transferred to various other names by modifying client codes," said a source, adding NSEL trading was not like other exchanges where through the day hundreds of thousands of deals take place. At NSEL, most of the trading happens in the early hours. On modification of clients' code, a leading NSEL broker said: "They (brokers) have done so because the time available on the exchange used to be so short that a broker hadto strike a deal in a single name and later on transfer positions. Investors used to get exchange contract notes." In equities and commodities, changes in client codes are allowed only in a genuine case. In commodities, change in client code was done to transfer profit and loss to launder money, which was stopped. In another development, which is giving a curious turn to the NSEL fiasco, investors who have lost money are not coming out to claim when the high court-appointed committee asked the spot exchange to collect claims and other information regarding the so-called investors. Based on that, NSEL asked brokers to submit claims including source of funds of investors' money (borrowed or own). According to NSEL Investors' Forum, there are 13,000 such investors but only around 20 of them have given claims. Investors will not come forward if their money is unaccounted for. According to sources, with the National Spot Exchange case progressing, it is looking like a bogus demat-investors scam that struck the capital markets in 2005. An official involved in the process said actual investors might not be even 13,000 or many of them might just only lent their bank accounts including Know Your Customer documents. Various NSEL investors' associations have filed a class action suit in the high court here, seeking compensation. Modern India Limited, which has invested in NSEL, has also filed a similar suit against the spot exchange. The number of these associations claiming to represent these investors has also grown. Those that have objected to the NSEL seeking their source of funds include the NSEL Investors Forum, the NSEL Investors' Action Group and a lesser-known body, NSEL Aggrieved And Recovery Association, besides Modern India. According to the office bearer of one of the associations, they need not disclose the source of funds to the exchange. On Feb. 16, the HC-appointed committee, headed by Judge V C Daga, will hear plaints of these investors on whether they are supposed to provide the source of their funds or not. The deadline for their claims to the Daga committee was Feb. 18. NETFLIX INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that an appellate panel has agreed Netflix Inc. shouldn't be on the hook for allegedly colluding with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to divvy up the market for online DVD rentals. Netflix and Wal-Mart reached an agreement in 2005 that transferred customers of Wal-Mart's flagging DVD-rental subscription service to Netflix. Netflix, in turn, agreed to promote Walmart's DVD sales business. Plaintiffs lawyers filed several suits on behalf of Netflix subscribers alleging the deal ran afoul of antitrust laws. Those suits were consolidated in 2009 in multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District of California. In 2011, Judge Hamilton said Netflix customers couldn't show they would have paid lower prices had the deal not been done and granted summary judgment to Netflix's lawyers at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Judge Hamilton later approved a $27.25 million settlement Wal-Mart reached with the class in March 2012. On Feb. 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Hamilton's decision knocking out the antitrust claims against Netflix. The panel, however, reversed the part that awarded Netflix more than $700,000 in costs, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the cost issue. The panel included Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, and U.S. District Senior Judge Lloyd George of Nevada, sitting by designation. The same panel affirmed Judge Hamilton's decision approving the Wal-Mart settlement as well as costs and attorney fees of more that $8.5 million. Writing for the panel, Thomas rejected the argument made by objectors who claimed a portion of the settlement issued as Wal-Mart gift cards should subjected to the heightened scrutiny reserved for coupon settlements under the Class Action Fairness Act. Wilson Sonsini partners Jonathan Jacobson -- jjacobson@wsgr.com -- and Dylan Liddiard -- dliddiard@wsgr.com -- represented Netflix, while Baker & Hostetler's Robert Abrams -- rabrams@bakerlaw.com -- argued for plaintiffs. Todd Seaver -- tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- from Berman DeValerio in San Francisco defended the Wal-Mart settlement. Theodore Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness in Washington, D.C., and Joshua Furman of Joshua R. Furman Law Corp. in Los Angeles argued on behalf of the objectors. NORMARK INC: Recalls Lithium Lazer(TM) Ice Augers ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 5, 2015 Posting date: March 5, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-52421 This recall involves the Lithium Lazer(TM) ice auger, which is used when ice fishing to cut circular holes in ice to access the water below. The Lithium Lazer(TM) ice auger is a 24-pound unit powered by an electric motor and a rechargeable 50 volt lithium ion battery. The on/off trigger switch on the Lithium Lazer(TM) ice auger's handle can fail, allowing continued rotation of the rotating drill even in the "off" position, creating a risk of injury to the user and bystanders. Neither Health Canada nor Normark Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. In total, 58 of the affected ice augers were sold in Canada and about 3,000 were distributed in the United States. The affected products were sold from November 2014 to February 2015 in Canada and from September 2014 to January 2015 in the United States at various independent retailers and online. Manufactured in the United States. Distributor: Normark Inc. Oshawa, Ontario CANADA Customers should immediately stop using the Lithium LazerTM ice augers. Customers can return their Lithium LazerTM ice augers to the retailers from which they purchased them or to Normark Inc. for a full refund. For more information, consumers may contact Normark Inc. by telephone at 1-905-571-3001 from Monday to Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. EST. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's 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/aGyQL0 NORTH CAROLINA: App. Court Rules in Favor of Beltway Landowners --------------------------------------------------------------- According to Winston-Salem Journal's Wesley Young, the N.C. Court of Appeals took a big step toward that by ruling unanimously that the state should compensate 11 landowners in the path of Winston- Salem's Northern Beltway. The appeals court wisely realized that, by placing their property in the beltway corridor through the Map Act, the N.C. Department of Transportation had essentially exercised its power of eminent domain. Though beltway work in their neighborhoods could be years down the road, the landowners couldn't find buyers who would want land under such conditions. They were stuck in limbo. The case has been sent back to Forsyth County Superior Court to determine how much to pay each landowner. Attorney Matthew Bryant, who represents about 70 landowners who have filed suit against the state, thinks the state will appeal the ruling, but we hope it won't. In fact, the state should compensate other landowners in the beltway's path, and do it soon. PANDORA MEDIA: Motion to Strike Copyright Class Action Rejected --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that lawyers for The Turtles on Feb. 24 moved another step closer to securing royalties for broadcasts of pre-1972 recordings, beating back a bid by Pandora Media Inc.'s to use California's anti-SLAPP statute to evade a proposed copyright class action. U.S. District Judge Phillip Gutierrez in Los Angeles rejected a motion to strike filed by Pandora's lawyers at Latham & Watkins, who hoped to put a quick end to copyright claims leveled by two Turtles founders through their company Flo & Eddie Inc. The Turtles, the band behind the 1967 hit "Happy Together," did most of their recording prior to 1972, the year protections for sound recordings kicked in under federal copyright law. California's anti-SLAPP law generally bars lawsuits that restrict a party's First Amendment rights. In this case, Judge Gutierrez agreed with Pandora's lawyers that streaming Turtles' songs amounted to a protected activity under the law. But the judge -- who already determined in a parallel case involving Sirius XM Radio Inc. that California law provides musicians with performance rights to pre-1972 recordings -- also concluded that Flo & Eddie had a chance of winning on its copyright infringement claims. "Flo & Eddie has demonstrated that its claims are meritorious enough to withstand the anti-SLAPP motion," Gutierrez ruled. Pandora spokesman Dave Grimaldi said in a statement on Feb. 17 that the company is open to supporting the "full federalization" of pre-1972 sound recordings, but only if the reforms were "technology-neutral" and ensured uniform rights for libraries, music services and consumers. Mr. Grimaldi said the company plans to immediately appeal the Feb. 23 decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Pandora's legal team includes Latham's James Schwartz and Andrew Gass. Harvey Geller of Gradstein & Marzano, one of Flo & Eddie's lawyers, told us via email that he's pleased "Pandora's cynical attempt to equate free speech with free content was rejected." The decision on Pandora's motion to strike comes just a few days after a ruling from Gutierrez that disposed of dueling motions in another key copyright battle over songs recorded before 1972. In than case, the judge refused last week to reconsider an earlier ruling that satellite broadcaster Sirius XM should face liability for airing pre-1972 songs without paying royalties. The same day, however, Gutierrez cleared away a bid for sanctions against Sirius XM's lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers, rejecting arguments by Flo & Eddie's counsel that they had attempted to mislead the court. PEBBLEWORKS POOL: "Vansickle " Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Vansickle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pebbleworks Pool Surfacing, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00131 (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Pebbleworks Pool Surfacing, Inc. is a Florida corporation provides commercial pebble pool services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PA 4223 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 Facsimile: (239) 549-3331 E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com REXALL SUNDOWN: NY Court Dismisses "Lary" TCPA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit JOHN H. LARY, JR., M.D., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., REXALL SUNDOWN 3001, NBTY, INC., UNITED STATES NUTRITION, INC., CORPORATE MAILINGS, INC. d/b/a CCG MARKETING SOLUTIONS and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants. CORPORATE MAILINGS, INC. d/b/a CCG MARKETING SOLUTIONS, Third- Party Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE DATA EXPERTS, LLC, Third-Party Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-5769 (SJF), (E.D.N.Y.) -- is putative class action was commenced pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (JFPA). CCG is a marketing company which entered into a Master Service and Support Agreement with defendant United States Nutrition, Inc., a corporate affiliate of defendant Rexall. CCG supposedly created an advertisement and sent it, unsolicited on or about March 5, 2013, to plaintiff and more than 40 other recipients via telephone facsimile machine, by or on behalf of defendants, offering a free sample of the dietary supplement Osteo Bi-Flex. Plaintiff was allegedly damaged by the: (a) loss of toner and paper used by printing the fax; (b) loss of time spent receiving and reviewing the fax; (c) loss of plaintiff's privacy; and (d) use of plaintiff's facsimile machine without permission. The Plaintiff moved for class certification and for a stay of decision on the certification motion pending discovery. Defendant CCG Marketing Solutions moved to dismiss plaintiffs First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). CCG's motion is granted and plaintiff's motion is denied in its entirety. In a Feb. 10, 2015 Opinion and Order available at http://is.gd/Itk03Hfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein granted judgment in favor of plaintiff John H. Lary, Jr., individually, and against defendant CCG Marketing in the amount of $6,000. CCG is enjoined from sending any faxes to plaintiff's fax number without proper opt-out notices pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The judge declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over third-party plaintiff CCG's third-party complaint against third- party defendant Healthcare Data Experts, LLC and, accordingly, CCG's third-party complaint against Healthcare Data Experts, LLC is dismissed without prejudice. Furthermore, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied and CCG's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. John H. Lary, Jr., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Bellin & Associates LLC, Brian J Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Max Margulis, Margulis Law Group & Ryan Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca. Rexall Sundown, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP. Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC, Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP. NBTY, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP. Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions, Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Fedor -- Matthew.Fedor@bdr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Walter J. Fleischer -- Walter.Fleischer@bdr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & William A. Wright -- William.Wright@bdr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. Rexall Inc., Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP. United States Nutrition, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP. Rexall Sundown, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP. Rexall Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP. NBTY, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP. United States Nutrition, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP. Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP. Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions, Cross Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Fedor, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Walter J. Fleischer, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & William A. Wright, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions, Cross Claimant, represented by Matthew J. Fedor, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Walter J. Fleischer, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & William A. Wright, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. NBTY, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP. Rexall Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP. Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP. Rexall Sundown, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP, Eric F. Gladbach, Reed Smith LLP & Henry Pietrkowski, Reed Smith LLP. United States Nutrition, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by John Hooper, Reed Smith LLP. Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Fedor, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Walter J. Fleischer, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & William A. Wright, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. RIDE RIGHT: Faces "Hatton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carol Hatton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ride Right, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00352 (S.D. Ind., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act. Ride Right, LLC provides handicapped transportation services within the State of Indianapolis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 8383 Craig Street, Suite 330 Indianapolis, IN 46250 Telephone: (317) 842-6600 Facsimile: (317) 842-6933 E-mail: weldy@weldylaw.com ROYAL APPLIANCE: Recalls Dirt Devil(R) Turbo Tool Attachments ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 4, 2015 Posting date: March 4, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Laceration Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-43909 The recalled Dirt Devil(R) Turbo Tool attachment was sold as a vacuum accessory with the corded Dirt Devil(R) Scorpion(R) Turbo Quick Flip Hand Vac. The accessory tool is a plastic, clear yellowish green attachment with a black turbine fan and black brush roll with white bristles. "Royal," model number "08225" and a five-digit manufacture date code ending in 12A U, 13A U, 13B U or 14B U are printed on a label on the bottom of the hand vacuum. The Turbo Tool measures about 15 centimetres (5-3/4 inches) long by 11.5 centimetres (4-1/2 inches) wide. The interior fan of the Turbo Tool accessory can break and eject from the tool housing, posing a laceration hazard to the user or bystanders. Royal Appliance has received six reports of the Turbo Tool accessory breaking in the United States and none in Canada. No injuries have been reported. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. Approximately 2,488 of the recalled units were sold in Canada and about 22,000 of the units were sold in the United States. The recalled products were sold from July 2012 through November 2014 by various retailers. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Royal Appliance Manufacturing Co. Glenwillow, Ohio UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the Turbo Tool accessory and contact the firm for instructions on receiving a free replacement tool accessory. For more information, consumers can contact Royal toll-free at 1- 888-393-2063 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, or visit the Dirt Devil website and click on the "Recall Information" link at the bottom of the page for more information. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's 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/13nO2Y RUST-OLEUM CORP: "Fernandez" Suit Included in Restore Product MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Fernandez v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 7:14-cv-08857, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01366 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2602. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising out of allegations that the deck and concrete resurfacing paint products manufactured and sold by Rust-Oleum Corporation under the Restore brand name are defective because they allegedly bubble, flake, chip, peel, or otherwise degrade prematurely, contrary to the representations in defendant's marketing, labeling, and product warranty. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Daniel Bloom, Esq. BLOOM AND BLOOM, P.C 530 Blooming Grove Turnpike P.O. Box 4323 New Windsor, NY 12550 Telephone: (845) 561-6920 Facsimile: (845) 561-0978 E-mail: kbloom@hvc.rr.com - and - Robert Nathan Isseks, Esq. ISSEKS AND SMITH 6 North Street Middletown, NY 10940 Telephone: (845) 344-4322 Facsimile: (845) 341-1760 E-mail: isseks@isseksandsmith.com Defendant Rust-oleum Corporation is represented by: Dana S. Douglas, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 E-mail: dsdouglas@mayerbrown.com Defendants Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and The Home Depot, Inc. are represented by: John Phillip MacNaughton, Esq. MORRIS MANNING & MARTIN LLP 3343 Peachtree Road, N.E. 1600 Atlanta Financial Center Atlanta, GA 30326-1044 Telephone: (404) 504-7689 Facsimile: (404) 365-9532 E-mail: jpm@mmmlaw.com - and - Robert P. Alpert, Esq. MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN, LLP 1600 Atlanta Financial Center 3343 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 233-7000 E-mail: ralpert@mmmlaw.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Arbitration of "Edwards" Case Denied -------------------------------------------------------- Justice Terry B. O'Rourke's of the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One, ruled on a petition in the case SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent, DENISE EDWARDS, Real Party in Interest NO. D066873 (Cal. App.) Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. provides specialized security services throughout the United States. Plaintiff Denise Edwards was an employee of Securitas, who upon employment, signed an acknowledgment of receipt of Securitas's dispute resolution agreement, which was eventually placed in her personnel file. In 2013, Edwards sued Securitas in the San Diego Superior Court, and eventually filed a first amended class action complaint alleging Securitas failed to provide all legally required meal and rest breaks to employees and failed to itemize missed meal breaks on wage statements. She sought restitution and injunctive relief under the unfair competition law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.), damages (Lab. Code, Section 226), and a representative claim for civil penalties under the PAGA. Securitas moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings first in February 2014, and then via an amended motion filed in August 2014, addressing the California Supreme Court's opinion in Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th 348. It asked the trial court to (1) compel Edwards to arbitrate her individual claims; (2) dismiss and/or sever and stay her class claims, and (3) dismiss and/or stay her PAGA claim. Alternatively, it asked the court to sever and stay Edwards's PAGA claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2. The court granted Securitas's motion to compel arbitration. However, it ruled Edwards's PAGA claim could not be waived, and that because the class action waiver provision sought to eliminate or abridge Edwards's right to litigate her PAGA claim, the provision was invalid. It further ruled that because the PAGA waiver was unenforceable as a matter of California law, the severability clause of the dispute resolution agreement applied. It ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration as to Edwards's entire complaint, including her PAGA claims, observing that Edwards had elected to resolve her PAGA claims in arbitration along with her class claims. Securitas filed a petition for peremptory writ of mandate, prohibition or review seeking an immediate stay and (1) compelling the trial court to set aside the portion of its order sending Edwards's class action and PAGA claims to arbitration; (2) compelling the court to issue a new order enforcing the dispute resolution agreement's class action and/or PAGA waivers or alternatively sever those claims and stay them pending arbitration of Edwards's individual claims. Justice O'Rourke issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order that the parties proceed to arbitrate Edward's entire complaint and enter a new order denying Securitas' amended motion to compel arbitration. In all other respects, the petition is denied. A copy of Justice O'Rourke's opinion dated February 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/M1Gel9from Leagle.com. Sherry B. Shavitt -- sshavit@tharpe-howell.com -- Jennifer S. McGeorge -- jmcgeorge@tharpe-howell.com -- at Tharpe & Howell; Henry Lederman -- hlederman@littler.com --- at Littler Mendelson, for Petitioner For Real Party in Interest: Norman B. Blumenthal Kyle R. Nordrehaug BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2029 Century Park E 14th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-981-3918 Facsimile: 858-551-1232 - and - Mark A. Osman -- mark@osmanlawfirm.com -- at Law Offices of Mark A. Osman The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Gilbert Nares and Justices James A. McIntyre and Terry B. O'Rourke. SESA FLEET: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Adrian Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. S.E.S.A. Fleet Services, L.L.C., Case No. 5:15-cv- 00156 (W.D. Tex., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. S.E.S.A. Fleet Services, L.L.C. is a Texas corporation that provides service and repair for vehicles and equipment of oilfield and oilfield services companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. Baron and Budd PC 3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com SPRAM LLC: Recalls Aluminum Front Wheel Hubs Due to Fall Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 6, 2015 Posting date: March 6, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-52457 This recall involves first generation SRAM Zipp 88 aluminum front wheel hubs. The wheel hub shell is silver in colour. The outside flange ring is grey in the standard option, and blue, gold, grey, pink or red in the ZedTech options. The diameter of the two clinch nuts is approximately 2.90 centimetres (1.14 inches). The first generation 88 front wheel hub is the only generation affected by this recall. It can be identified by the Z logo on the flange ring and a smaller clinch nut. The later generations do not have the Z logo on the flange ring, and they are not included in this recall. The diameter of the clinch nuts in the later generations is approximately 3.68 centimetres (1.46 inches). The recalled front wheel hubs were sold separately in the following five bike brands: Brand Models ----- ------ Specialized 2010 TARMAC SWorks Super Light 2010 SWorks Transition 2011 SWorks Tarmac SL3 Limited Giant 2009 TCR Advance SL 0 2009 Trinity Advance SL 0 2010 TCR Advance SL 0 2010 Trinity Advance SL 0 Felt 2009 AR Team Issue 2009 DA 2009 B2 Pro 2010 DA 2010 DA Di2 2010 B2 Pro Orbea 2010 Orca RED 2010 Orca Di2 2011 Orca GRD 2011 Ordu GDi2 2011 Ordu GLT Cannondale 2010 Super Six Hi Mod Di2 2010 Slice Hi Mod Ultimate The hub flange ring on the front wheel can fail. This can result in the loss of the wheel spokes and the front wheel collapsing, posing a fall hazard. