/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151113.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 227 Headlines ALIBABA GROUP: "Hercules" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation ALL NATION: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Labor Code Violations ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: "Williams" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation APPLE INC: Judge Weighs Bag Check Class Action ARCHER-DANIELS: Trial Begins in Corn Syrup False Advertising Suit ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING: Court Stands By Class Cert. Ruling AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Judge Tosses Consumer Fraud Claim BOFI HOLDING: December 14 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline CARIBBEAN PETROLEUM: Motion for Bench Trial Granted CHIPOTLE: E. Coli Outbreak Source Not Found, Restaurants to Reopen CLS TRANSPORTATION: Arbitration Awards Upheld COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS: "Magee" Suit Over Vending Machine Tossed COMCAST CORP: Judge Rejects $15.5MM Class Action Settlement EMC CORP: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty EXTREME NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit EXXON MOBIL: New York AG Probes Investors' Disclosure Claims FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act FIVE STAR CARTING: Conditional Certification Granted in "Flores" FOREST PARK MEDICAL: Former COO Files Class Suit Over Layoffs GENERAL MOTORS: Court Denies Certification of Discrimination Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Ignition Switch Punitive Damages GLOBUS MEDICAL: Howard Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit GNC HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit GNC HOLDINGS: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit GRAIN PROCESSING: Judge Approves Nuisance Class Suits GRAIS & ELLSWORTH: "Stauffer" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation GREEN FLEET: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Penalties and Back Wages HILLCREST DAVIDSON: "Wattley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT HOME DEPOT: "Seramur" Suit Alleges JFPA Violation HOMEAWAY INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California IHEARTMEDIA INC: "Sheridan" Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement JASON SCHEAR: Filed a Petition for Turnover of Account Proceeds JM HOLLISTER: "Pang" Suit Transferred From E.D. to W.D. New York JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Debt Collection Suit for $100 Million KOLBE & KOLBE: Wisconsin Judge Rules on Insurers' Motions LONG BEACH CARE: Arbitration Bid in "Guerra" Case Revived LOUISIANA: Order Granting In Forma Pauperis Status Vacated MACOMB COUNTY, MI: Court Tosses "Cowans" Complaint MCWANE INC: Jan. 28 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MERRILL LYNCH: Zale Corp Buyout Class Suit Dismissed MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: "Hood" Suit Asserts California UCL Violation MIZUHO BANK: Appeals District Court Order in "Laydon" Class Suit NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme NEIL JONES FOOD: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminary Approval NEW YORK: City Foster Care Leader Takes Over Amid Problems PEABODY ENERGY: N.Y. AG Says Climate Statements Mislead Investors PEET'S COFFEE: Sued Over French Press Serving Sizes PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Supreme Court Rejects $10BB Verdict RENTECH NITROGEN: Brodsky LLC Files Class Suit Over Buyout SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Suit Seeks to End Use of Cash Bail System SEPHORA: Attorneys Attempt to Resolve Discrimination Suit SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Court Trims Suit by Mortuary Drivers SIENTRA INC: November 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline SPLENDOR LANDSCAPE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says SPOKEO INC: High Court Divided Over Data Collection Dispute STREAM: Fifth Circuit Decertifies Class Suit STUDENT AID CENTER: Must Defend Against "Abella" Class Suit SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Mares" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Cal. SYNCHRONY BANK: Accused of Violating TCPA in S.D. California T & W RESTAURANT: "Weng" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages TERRRAFORM GLOBAL: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit TRANSURBAN USA: Virginia Judge Narrows Claims in "Brown" Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Taps Criminal Defender in Sex Assault Suit UNITED CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Berkery" Suit Over Phone Bills Dismissed VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shirley" Suit Alleges RICO Violation VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Warner" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Concealment VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wigley" Suit Alleges Deceptive Trade Practices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Urged to Quickly Report Emission Probe Findings VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Offers Car Owners $1,000 in Gift Cards, Vouchers WARRIOR GIRL: January 25 Trial Scheduled in Stock Fraud Suit WEXFORD HEALTH: Suit by Menard Inmate Dismissed WILMINGTON TRUST: Judge Grants