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these front wheel hubs. In the United States, SRAM has received 2 reports of the front wheel collapsing which resulted in stitches, bruises and lacerations, and a concussion in one of the reports. Approximately 794 units of the recalled front wheel hubs were sold in Canada. The recalled front wheel hubs were sold from October 2008 to December 2010 at specialty bicycle retailers. Manufactured in the United States. Manufacturer: Prodigy Group Mooresville, Indiana UNITED STATES Distributor: SRAM LLC Chicago, Illinois UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles equipped with the recalled Zipp 88 front hub and return the wheel to SRAM or their local bicycle dealer for a free replacement hub. For more information, consumers can contact SRAM toll-free at 1- 800-346-2928 between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST on Friday. Consumers can also visit SRAM's and Zipp's websites for more information. 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/X2wx1Y SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Real Estate Tax Overcharges --------------------------------------------------------- Spencer Rumsey, writing for Long Island Press, reports that a lawsuit seeking $116.9 million has been filed against Suffolk County on behalf of an estimated 340,000 residents of the county's Southwest Sewer District No. 3, claiming that the county has "illegally overtaxed owners of real estate" in violation of four public referenda that called for surpluses to be returned. According to the law firms of Paul Sabatino II and Reilly, Like and Tenety, Suffolk officials have not complied with the requirements that voters had approved by public referendum in 1983, 1989, 1995 and 2006. Filed in New York State Supreme Court earlier this month, the lawsuit asks the court to grant class action status "to protect all taxpayers in the district, not just those who can afford the cost of litigation." The 57-square-mile district covers Babylon, Islip and a sliver of Huntington. "By holding on to this money, Suffolk County has knowingly thwarted the will of the people, as expressed by the voters on four separate occasions," said Mr. Sabatino, who was County Executive Steve Levy's chief deputy from 2004 to 2007 and former counsel to the Suffolk County Legislature for almost 20 years before that. "The purpose of the lawsuit is to enforce the will of the people and return the $116.9 million to the taxpayers." The attorneys say the targeted total amount consists of the 2013 surplus fund balance of $35,177,582, the 2014 surplus fund balance of $42,265,864 and the 2015 fund balance of $39,5236,337. Instead of returning these fund balances to the taxpayers as required, the attorneys allege, the county put the monies in a fund known as Fund 405, which they describe as "an illegal fund . . . used by the county as a subterfuge." According to the attorneys' calculations, the average taxpayer in the sewer district is entitled to a refund of about $1,542. They say the over-taxation stemmed from the failure of county officials to pass on "the substantial savings" that arose from the amortization of South West Sewer District's debt that had been issued in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. As the debt was paid off "in increasingly large amounts," the county held on to the savings instead of returning it to the taxpayers as the county statute and state law required, the attorneys say. "My understanding is that these numbers have just really accrued in the last three or four years," said Mr. Sabatino, who left county government seven years ago. "I think they've been caught with their budgetary pants down on this one." "Failure to stop this violation of the constitutional rights of the taxpayers and allowing it to continue in the future will imperil the public interest, cause public injury, and promote public mischief," attorney Irving Like said in a statement. "The strong policy of the law requires a full accounting of all public funds and is designed to prevent municipal governments from acquiring tax proceeds faster than they are needed and for costs and expenses not incurred." The county attorney's office has reportedly asked the court for an extension in order to reply to the lawsuit, which is filed under index number 15-01596. Neither the county attorney's office nor the county executive's representatives responded to requests for comment from the Press. This issue doesn't involve Suffolk County's Drinking Water Protection Program, which county voters have approved by referenda because it is funded by a 1/4 cent sales tax. Recently, the county had borrowed $30 million of that program's money without voters' approval, sparking a three-year lawsuit which ended last summer when county lawmakers and environmentalists struck a deal to end the legal battle and restore the money to the program. But what's at stake is the same principle, according to Richard Amper, executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society. "When the will of the voters is ignored, government has betrayed the public trust," Mr. Amper told the Press. "What's really both bad and stupid is that if government keeps playing 'April Fools' with the voters, they're going to stop authorizing spending for important government programs, such as the Drinking Water Protection Program. The public won't continue to reward bad faith." SUPREME SERVICE: "Kervin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Kervin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00102 (S.D. Tex., February 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc. owns and operates a rental company with 10 facilities across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Clifton Alexander, Esq. SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP 900 Frost Bank Plaza 802 N Carancahua Ste 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 653-3300 Facsimile: (361) 653-3333 E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com TAKATA CORP: "Holland" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Holland, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 6:14-cv-03487, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20846-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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory W. Aleshire, Esq. William R. Robb, Esq. Kevin J. Rapp, Esq. ALESHIRE ROBB, P.C. 2847 Ingram Mill Road, A-102 Springfield, MO 65804 Telephone: (417) 869-3737 Facsimile: (417) 869-5678 TAKATA CORP: "Marino" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Marino v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01756, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20847- 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: Safety Regulators Impose Fine in Airbag Probe ---------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Hirsch, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that federal safety regulators levied fines of $14,000 a day on Japanese air bag manufacturer Takata Corp. for not cooperating with the Department of Transportation's investigation into defective air bag inflators that have killed at least six people and injured more than 60 others in the U.S. and overseas. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has ordered Takata to provide pertinent information about the flaws in its air bag system. Some inflators, which use an explosive charge to quickly inflate the air bag to provide a cushion for vehicle occupants in a crash, are blowing apart, sending shrapnel into the cabin. Most recently, Honda said an air bag inflator in a 2002 Accord exploded on Jan. 18 in Houston, killing a 35-year-old man. Regulators said Takata flooded the agency with 2.4 million pages of documents but failed to provide any type of index or guide, which is required by law and vital for a speedy investigation. "Safety is a shared responsibility and Takata's failure to fully cooperate with our investigation is unacceptable and will not be tolerated," Anthony Foxx, U.S. Transportation secretary, said in announcing the fines. "For each day that Takata fails to fully cooperate with our demands, we will hit them with another fine." In a letter to the air bag manufacturer, NHTSA chief counsel O. Kevin Vincent said, "Takata is neither being forthcoming with the information it is legally obligated to supply, nor is it being cooperative in aiding NHTSA's ongoing investigation of a potentially serious safety defect." He said the agency plans to take depositions of Takata employees based in the U.S. and Japan. Takata issued a statement saying it was "surprised and disappointed" by the federal action. "We have also been meeting regularly with NHTSA engineers on efforts to identify the root cause of the inflator issue," Takata said. "That work has, so far, supported our initial view that age and sustained exposure to heat and humidity is a common factor in the small number of inflators that have malfunctioned." Safety advocates welcomed the NHTSA move. "It certainly is sending a strong signal that NHTSA is getting tough," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety. "This is a welcome change for agency that once referred to the companies that it regulates as its partners." It also coincides with NHTSA efforts to reach current and former Takata employees who might have evidence that the automotive parts supplier covered up what it knew about the faulty inflators. "NTHSA is doing all they can to help the Department of Justice build a criminal case," he said. But he said the fine was too small to make much of an impact. "It will take more than two months to even reach $1 million," Mr. Ditlow said. NHTSA has levied the maximum allowed by law, fining Takata $7,000 each for two violations. The first was the company's failure to "fully respond" to an Oct. 30 order to provide information. The second $7,000 daily fine is for failure to comply with a similar order issued Nov. 18. The agency is lobbying Congress to increase the amount of the fines it can impose. Takata has rejected demands that it recall its air bags, which are in millions of cars dating back more than a decade. Automakers are recalling the cars, but some repair efforts have been stymied by a lack of replacement parts. Honda is the most affected and has urged owners of its cars to bring them to dealers to have the inflator replaced. Approximately 6 million Honda vehicles in the U.S. have Takata air bags, and about 2.8 million have officially been recalled. Though Honda is Takata's biggest customer, air bag flaws haven't been limited to that maker. Roughly 11 million vehicles in the U.S. have been affected, including models from Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Chrysler, Ford and BMW. The problem has sparked several safety investigations and litigation. A lawsuit against Takata and Honda filed last year in federal court in Los Angeles by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, seeks class- action status and claims Takata cut corners to build cheaper air bags and that Honda purchased the parts to slice its manufacturing expenses. The Berman complaint claims that Takata knew of the deadly defect at least 13 years ago, first seeing the problem in an Isuzu vehicle but failing to take action. NHTSA stepped up its enforcement action last year after being criticized in congressional hearings for not moving quickly enough to force the recall of older General Motors Co. vehicles with faulty ignition switches that have been linked to crashes that have caused at least 52 deaths. In January the agency fined Honda $70 million for two violations related to a failure to report deaths and injuries in a timely matter. The fines were tied to 1,729 cases, some of which regulators believe involved faulty Takata air bags. Transportation officials are pushing for the passage of the Grow America Act. The legislation would raise the maximum amount of NHTSA fines to $300 million from the current $35 million. It would also increase NHTSA's investigations budget threefold, to $31.3 million, and give it the power to halt sales of defective vehicles. The legislation, Mr. Foxx said, "would provide the tools and resources needed to change the culture of safety for bad actors like Takata." Foxx and NHTSA chief Mark Rosekind announced the penalties during a informational tour to push for increased safety regulation and funding. They also urged Congress to pass legislation prohibiting rental car agencies and used car dealers from renting or selling vehicles subject to a recall without first making necessary repairs. The rental car companies and traffic safety advocates support the legislation, but it has run into opposition from some car dealers and dealer groups. TELLABS INC: Ill. Court Rejects "Wiggins" Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- An Illinois district court dismissed, with prejudice, a putative securities class action brought against Tellabs, Inc., Timothy Wiggins, and Thomas Minichiello, alleging that Defendants made false or misleading statements or omissions with regard to Tellabs' earnings and performance from June 9, 2010 through April 26, 2011. Lead Plaintiffs Brian Jensen and Alfredo Accosta brought the case on behalf of themselves and all others who purchased Tellabs securities during the Class Period. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants perpetrated a fraud on the market and that Tellabs' stock price was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period as a result of Defendants' misstatements. In a Feb. 9, 2015 Opinion and Order available at http://is.gd/cJdaiffrom Leagle.com, District Judge Sara L. Ellis found that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that any of Defendants' material statements were false or misleading, or that Tellabs omitted information such that statements were rendered misleading, and Plaintiffs failed to allege that Defendants acted with scienter. Accordingly, the judge granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Tellabs designs and develops telecommunications network products, which it sells primarily to telecommunications service providers. Tellabs' business can be divided into three segments: broadband, transport, and services. Tellabs stock is traded publicly on the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations Market ("NASDAQ"). During the Class Period, Defendant Timothy Wiggins served as Tellabs' Chief Financial Officer and Defendant Thomas Minichiello was Tellabs' Chief Accounting Officer. The action is MAHMOOD ALIZADEH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TELLABS, INC., TIMOTHY J. WIGGINS, and THOMAS P. MINICHIELLO Defendants, Case No. 13-C-537 (N.D. Ill.). Mahmood Alizadeh, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Mark Bryan Goldstein -- mbgoldstein@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Llp. Tellabs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David F. Graham -- dgraham@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, James Wallace Ducayet -- jducayet@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Kathleen Louise Carlson -- kathleen.carlson@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & Melanie Elizabeth Walker -- ewalker@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP. Timothy J. Wiggins, Defendant, represented by David F. Graham, Sidley Austin LLP, James Wallace Ducayet, Sidley Austin LLP, Kathleen Louise Carlson, Sidley Austin LLP & Melanie Elizabeth Walker, Sidley Austin LLP. Thomas P. Minichiello, Defendant, represented by David F. Graham, Sidley Austin LLP, James Wallace Ducayet, Sidley Austin LLP, Kathleen Louise Carlson, Sidley Austin LLP & Melanie Elizabeth Walker, Sidley Austin LLP. Alfredo Acosta, Movant, represented by Gregory Linkh, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Llp & Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP. TRANSUNION: Loses Consumer Class Action Arbitration Bid ------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a small but significant court case is shedding light on the issue of consumer rights in the burgeoning world of online sales and, secondly, bringing TransUnion's "credit score" marketing and sales strategy into question. Did TransUnion's Website Mislead Consumers? Gary Sgouros, a diligent consumer who wanted to see what was on his credit report, claims in a class-action lawsuit that he, and others, were cheated by TransUnion in terms of the product they were sold, and then suckered into agreeing to the company's standard arbitration clause that preempts their right to sue if they found the TransUnion product to be unsatisfactory. Credit reports are free By law every American has the right to obtain a free "credit report" from TransUnion, Experian or Equifax. TransUnion offered Mr. Sgouros and others a more complete reading of their credit when they purchased a $39.99 "credit score" from them. "They are selling a product that does not have any real value," says F. Paul Bland, an attorney and Executive Director of Public Justice, a consumer and justice advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. "The credit score they are selling you is not used by anyone. It's your Fair Isaac or FICO score that determines whether you pay more for your mortgage or a car loan. The TransUnion score is something they made up. It is not a meaningful gage." In Mr. Sgouros's case, according to the court documents, he learned that the $39.99 credit score purchased from TransUnion was 100 points lower than the credit score TransUnion provided to a car dealership where he was buying a vehicle. TransUnion, again, according to the documents, uses one scoring model for lenders and a different model to generate the $39.99 scores. The Fair Credit Reporting Act was amended several years ago making it possible for everyone to get a free credit report. What TransUnion has done, according to Bland, is find a way to monetize the request. "If you want to get your credit report from TransUnion or Equifax or Experian, you can get that for free if you go to the right place," adds Mr. Bland. Almost every online retailer, merchant and service provider requires that dissatisfied consumers submit to arbitration. (If they don't click "I agree," the transaction doesn't proceed.) The arbitration process Bland says is often secretive, run by corporate defense lawyers and heavily weighted against the consumer. Having said that, even the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld and expressed confidence in the arbitration process. However, increasingly, when there is evidence that the consumer was "muddled" by the arbitration clause, courts rule in favor of the consumer. "As an advocate I think the arbitration clauses are bad for the consumer. However, as a lawyer I know that you can't make that argument," says Mr. Bland. "The Supreme Court has made it clear that arbitration is preferred by federal law. Any state laws would be preempted. So the ongoing litigation around arbitration clauses is limited to situations where companies make mistakes in the arbitration clauses or essentially make a drafting error." Judge says website was confusing After pouring over the TransUnion website, U.S. District Court Judge James Zagel ruled that, indeed, the website design led consumers to believe that they were agreeing to have their credit records checked when, in fact, consumers were agreeing to have complaints dealt with through arbitration. They were, in essence, clicking away their rights without being aware of what that click meant. "I think Judge Zagel is right," notes Mr. Bland. "However, this is far from death for arbitration clauses. This just says if you are going to force people into arbitration you can't confuse them, or muddle them; you can't hide the ball." Now that Judge Zagel has tossed out TransUnion's bid to have the case settled by arbitration, it seems more likely that Mr. Sgouros's class action will have its day in court. "In this case TransUnion did a terrible job of setting up the clause," says Mr. Bland. "So I don't think they are going to be able to walk away from the consumer protection laws." Now here's something really important The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was asked to review the "arbitration clauses" related to financial lending institutions. The bureau has been reviewing these clauses for years now and it is widely expected that it will have something to say soon. It is possible that when it comes to lending institutions, the "arbitration clause" that pre-empts a consumer's right to seek redress in courts may go away. It will still apply in most other situations, but when it comes to lenders, there may be a change. UNITED STATES: Court Wants Detention of Asylum-Seekers Halted ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Sakuma, writing for msnbc.com, reports that a federal court on Feb. 20 ordered the Obama administration to immediately halt its policy of detaining immigrant asylum seekers as a means to deter other Central American mothers and children from fleeing to the United States. The ruling was borne out of a class-action lawsuit filed by the ACLU in December that challenged the administration's policy of locking up immigrant families in civil detention centers while they sought asylum through the immigration courts. Attorneys for the civil liberties organization charged that the strategy of detaining asylum-seekers in order to send a message to others who consider fleeing from Central America violated the Fifth Amendment. "Immigration detention is not meant to be punitive," Judy Rabinovitz, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project told msnbc. "We hope is that the administration will take the decision as an opportunity to revisit its policy." Federal agencies last summer, both over-extended and under- prepared, struggled to keep up with the flood of migrant children being caught by U.S. border patrol agents. In the last fiscal year, 68,541 unaccompanied minors were apprehended, up 77% from the year before. By law, unaccompanied minors hailing from countries that do not share a border with the U.S. are offered immediate protections once they enter the U.S. But years of children fleeing extreme gang violence and poverty in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador caused a bottleneck at the southwestern border last June, spurring a crisis that was just as much political as it was humanitarian. The Obama administration responded by setting up a triage of processing and intake centers while implementing new policies designed to expedite the deportation process for the unaccompanied kids. Women and children were held in facilities indefinitely under a "no-bond or high-bond" policy as the administration continued to aggressively expand its detention capacity. In unveiling a new immigrant family detention center in South Texas that would soon have the capacity to hold up to 2,400 people at a time, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson last December introduced a new strategy to send a message to immigrant families hoping to brave the journey north. "The message should be clear: as a result of our new emphasis on the security of the southern border, it will now be more likely that you will be apprehended; it will now be more likely that you will be detained and sent back; and it will now be more likely that your hard-earned money to smuggle a family member to the United States will be seized and will never reach its intended source," Secretary Johnson said in announcing the opening of the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas. The U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., found that the asylum-seeking families were being detained as a direct result of DHS's deterrence policy, and that detention was damaging in a number of ways that was "particularly harmful to minor children." And while the U.S. government argued that preventing a mass influx of immigration was critical to national security, the court found that "incantation of the magic word 'national security' without further substantiation is simply not enough to justify significant deprivations of liberty." The Department of Justice declined to comment. UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Barton, Leon Abdullah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The University of Phoenix, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00939 (N.D. Cal., February 28, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making calls using an automated telephone dialing system. The University of Phoenix, Inc. is a for-profit institution of higher learning, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. 