Prosecutors to Join in Suit WYANDOTTE, MI: Wayne County Sues Over Tax Court Settlement ZAFGEN INC: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit ZAFGEN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit ZYNGA: Settles Peeved Investors' Class Suit Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermot Continues to Defend Insurers' Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Brands Has 192 MARDOC Cases at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Part Units Continue to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Corp. Has No Insurance for Fibro Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint, Units Continue to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Worker Dies of Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employers Sued for Exposing Workers to Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victims Need to Sue Insurers for Payment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma to Cost Insurers $85B, AMBest Says ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Affirms Remand Order in Fibro Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Korean Mesothelioma Deaths on the Rise ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups Ask Caucus to Oppose Fibro Trust Bill ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK PM Pledges Help to Veterans with Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctor Has Arrangement with Sheldon Silver ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Gov't to Spend $100MM for Fibro Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conspiracy Alleged in Man's Fibro-Related Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mashava Mine's on $1BB Fibro Deposits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Owners May Face Penalty Over Fibro Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: WCA Exclusive Remedy Bars Fibro Claim, Ct Says ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Acquires Fibro-Related Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Providence Church to Close Due to Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Causation Standard Draws Attention to Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Itasca Vendor Sued Over Fibro Negligence ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Grandad Dies of Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Mayors Probed Over La Scala Fibro Deaths ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pohlman Launches Software for Fibro Case Filing ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ferro's Mesothelioma Lawsuit Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Reconsider Testimony Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Face Fibro Risk in Demolition Jobs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maungatapu Underpass Tests Positive for Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Man Dies of Fibro-related Illness ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Attys Pay $390 per Google Click ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fed. Cir. Affirms Dismissal of USF&G Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Expert Exclusion Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Ship Worker's Suit Barred by WCA ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thorpe Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Walashek" ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Dismissed as Defendant in "Spychalla" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Nelson" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Recommends Dismissal of Inmate Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Martin" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Jacobs" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Bartel" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Day" ********* ALIBABA GROUP: "Hercules" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hercules, and all others similarly-situated v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, Jack Yun Ma, Joseph C Tsai, Masayoshi Son, Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu, Maggie Wei Wu, Timothy A Steinert, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc, Goldman Sachs (Asia) LLC, J P Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co International plc, Citigroup Global Markets Inc, BOCI Asia Limited, China International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited, CLSA Limited, DBS Bank Ltd, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc, Mizuho Securities USA Inc. Pacific Crest Securities LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, BNP Paribas Securities Corp, Evercore Group LLC, Raymond James & Associates, Inc Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc, BHF -Bank Aktiengesellschaft, CIMB Securities Limited, China Merchants Securities (HK) Co, Limited, Ing Financial Markets LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc, Raine Securities LLC, RBS Securities Inc, SG Americas Securities, LLC, C L King & Associates, Inc, Lebenthal & Co, LLC, Mischler Financial Group, Inc, Samuel A Ramirez & Company, Inc, Topeka Capital Markets Inc, The Williams Captial Group, LP, and Does 1- 50, Case No. CIV535887 (Cal. Super., October 16, 2015), seeks to recover damages under the Securities Act of 1933. On September 19, 2014, Defendant Alibaba Group Holding Limited, a China-based company with its United States headquarters located in San Mateo, California, completed a $25.0 billion initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange. The IPO, completed pursuant to a registrations statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was the largest in American history. Alibaba is based in China, and its United States headquarters is based in San Mateo, California. It is an online and mobile commerce company engaged retail and wholesale trade, cloud computing, and other services. The Defendants include Alibaba, certain Alibaba officers and directors, and the underwriters of the IPO. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. COTCHETTI, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 - and - Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Tel: (858) 914-2001 Fax: (858) 914-2002 ALL NATION: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Jimmy Gutierrez, and all others similarly-situated v. All Nation Security Services, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. BC598230 (Cal. Super., October 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide meal periods, rest periods and pay minimum wage in violation of the California Labor Code. All Nation Security Services, Inc. provides a full range of security guard services from offices in Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Bernardino, Orange County, Simi Valley and San Diego. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur Kim, Esq. ARTHUR KIM LAW FIRM 433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 600 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: (310) 246-0316 Fax: (310) 246-0328 E-mail: akim@arthurkimlaw.com ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: "Williams" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Darrell Eugene Williams, and all others similarly-situated v. AlliedBarton Security Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-01348 (W.D. Pa., October 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). AlliedBarton Security Services is a security officer company based in the United States The Plaintiff is represented by: Darrell E. Williams, Esq. 8010 Woodcreek Drive Bridgeville, PA 15017 Tel: (412) 983-3901 APPLE INC: Judge Weighs Bag Check Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that it's an old argument from Apple Inc. but U.S. District Judge William Alsup still found himself facing a "bug-a-boo" on Nov. 4 as he weighed the company's contention that bag checks for retail employees ending their shifts are not mandatory because workers themselves opt to bring bags. Under Apple's analysis, the security screenings are voluntary and, therefore, non-compensable. Apple lawyer Julie Dunne offered the example of a worker who wants to return a pair of shoes to a nearby store on her lunch break. The worker must decide whether to leave the bag containing the shoes in her car and spend time walking back to the parking lot during lunch or bring the bag to work and submit to a bag check, said Ms. Dunne -- jdunne@littler.com -- a Littler Mendelson shareholder and co-chair of the firm's retail industry group. To lawyers for the class of workers suing Apple, choices made by employees leading up to the screenings don't matter -- the screenings themselves were required and controlled by Apple. "That's the bug-a-boo I have," Judge Alsup said. "I don't think there's a decision exactly on point." The screenings, designed to prevent theft of Apple products, are conducted only on employees who have bags or personal Apple devices. In Frlekin v. Apple, 13-3451, retail store workers say Apple of deprived them of wages by requiring off-the-clock bag searches. Judge Alsup, a federal judge in the Northern District of California, denied Apple's nearly identical motion for summary judgment last year, rejecting the company's theory that workers brought bag checks on themselves. "Apple employees may need to bring a bag to work for reasons they cannot control, such as the need for medication, feminine hygiene products, or disability accommodations," he wrote in May 2014. But to facilitate class certification earlier this year, plaintiffs agreed to assume that class members who brought bags did so voluntarily and purely for personal convenience. Workers who required bags for special circumstances can opt out and pursue individual claims. Ms. Dunne told Judge Alsup that concession moots plaintiffs' claims that the bag checks are anything but voluntary. "The choice is one of convenience, and it's entirely the employees'," Ms. Dunne said. "They control whether to subject themselves to a check." McLaughlin & Stern partner Lee Shalov -- lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- arguing for plaintiffs, disagreed. If the court accepts Apple's argument, he said, Apple could just as easily mandate that any employee who wears a red hat to work can be forced to clean the bathroom without pay. "Apple can say you don't have to wear a red hat," Mr. Shalov said. "How far does it go, your honor?" Pulling from prior case law, Mr. Shalov ran through a list of additional factors he said indicate employees must be compensated. Employees are confined to the store during checks and can't run personal errands; Apple determines when, where and how the checks are conducted; the checks are for Apple's benefit only; and employees are subject to termination if they don't submit to the checks, he said. Ms. Dunne said the time spent in line for a bag check could be considered the start of a commute home, which generally is not compensable. "It's not work," Ms. Dunne said. "It's not part of their job duties. Apple didn't hire these folks for the purpose of submitting to checks." ARCHER-DANIELS: Trial Begins in Corn Syrup False Advertising Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the trial over America's sweet tooth began on Nov. 4 with prominent litigators W. Mark Lanier and Dan Webb sparring over scientific and advertising claims between the sugar industry and the makers of high-fructose corn syrup. Mr. Lanier represents The Sugar Association Inc. and nine of its members in a suit against the Corn Refiners Association and four of its members, including Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. and Cargill Inc. The suit, filed in 2011 under the U.S. Lanham Act, alleges that the Corn Refiners' $130 million advertising campaign in 2008 falsely told consumers that corn syrup is "natural" and "nutritionally the same as table sugar" and that "sugar is sugar, your body cannot tell the difference." "That's just flat out wrong," Mr. Lanier told a federal jury in Los Angeles in opening statements. "And I'll put the evidence out there to show you it's flat wrong. Your body can tell the difference." Mr. Lanier, who introduced several sugar farmers and executives in the courtroom, plans to convince a jury that the body metabolizes high-fructose corn syrup differently from sugar and that the corn refiners started their advertising campaign to combat a growing number of academic and medical articles linking their product to obesity and other health problems. In fact, he said, when expanding into Mexico in 1997, the corn refiners insisted their product was distinct from sugar. He also said videotaped deposition would be played of Richard Berman, a prominent Washington lobbyist and public relations consultant for the corn refiners, once referred to by "60 Minutes" as the "weapon of mass destruction" for the "booze and food industries." The corn refiners have countersued over statements the sugar companies have made based on what they call questionable and debunked scientific studies. Mr. Webb said his clients' "educational campaign" was designed to counteract those statements, which included calling high-fructose corn syrup "pretty poison" and akin to "crack cocaine." He also refuted the "junk" science that helped the sugar companies regain 30 percent of their share of the sweetener market during the past 10 years. "Both of these products are highly processed," he said. "The idea that sugar cubes grow on trees is just not true." Each side attempted to convince the jury that the science was behind their clients' claims. They also made countering arguments about how much money each side amassed from their alleged false statements. Mr. Lanier said the corn refiner campaign created $1.1 billion more in sales for them, while Mr. Webb said the sugar companies haven't been harmed at all. His clients are seeking $550 million in lost sales. Messrs. Lanier and Webb are big names in the trial bar. Mr. Lanier, of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston, is a veteran trial attorney made famous for a $253 million verdict he got in 2005 against pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co. Inc. over its Vioxx painkiller. Last year, he obtained a $9 billion verdict against Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. over diabetes drug Actos. Webb, co-chairman of Chicago's Winston & Strawn, was tapped to represent Ferguson, Missouri, in the U.S. Department of Justice investigation following last year's police shooting of Michael Brown. Both sides have also brought in prominent public relations firms. The corn refiners have turned to attorney Michael York of Reston, Virginia's Wehner & York, a public affairs specialist who worked with Webb in representing Philip Morris USA in tobacco litigation and the New York Stock Exchange in its internal investigation over former chairman and CEO Richard Grasso's compensation. The sugar case hit a major roadblock earlier this year when U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall of the Central District of California disqualified Squire Patton Boggs as lead counsel for the sugar companies. Two of the corn refiners, Ingredion Inc. and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas Inc., once represented by Patton Boggs, had filed disqualification motions claiming the firm's 2014 merger with Squire Sanders had created a conflict. In court on Nov. 4, the corn refiners sought to discredit the entire case. "Every one of their allegations is false," Mr. Webb said of the sugar companies. "This is a phony lawsuit." ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING: Court Stands By Class Cert. Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William J. Martinez denied the motion to reconsider, filed in the case captioned STEVEN A. STENDER, and INFINITY CLARK STREET OPERATING, L.L.C., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 07-CV-02503- WJM-MJW, (D. Colo.) The District Court previously granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants filed their motion to reconsider. Defendants argue that the Court overlooked an important argument allegedly demonstrating that class certification even as to liability is inappropriate. Specifically, Defendants re-urge their argument that: (a) a breach of fiduciary duty claim based on majority oppression of minority shareholders requires Plaintiffs to prove that the majority substantially defeated the minority's "reasonable expectations" and therefore (b) the liability phase will require discovery into every A-1 Unitholder's subjective expectations. Similarly, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim turns on each A-1 Unitholder establishing that he/she/it suffered "adverse consequences" based on the Unitholder's individual, subjective expectations, preferences, and so forth. In his Order dated October 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/lm9m6Rfrom Leagle.com, Judge Martinez denied the Defendants' motion to reconsider. Class certification on the liability elements of breach of contract remains appropriate. Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. -- kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Christopher James Stuart, Esq. -- Edward Anthony Wallace, Esq. -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Mark Richard Miller, Esq. -- mrm@wexlerwallace.com -- Kara A. Elgersma, Esq. -- kae@wexlerwallace.com -- and Thomas Arthur Doyle, Esq. -- tad@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace, LLP; Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq., and Maria J. Ciccia, Esq., of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP; Diane Vaksdal Smith, Esq., of Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, PC-Englewood; Renee Beth Taylor, Esq. -- rtaylor@bader- associates.com -- of Bader & Associates, LLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Steven A. Stender Jonathan D. Polkes, Esq. -- jonathan.polkes@weil.com -- Ashish Dinesh Gandhi, Esq. -- ashish.gandhi@weilcom -- Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka, Esq. -- caroline.zalka@weil.com -- Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser, Esq. -- elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com -- Justin David D'Aloia, Esq. -- Melanie A. Conroy, Esq. -- melanie.conroy@weil.com -- and Ralph I. Miller, Esq. -- ralph.miller@weil.com -- of Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP-DC; Alex C. Myers, Esq. -- AMyers@LRRLaw.com -- and Frederick J. Baumann, Esq. -- FBaumann@LRRLaw.com -- of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Archstone-Smith Operating Trust AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Judge Tosses Consumer Fraud Claim -------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that residents of a 240-unit apartment building in Edgewater that was destroyed by fire have failed to establish a basis for a New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim against their landlord, a federal judge in Newark has ruled. The plaintiffs claimed AvalonBay Communities violated the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) by making misrepresentations and omissions of fact to renters at its complex. But marketing statements labeled misrepresentations by the plaintiffs are non-actionable puffery, and the omissions they cited don't support a CFA count because landlords are not required to disclose those items, U.S. District Judge Jose Linares ruled Nov. 3 in DeMarco v. AvalonBay Communities. Besides the CFA claim, the class action suit includes counts for negligence and for private nuisance. The suit, consolidated from three separate cases, was brought on behalf of residents who were displaced and who lost possessions and pets in the Jan. 21 fire at the site, known as Avalon. No one died in the fire, but two residents and two firefighters were injured. One building, known as the Russell Complex, was destroyed, while the other, known as River Mews, remained intact. The class action complaint alleges that the fire was started by an acetylene torch being used by an unlicensed plumber making repairs, and that no AvalonBay representatives called 911 or otherwise reported the fire. The plaintiffs claimed that the lightweight wood construction of the building caused the fire to spread faster. They also point to a series of other fires at Avalon sites -- one at the Edgewater location while it was under construction, and others at apartment complexes in other states that are owned by AvalonBay. Included in the putative class are residents of the Russell building, and others living in the River Mews building who had storage lockers in the Russell building. The plaintiffs claimed AvalonBay violated the CFA with marketing materials stating that the Edgewater complex contained "the best New Jersey apartments" and had "beautifully maintained grounds, and top-of-the-line amenities." Plaintiffs claimed those representations "led tenants to believe -- incorrectly -- that the Avalon incorporated the latest and best construction, when in fact it was a fire trap." But Judge Linares said the challenged statements are not actionable because they said nothing about construction. Even if the marketing claims were not puffery, the claims were not pleaded with particularlity because the plaintiffs provided no information about whether or when the representations were made or read by the plaintiffs. And even if the statements were pleaded with particularlity, the plaintiffs