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 WELLMARK INC: Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Judgment in "Mueller" -------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Edward M. Mansfield of the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court's judgment in the case STEVEN A. MUELLER, BRADLEY J. BROWN, MARK A. KRUSE, KEVIN D. MILLER, and LARRY E. PHIPPS, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Like Situated, Appellants, v. WELLMARK, INC. d/b/a WELLMARK BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF IOWA, an Iowa Corporation, and WELLMARK HEALTH PLAN OF IOWA, INC., an Iowa Corporation, Appellees, NO. 13-1872 (Iowa) Wellmark, Inc. is an Iowa-based health insurer that belongs to the national Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) network. Wellmark has contracted with health care providers in Iowa to provide services at certain reimbursement rates. By agreement, Wellmark makes those rates available both to self-insured Iowa plans that it administers and to out-of-state BCBS affiliates when those entities provide coverage for services provided in Iowa. Plaintiffs filed a suit against Wellmark alleging that the latter engaged in discriminatory practices in violation of Iowa Code section 509.3(6), 514.7, 514.23(2), 514B.1(5)(c), 514F.2 (2007)). Another count pled that Wellmark had entered into a contract, combination, or conspiracy in violation of section 553.4 of the Iowa Competition Law, the counterpart to section 1 of the Federal Sherman Antitrust Act. A third count alleged that Wellmark had abused monopoly power in violation of section 553.5 of the Iowa Competition Law, the counterpart to section 2 of the Sherman Act. Wellmark filed a motion to dismiss in which the district court granted and dismissed the claims based on the insurance statutes. The district court later granted summary judgment to Wellmark on the antitrust claims. Plaintiffs appealed in which, the present court affirmed the dismissal of the claims under Iowa insurance law, but found that the state action exemption did not insulate Wellmark's reimbursement rates from antitrust review and affirmed the dismissal of some of the chiropractors' antitrust claims including the Iowa Code section 553.5 monopolization claim, on alternate grounds that had been raised by Wellmark. On remand, the plaintiffs stipulated that their only remaining antitrust claims -- alleging conspiracies between Wellmark and out-of-state BCBS affiliates and between Wellmark and self-funding employers that hired Wellmark to administer their plans. Wellmark moved for summary judgment again, this time on the ground that neither of these alleged conspiracies was subject to per se treatment. As Wellmark put it, "Sharing a provider network does not amount to naked price fixing and is not subject to the per se rule." Wellmark urged that plaintiffs' claims were potentially viable, if at all, only under the rule of reason. The plaintiffs maintained that Wellmark had engaged in per se price-fixing when it entered into agreements with self-insuring Iowa employers to make its network and claims administration available to them. Similarly, the plaintiffs urged that Wellmark had engaged in per se price-fixing when it participated in the national BlueCard(R) program under which BCBS entities agreed to make their in-state networks available to each other when their respective customers needed out-of-state services. After hearing the parties' arguments, the district court rejected plaintiffs' per se theories and entered summary judgment for Wellmark. Appeal followed. Justice Mansfield affirmed the district court's judgment in an opinion dated February 27, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/UkLkBafrom Leagle.com. Glenn L. Norris of Hawkins & Norris, P.C., Des Moines; Harley C. Erbe of Erbe Law Firm, Des Moines;Steven P. Wandro, Michael R. Keller, and Shayla L. McCormally of Wandro & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants Hayward L. Draper and Ryan G. Koopmans of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees WHEELS ASSURED: Doesn't Pay Drivers Properly, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Marla Armstrong, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Wheels Assured Delivery Systems, Inc., Wheels Assured Logistics, LLC, Gary Giles and Cynthia Giles, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00354 (S.D. Ind., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay delivery drivers minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a freight shipping and trucking company that conducts business in the Southern District. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 8383 Craig Street, Suite 330 Indianapolis, IN 46250 Telephone: (317) 842-6600 Facsimile: (317) 842-6933 E-mail: weldy@weldylaw.com WILD GEESE: "Howard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Howard, on behalf of herself individually, and all others similarly situated v. The Wild Geese Tavern, LLC, The Wild Geese Tavern Private Club, and Lazaro Mendoza, Case No. 3:15-cv-00043 (S.D. Tex., February 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate restaurants and bars in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Micah Williams, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES 810 Highway 6 South, Ste 111 Houston, TX 77079 Telephone: (832) 230-4125 Facsimile: (832) 230-5310 E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com YELLOWPAGES.COM LLC: App. Ct. Upholds Decertification of Gray Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Austin Gray filed a class action against Yellowpages.com, LLC; Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc.; AT&T, Inc.; and AT&T Services, Inc. that defined a class of employees in 21 different job titles and sought damages for, inter alia, unpaid overtime. After initially certifying the class, the trial court granted Yellow Pages's motion to decertify and denied plaintiff's motion to amend the class definition to eliminate certain job titles from the class definition. On appeal from the orders granting decertification and denying leave to amend the class definition, plaintiff contended that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in ruling on the motion to decertify and abused its discretion in denying her leave to amend the class definition. In a Feb. 11, 2015 Order available at http://is.gd/1ntpSifrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of California held that because the trial court applied the correct legal standard, it did not abuse its discretion by decertifying the class and that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the order denying leave to amend the class definition. The appellate court thus affirms the two orders from which plaintiff appeals. Yellow Pages provides interactive advertising services. It connects advertisers to consumers through websites and cell phone applications. Yellow Pages's generates revenue by selling ads to advertisers, which ads Yellow Pages produces and publishes electronically. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Andre E. Jardini -- aej@kpclegal.com , K.L. Myles -- klm@kpclegal.com ; Law Office of Thomas W. Falvey, Thomas W. Falvey and Jon D. Henderson for Plaintiff and Appellant. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Julia A. Totten -- jatotten@orrick.com , Sara E. Dionne, Leah L. Spero; Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, Michael C. Sullivan -- msullivan@paulplevin.com -- and Aaron A. Buckley -- abuckley@paulplevin.com -- for Defendants and Respondents. * Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cases Down in 2014 ------------------------------------------------------------ Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that judging by the numbers, it might look as if the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has gone soft. During fiscal year 2014, agency litigators won the lowest monetary penalties since at least 1997; went 0-for-2 in jury trials; and filed half as many new suits as a decade before, according to statistics the agency released in February. But if there's one thing both EEOC general counsel P. David Lopez and the defense bar agree upon it's this: The numbers don't tell the whole story. "There are multiple ways of measuring success," Mr. Lopez said. "The policy is not for the general counsel's office simply to try to obtain maximum monetary relief." At the same time, he called 2014 "an arbitrary time frame" and "an outlier." He said the agency is on track to post stronger results in 2015, having won four of five jury trials to date. Management-side lawyers take little comfort in the results in 2014, when the EEOC recovered just $22.5 million for victims of discrimination in litigated cases. By contrast, during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, the agency's average payout for such cases was $91 million per year -- four times as much. The EEOC in 2014 obtained $296 million in cases that settled prior to filing suit, a 20 percent drop from 2013. "These numbers do not mean the EEOC has downshifted in any way," cautioned Seyfarth Shaw partner Christopher DeGroff, co-chairman of the firm's complex discrimination litigation practice. "The EEOC is every bit as aggressive and seeks to be as innovative as it ever has been." According to Mr. Lopez, one reason for the lower payouts is the kind of suits the agency is filing. "The enforcement priorities laid out by the commission, such as failure-to-hire cases and protecting vulnerable workers, often don't involve extensive out- of-pocket damages," he said. Monetary recovery "is important," he continued. "It allows people who are victims of discrimination to be able to have the opportunity to put their lives back together." But it's not all that matters. "For the agency, it's also important to obtain strong nonmonetary relief, to make sure the conduct does not reoccur, and to bring cases that have impact -- that clarify areas of the law where there's not a lot of case law," he said. Indeed, there's no shortage of private plaintiffs lawyers willing to handle big-ticket individual discrimination suits. In November, for example, the Bohm Law Group won a record $185 million verdict from a federal jury in San Diego against AutoZone Stores for pregnancy and sex discrimination and retaliation. Meanwhile, the EEOC is increasingly focusing on complex "systemic" cases involving allegations of widespread discrimination, pursuing bold -- although not necessarily successful -- legal theories. Agency lawyers filed 167 suits during fiscal year 2014, 133 of them on the merits. That's up slightly from 2013 but low by historical standards. Between 1997 and 2011, the EEOC filed an average of 370 suits a year. But today's suits pack a bigger punch. "We've filed some pretty large cases that are national in scope and are more work," Lopez said. "More resources are being devoted to litigating some of these large, systemic cases. We're not filing as many onesies and twosies." Agency statistics bear this out. The EEOC found "reasonable cause" that discrimination occurred in 118 of 260 systemic investigations in the 2014 fiscal year, or 45 percent. Add in the nonsystemic claims and reasonable cause plummets to 3 percent. "I have not seen the EEOC back down in any systemic cases -- to the contrary," said Paul Evans -- pevans@morganlewis.com -- a labor and employment partner in Morgan, Lewis & Bockius' Philadelphia office. "They're pushing the envelope." At the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, the EEOC had 228 active cases, 57 of which involved systemic discrimination -- about 25 percent. That's actually more than the agency's target under its strategic enforcement plan, which calls for about 20 percent of its active docket to be systemic cases, according to an analysis by Seyfarth Shaw. Some of the pending cases offer the potential for major damages, such as a $300 million suit against Bass Pro Outdoor World for failing to hire black and Hispanic workers. The case survived a motion for summary judgment in July and is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on an interlocutory appeal. In other instances, the EEOC has come up empty-handed. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Feb. 20 handed the agency a stinging rebuke in its case against event planner Freeman Cos. The EEOC alleged that Freeman's use of criminal background and credit checks to screen prospective new hires had a disparate impact on black and male job applicants. The court found that testimony by the EEOC's expert witness was rightfully excluded as unreliable. "The commission's work of serving 'the public interest' is jeopardized by the kind of missteps that occurred here," Judge G. Steven Agee wrote in a concurring opinion. "The EEOC must be constantly vigilant that it does not abuse the power conferred upon it by Congress." FAILURE TO CONCILIATE Another high-profile loss came in October, when U.S. District Judge John Darrah of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the agency's suit against CVS Pharmacy Inc. The EEOC sued the drug store chain in February 2014, alleging that its "overly broad" severance agreement "interfered with employees' right to file discrimination charges and/or communicate and cooperate with the EEOC." Represented by Jones Day, CVS protested that its severance agreement was "run of the mill" and that the EEOC "cites no case supporting its unprecedented claim." Judge Darrah dismissed the case because the EEOC failed to conciliate before suing. The matter is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Conciliation has been a central issue for the EEOC. The U.S. Supreme Court in January heard arguments in EEOC v. Mach Mining, which questions to what extent courts can review the EEOC's conciliations efforts. Leslie Silverman, a former EEOC commissioner who is now a partner at Fortney & Scott, said the best way to judge the EEOC is not on the number of cases it brings or how much money it recovers, but on the quality of its work. "Enforcement must be grounded on a sound legal foundation," she said. "We all want a successful anti-discrimination agency, but I don't know if that's what we're looking at right now." As for Mr. Lopez, he sounds frustrated about the drawn-out procedural challenges. "Since 2006, the agency has been on track to focus on systemic work. But the reality is that these cases take a very long time. I've never known delay to work to the advantage to victims of discrimination," he said. "Like any plaintiffs lawyer, we want to get to the merits of the allegations of discrimination." 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: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 7,000 PI Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 7,000 asbestos-related lawsuits against Rexnord Corporation's subsidiary, Zurn, 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. Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos litigation. As of December 31, 2014, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC ("Zurn Industries"), and numerous other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 24,000 claims. The Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers. 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. Has $248.4MM Insurance Coverage -------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation estimates that its available insurance to cover its potential asbestos liability is $248.4 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. As of December 31, 2014, the Company estimates the potential liability for the asbestos-related claims, as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately $36.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay approximately $29.0 million in the next ten years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. The $36.0 million was developed based on an actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for claims filed in the next ten years. However, there are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate described. Further, while this current asbestos liability is based on an estimate of claims through the next ten years, such liability may continue beyond that time frame, and such liability could be substantial. Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this potential asbestos liability as of December 31, 2014, is approximately $248.4 million, and believes that all current claims are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers have paid the first $172.4 million of aggregate liabilities. 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. Has $36MM Insurance Receivable ------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation recorded an insurance receivable of $36.0 million, which corresponds to the amount of its potential asbestos liability, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had a recorded receivable from its insurance carriers of $36.0 million, which corresponds to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance that $248.4 million of insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $248.4 million. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers. The Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC ("Zurn Industries"), were named as defendants in a number of individual and class action lawsuits in various United States courts. The plaintiffs in these suits claimed damages due to the alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX plumbing systems in homes and other structures. In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the liability underlying this litigation. The settlement is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims independently. The settlement received final court approval in February 2013, and utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is capped at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the seven year period based on claim activity and minimum funding criteria. The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which were paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2014. Historically, the Company's insurance carrier had funded the Company's defense in the above referenced proceedings. The Company, however, reached a settlement agreement with its insurer, whereby the insurer paid the Company a lump sum in exchange for a release of future exposure related to this liability. The Company has recorded an accrual related to this brass fittings liability, which takes into account, in pertinent part, the insurance carrier contribution, as well as exposure from the claims fund, opt-outs and the waiver of future insurance coverage. 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: Union Pacific Had 1,065 Fibro Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation had 1,065 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following assumptions: * The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation. * The number of claims filed against us will decline each year. * The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted claims will be equivalent to historical averages. * The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be equivalent to historical averages. "Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of future payments. Approximately 21% of the recorded liability related to asserted claims and approximately 79% related to unasserted claims at December 31, 2014. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs to settle these claims may range from approximately $126 million to $135 million. We record an accrual at the low end of the range as no amount of loss within the range is more probable than any other. "As of December 31, 2014, the Company's asbestos-related liability was $126 million; and 1,065 asbestos-related claims. "In conjunction with the liability update performed in 2014, we also reassessed our estimated insurance recoveries. We have recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at December 31, 2014, and 2013. The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year, average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants." Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) owns transportation companies. Its principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links 23 states in the western 66% of the country. Union Pacific Railroad Company's business mix includes agricultural products, automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal. Union Pacific Railroad Company connects with Canada's rail systems and is the railroad serving six gateways to Mexico. Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) is a Class I railroad operating in the United States. In June 2012, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, PS Technology (PST), acquired the Yard Control Systems division of Ansaldo STS USA. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hennessey Fails in Bid to Junk "Vellucci" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Hennessey Industries, Inc., sued as the successor-in- interest to Ammco Tools, Inc., moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it by Plaintiff Linda Vellucci who alleged that her husband, John Vellucci, sustained lifelong exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products in both occupational and non-occupational settings, and that such exposure caused him to develop mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer. In a decision and order dated Feb. 20, 2015, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendant's motion, finding that Ammco had a duty to warn of the hazards associated with asbestos exposure, and Ammco has not submitted any evidence to show that it adequately warned of those hazards. Thus, there remains a triable issue of fact regarding Ammco's liability for plaintiff's injuries, Judge Heitler ruled. The case is LINDA VELLUCCI, as Executrix of the Heirs and Estates of JOHN VELLUCCI, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. BORG WARNER CORPORATION, by its successor-in interest to Borg-Warner Morse Tec, Inc., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190201/12, MOTION SEQ. 004 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/7doz7tfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: SB Decking Wins Summary Judgment in PI Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant SB Decking, Inc., filed a renewed motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint filed by Plaintiffs Alan and Donna McMann alleging that Mr. McMann was exposed to asbestos while working for numerous defendants including SB Decking. In an order dated March 3, 2015, Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted the motion after finding that McMann's evidence shows, at most, that SB Decking's product was on the premises of Mr. McMann's workplace. McMann asserts that he was exposed to dust while the Firedrake's main deck nonskid was replaced in a dry dock, but, Judge Settle noted, McMann fails to provide evidence showing that this particular nonskid contained asbestos. The nonskid that SB Decking supplied that actually contained asbestos is only shown to have occupied a part of the ship which Mr. McMann never entered, and that nonskid was not replaced during any time material to Mr. McMann's employment and Mr. McMann does not claim he was exposed to a dust cloud of that toxic nonskid, Judge Settle further noted. McMann, according to Judge Settle, has not shown any exposure to asbestos from SB Decking's products, nor did McMann show that any of SB Decking's products were a substantial factor in causing his illness. The Court, therefore, found that McMann fails to make a sufficient showing of the causation element of his claim. The case is DONNA McMANN, individually and as Personal Representative of the heirs and estate of Alan McMann, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C14-5429 BHS (W.D. Wash.). A full-text copy of Judge Settle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/7RSFK1from Leagle.com. Donna McMann, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett B Naman, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC & Christopher B Norris, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP. AstenJohnson Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel Ruttenberg, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & J. Scott Wood, FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & R Dirk Bernhardt, SEDGWICK LLP. Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw, K&L GATES LLP & Geoffrey M Davis, K&L GATES LLP. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by David D Mordekhov, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC & Ronald C Gardner, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC. International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Pacific Construction Systems Inc, Defendant, represented by Jason H Daywitt, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. Pfizer Inc, Defendant, represented by Marissa Alkhazov, BETTS PATTERSON & MINES. Thomas Dee Engineering Co, Defendant, represented by D K Yoshida, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Refuses to Review Ruling in PI Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denied Lockheed Shipbuilding Company's motion for reconsideration of a Feb. 11, 2015, order denying Lockheed's motion for a summary judgment on the basis that genuine issues of material fact exist in the asbestos-related personal injury case styled 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.). Judge Bryan ruled that viewing all evidence presented to the Court in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court should conclude that the plaintiff has raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Mr. McCrossin was exposed to asbestos Lockheed had originally installed on the Trenton. A full-text copy of Judge Bryan's March 2, 2015, order is available at http://is.gd/0QIHuPfrom 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, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. Lockheed Shipbuilding Company, Defendant, represented by Guy Glazier, GLAZIER YEE, Geoff J M Bridgman, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC, Jeffrey D Dunbar, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC & Robert Gregory Andre, 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, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. Fraser's Boiler Service Inc, Defendant, represented by Melissa K Roeder, FORSBERG & UMLAUF & William Chris Gibson, FORSBERG & UMLAUF. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Trust, 3 Cos. Dismissed from "Lee" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled James Herman Lee and Maria J. Lee, Plaintiffs, v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc.; et al., Defendants, FILE NO. 4:14-CV-00230-BO (E.D.N.C.), Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, granted joint motions dismissing four defendants in the case. Specifically, Judge Boyle ordered the following: * the Joint Motion to Dismiss E.l. DuPont de Nemours and Company as defendant in the case is granted, and all of the Plaintiffs' claims against DuPont are dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs. A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's March 2, 2015, Order with respect to DuPont is available at http://is.gd/wGdAfUfrom Leagle.com. * the Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Advance Stores Company, Inc., erroneously named as Advance Auto Parts, Inc., is granted and the Plaintiffs' claims against Advance are dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs. A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's March 2, 2015, Order with respect to Advance is available at http://is.gd/IoOj2Ofrom Leagle.com. * the Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Genuine Parts Company (incorrectly identified by Plaintiffs as "Genuine Parts Company a/k/a NAPA"), pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is granted, and the Plaintiffs' claims against Genuine Parts Company are dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs. A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's March 2, 2015, Order with respect to Genuine Parts is available at http://is.gd/H1tyVH from Leagle.com. * the Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, without prejudice, against Defendant Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (sued as successor to Felt - Products Manufacturing Co.) pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is allowed and the Plaintiffs' claims against the Trust are dismissed without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs. A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's March 3, 2015, Order with respect to the Trust is available at http://is.gd/Q8byDhfrom Leagle.com. James Herman Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black Law. Maria J. Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black Law. Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., William David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. DAP Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy C. Drayton, Esq. -- adrayton@deanandgibson.com -- Dean & Gibson, PLLC. Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Esq. -- Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A. & Robin A. Seelbach, Esq. -- Robin.Seelbach@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A.. Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr., Esq. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com -- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee Davis, Jr., Esq. -- ldavis@davisandhamrick.com -- Davis & Hamrick, LLP. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & William David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A.. Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., Defendant, represented by John T. Holden, Esq. -- jholden@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, PC. The Sherwin-Williams Co., Defendant, represented by John T. Holden, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, PC. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., William David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. White Lightning Products, Defendant, represented by John T. Holden, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Flips Summary Ruling in "Latter" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff, Henry W. Latter, Sr., was diagnosed with mesothelioma on June 24, 2008, as a result of his exposure to asbestos. He died from that disease on June 20, 2009. Prior to his death, he was employed on various commercial dredges and other commercial ships, during which he allegedly worked with numerous asbestos- containing products and was exposed to asbestos fibers, dust, and particles. On January 10, 2014, the Law Division granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims against defendants Weeks Marine, Inc., and American Atlantic Company. The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that he was exposed to asbestos while working aboard defendant's vessels. The Plaintiff appeals, arguing that he presented sufficient evidence of his exposure to asbestos while employed by defendant. In a March 3, 2015, opinion, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, agreed with the Plaintiff and reversed the lower court's ruling. The Superior Court, in support of its decision, deemed the plaintiff's testimony and evidence sufficient for a factfinder to reasonably infer that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos while employed by the defendant. "While a closer call with respect to plaintiff's other work experience on defendant's dredges, plaintiff has also produced evidence that the winches on the Delaware Valley contained molded asbestos composition friction blocks, and that the New York contained three winches for propulsion which required asbestos. We further note Dr. Moline's opinion regarding plaintiff's exposure to asbestos on dredging vessels, and Castleman's expert opinion that defendant knew or should have known of the hazards of asbestos and the necessary steps to protect workers from asbestos exposure," the Superior Court ruled. "Although the summary judgment motion was decided on a very narrow ground, we conclude that the record as a whole establishes a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products on defendant's dredges," the Superior Court further ruled. The case is HENRY W. LATTER, JR., individually and as Executor and Executor ad Prosequendum of the Estate of HENRY W. LATTER, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 3M COMPANY; ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a/k/a Western Auto Supply Company; AUTOBACS STRAUSS, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Strauss Discount Auto, individually and as successor to R&S Strauss; BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; BORG-WARNER MORSE TEC, f/k/a Borg Warner; BOSCH BRAKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; CERTAINTEED CORPORPOATION; CHRYSLER, LLC; CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a/k/a Clark-Hurth; CNH AMERICA, LLC; CUMMINS, INCORPORATED; DANA COMPANIES, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to Clark Equipment Company and Clark-Hurth; EATON CORPORATION, d/b/a Airflex; EMERSON ELECTRIC CORPORATION, successor to Lipe Rollway Corporation; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; GKN ROCKFORD, INCORPORATED, individually and as successor to Rockford Clutch; GALION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC; GOODRICH CORPORATION, f/k/a B.F. Goodrich Company; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, individually and as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to Clark Equipment Company and Clark-Hurth; KAISER GYPSUM; KOMATSU AMERICA CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Galion Iron Works; NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION (NAPA), a/k/a Genuine Parts Company; THE PEP BOYS -- MANNY MOE & JACK OF DELAWARE, INCORPORATED; PNEUMO-ABEX, LLC, as successor-in-interest to Abex Corporation, f/k/a American Brake Shoe Company; THE GLIDDEN COMPANY, d/b/a ICI Paints; THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; DRAVO CORPORATION; LIPE AUTOMATION CORPORATION, f/k/a Lipe Rollway Corporation; ADVANCE STORE COMPANY, INC. and ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC. and ADVANCE AUTO PART, INC., individually and as successor to Western Auto Supply Co. and Western Auto; SETCO AUTOMOTIVE, N.A., INC., a/k/a Setco Lipe Clutch; ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC., individually and a/k/a Advanced Auto Parts, Inc.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY CORP., individually and a/k/a Western Auto; NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P., as successor in interest to Hydralift AM Clyde, Inc. and AM Clyde Engineered Products, Inc., f/k/a Clyde Iron Works; SHEPARD NILES; SUPERIOR- LIDGERWOOD-MUNDY; KONECRANES, INC., as successor to and d/b/a Shepard-Niles; and PENNSYLVANIA S&N, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Shepard Niles., Inc., Defendants, and AMERICAN ATLANTIC COMPANY, as successor to American Dredging; WEEKS MARINE, INCORPORATED, individually and as successor to American Dredging Company, Defendants-Respondents, NO. A-2714-13T4 (N.J. Super.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/AEWjB5from Leagle.com. Jeffrey P. Blumstein, Esq. -- jblumstein@szaferman.com -- argued the cause for appellant (Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C., and Levy Konigsberg, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Blumstein and Robert E. Lytle, on the briefs). Tara L. Pehush, Esq. -- tara.pehush@klgates.com -- argued the cause for respondents (K&L Gates, attorneys; Ms. Pehush, Angela DiGiglio, Esq. -- angela.digiglio@klgates.com -- Michael E. Waller, Esq. -- michael.waller@klgates.com -- on the brief). ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Applies Tenn. Law in "Jones" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Wayne F. Jones and Roberta Jones allege that Mr. Jones was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by 84 Lumber Company, et al., which caused Mr. Jones' mesothelioma. With the exception of one year in Maryland -- where Mr. Jones worked at Bethlehem Steel -- he has lived in the State of Tennessee for his entire life. Accordingly, the majority of Mr. Jones' alleged asbestos exposure occurred in Tennessee. Furthermore, Mr. Jones was diagnosed in, and is being treated in, Tennessee. On December 17, 2014, the Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, SC, granted the Defendants' motion to apply Tennessee law to the instant case. The Defendants now ask the Court to take judicial notice of four areas where they contend that Tennessee substantive law should apply. The Superior Court, in a decision dated March 5, 2015, granted the motions, noting that all of the relevant areas of law raised by the Defendants can properly be classified as substantive because they all relate to the issue of damages. Additionally, the Superior Court said Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 428 (1996), instructs the Court to treat the statutory cap on noneconomic damages as a substantive rule of law. The case is WAYNE F. JONES and ROBERTA JONES, Plaintiffs, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, et. al., Defendants, C.A. NO. PC-13-2485 (R.I. Super.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/ozvi1Rfrom Leagle.com. John E. Deaton, Esq., for Plaintiff. Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Esq., Lawrence J. Sugarman, Esq., for Defendant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Jeffrey" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Billy and Diana Jeffrey sued several companies alleging that Mr. Jeffrey was injured from exposure to several defendants' asbestos-containing products. The plaintiffs have not pleaded any facts regarding the circumstances of their exposure or any basis for concluding that Mr. Jeffrey was exposed to the defendants' products, thus Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. The case is BILLY JEFFREY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOSTER WHEELER LLC (FKA FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION), SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC. (FKA SQUARE D COMPANY), EATON CORPORATION, ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-05585-WHO (N.D. Calif.). A full- text copy of Judge Orrick's order dated March 2, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Ik4kHcfrom Leagle.com. Billy Jeffrey, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP & Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP. Diana Jeffrey, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP & Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC (FKA Foster Wheeler Corporation), Defendant, represented by Shelley Kaye Tinkoff, Esq. -- tinkoff@hugoparker.com -- Hugo Parker LLP & Edward R. Hugo, Esq. - - ehugo@hugoparker.com -- Hugo Parker LLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (FKA Square D Company), Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, Esq. -- michele.barnes@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Zachariah David Baker, Esq. -- zac.baker@klgates.com -- KL Gates. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Shawn Michael Ridley, Esq. -- sridley@hrmrlaw.com -- Howard Rome et al LLP & Trina Marie Clayton, Esq. -- tclayton@hrmrlaw.com -- Howard Rome Martin & Ridley LLP. Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicole Elisabet Gage, Esq. -- nicole.gage@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Hall" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, in a March 5, 2015, memorandum and order denied defendant Crane Co.'s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Van L. Hall alleging that he was exposed to, inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers throughout 1959-77 from products which were manufactured, sold, distributed, installed or promoted by Crane. In denying Crane's motion to dismiss, Judge Yandle noted that in this case, the plaintiff has given specific locations, specific states, and specific time periods allowing Crane ample notice in order to build a defense. As the Supreme Court noted in Twombly, a plaintiff need only state enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face and in this particular case, the Plaintiff has succeeded in doing so, Judge Yandle said. The case is VAN L. HALL, Plaintiff, v. AQUA-CHEM, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-0028-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Zi77Wyfrom Leagle.com. Van L Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Ben A. Vinson, Jr., Vinson Law & Zane T. Cagle, Cagle Law Firm, LLC. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Carrier Corp, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, Esq. -- jrogers@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, Esq. -- uwilks@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, IL. John Crane Inc, Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Owens-Illinois, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin LLP & Matthew J. Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. ITT Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. CBS Corporation, successor by merger to CBS Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Individually and as Successor- in-Interest to BF Sturtevant Co, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL. Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL. Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. General Electric Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL. Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. John Crane Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL. Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Crane Co, Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL. Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. John Crane Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Crane Co, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL. Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. John Crane Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Crane Co, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL. Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. John Crane Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Carrier Corp, Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Crane Co, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL. Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. John Crane Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC., Cross Defendant, represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell. Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Carrier Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Crane Co, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Finer, Segal, McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan, Segal, McCambridge et al.. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP, IL & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP, IL. Imo Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. John Crane Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al., Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Owens-Illinois, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al.. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Gregory C Flatt, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Order Aiding Discovery in PI Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Campbell, Sr., initially filed an action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, asserting that he has contracted lung cancer as a result of his exposure to asbestos over a 55 year period in different locations across the country. ABB Inc., and the rest of the defendants are all allegedly companies that have manufactured, distributed, and/or sold asbestos or asbestos products to which Charles Campbell was exposed. The original complaint named 51 Defendants, though several have since been dismissed. Two Defendants, Raypack, Inc., and Rheem Manufacturing Company, moved to dismiss the cases against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in a memorandum and order dated March 5, 2015, granted the Defendants' motions for a more definite statement saying a more definite statement from the Plaintiffs will focus the discovery process and expedite the disposition of the case in an economical manner. The case is CHARLES CAMPBELL, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABB INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14CV01489 AGF (E.D. Mo.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/5zGkx5 from Leagle.com. Charles Campbell, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, NAPOLI AND BERN & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI AND BERN. Lena Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, NAPOLI AND BERN & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI AND BERN. ABB Inc., formerly known as Asea Brown Boveri, Inc. formerly known as Brown Boveri Electric Co., Defendant, represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, also known as Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Akzo Nobel Paints LLC, formerly known as The Glidden Company, Defendant, represented by Robert Jacob Hurtt, Jr., Esq. -- rob.hurtt@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP. Belden Wire & Cable Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Successor by Merger to Borg-Warner Corporation, Defendant, represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP. Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom, Inc., Successor by Merger to CBS Corp. formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corp, 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, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Cooper Technologies Company, individually Successor In Interest Crouse-Hinds Company PPB, Defendant, represented by Jessica L. Prosperi, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM. Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD. DAP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. Eaton Corporation, individually and as Successor In Interest Cutler Hammer, Inc., Defendant, represented by J. Todd Applegate, PITZER SNODGRASS, P.C. & Brian J. Connolly, REEG LAWYERS, LLC. Ericsson, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. FMC Corporation, individually Successor In Interest Northern Pump Company Successor In Interest Coffin Successor In Interest Chicago Pump Company Successor In Interest Peerless, Defendant, represented by Marcie J. Vantine, SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Megan Ashley Schwarz, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. General Cable Corporation, Defendant, represented by Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP. Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP. Hanson Permanente Cement, Defendant, represented by Virginia M. Giokaris, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS. Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as Alliedsignal, Inc. formerly known as The Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC & Dennis J. Dobbels, POLSINELLI PC. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew R. Fields, JACOBSON AND PRESS, P.C. & Matthew David Bigham, JACOBSON AND PRESS, P.C.. J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co., Defendant, represented by Stephen J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP. Lennox Industries, Inc. Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER. Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mary Dianne Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC, Matthew E. Pelikan, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC, Ross S. Titzer, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC & Thomas L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC. Raypak, Inc., a Wholly Owned Subisdiary of Rheem Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Tracy J. Cowan, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP & Earl B. Thames, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP. Rheem Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Tracy J. Cowan, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP & Earl B. Thames, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP. Robertson Ceco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER. Rockwell Automation, Inc., formerly known as Allen Bradley Company Inc. Successor In Interest Rostone Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. Schneider Electric Company, formerly known as Square D Co., Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC. Sears Roebuck & Co., a subsidiary of Sears Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by April A. Vesely, SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP & Paul W. Lore. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas W. Hayes, MCKENNA STORER. Simpson Timber Company, Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P., Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael W. Newport, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC, Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ. The Sherwin-Williams Company, Defendant, represented by John A. Bruegger, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP & Tracy J. Cowan, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP. Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP. York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP, Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Tracy Beckman Phipps, HERZOG CREBS LLP. Young Group Ltd., formerly known as Young Sales Corp., Defendant, represented by Jordan K. Pack, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jordan K. Pack, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE. Cooper Industries, LLC, 600 Travis Street #5800 Houston, TX 77002- 3008, Defendant, represented by Jessica L. Prosperi, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS. ********* 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 * * *