offered no facts explaining how the statements could be construed to mean AvalonBay was offering the latest and best construction, Linares said. The plaintiffs also argued that their CFA claim is supported by AvalonBay's failure to disclose the type of materials used in construction of the building, the lack of credentials of plumbers hired to work in the building, or AvalonBay's history of fires at the Edgewater site and other apartment complexes it owns. Judge Linares said the plaintiffs have not claimed that the building is not constructed to code, and they have not cited any case to show that a building that is lawfully constructed with materials approved by the building code can be found to be a "concealed dangerous condition." In addition, the plaintiffs have not cited any case requiring a landlord to disclose building materials to residents, or that the failure to do so can form the basis of a CFA claim. The plaintiffs also failed to support their assertion that a landlord's lack of disclosure about maintenance workers' credentials can form the basis for a CFA claim, Judge Linares said. To form a basis for a CFA claim based on an omission, the plaintiff must show the omission was a material fact that was required to be disclosed, that the fact was knowingly concealed, with the intent that the plaintiff rely on the concealment, and that such an omission was causally connected to the loss, the judge said. The complaint includes no such allegations, Linares said. He added that the plaintiffs have not cited to any case showing a duty on the part of a landlord to disclose all past safety issues at all properties the landlord has owned, and appear to be arguing that an original and continuing duty exists to make such disclosures, but cites no authority for that position. The plaintiffs were given until Dec. 3 to file an amended complaint, although the current allegations "suggest they may not be able to state a valid NJCFA claim," Judge Linares said. Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel are the firms of Chimicles & Tikellis in Haverford, Pennsylvania; Lite DePalma Greenberg in Newark; and Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge. Lawyers from those firms did not return calls about the ruling. Ronald Giller of Gordon & Rees in Florham Park, representing AvalonBay, also did not return a call. BOFI HOLDING: December 14 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in securities class litigation brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of BofI Holding Inc. ("BofI" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BOFI) between September 4, 2013 through October 13, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired BofI securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 14, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. BofI investors who wish to learn more about the action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. BofI operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank (d/b/a "Bank of Internet"), a provider of consumer and business banking products, including mortgages to high-net-worth individuals with poor credit. The action alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's internal controls were frequently disregarded; (ii) Bank of Internet made loans to foreign nationals and criminals in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act; (iii) many Bank of Internet accounts lacked required tax identification numbers; and (iv) BofI fired an internal auditor who raised the foregoing issues to the Company's management and to federal regulators. On October 13, 2015, The New York Times reported that a former internal auditor at BofI had filed a whistleblower lawsuit against BofI for violating federal laws designed to protect whistleblowers and alleging widespread misconduct at the Company. On this news, the price of BofI shares fell $42.87 per share, or 30.19%, to close at $99.13 per share on October 14, 2015. Sharon M. Lee, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 2101 Fourth Ave Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98121-2315 Phone: 206-739-9059 Fax: 415.956.1008 Email: slee@lchb.com CARIBBEAN PETROLEUM: Motion for Bench Trial Granted --------------------------------------------------- District Judge Francisco A. Besosa granted the third-party Defendants' motion for bench trial and denied claimants' request to empanel a jury for the Limitation of Liability (LOL) proceeding in the case captioned ELIEZER CRUZ APONTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARIBBEAN PETROLEUM CORP., et al., Defendants, Civil Nos.: 10-1337 (FAB), 09-2092 (FAB), (D. P.R.) On October 23, 2009, an explosion and fire occurred at the Gulf Oil Facility located in Bayamon, Puerto Rico. The facility was owned and operated by Caribbean Petroleum Corporation (CAPECO). The explosion occurred while a vessel named the M/T Cape Bruny -- which was owned and chartered, respectively, by Cape Bruny Tankschiffarts GmbH and Co. KG and Cape Bruny Shipping Company Ltd. -- was discharging its cargo of unleaded gasoline into storage tanks at the facility. One or more of the tanks overflowed, and the spilled fuel found a source of ignition, causing the explosion. The explosion and subsequent fire created a large plume of smoke and spread hazardous material over Bayamon, San Juan, and other neighboring municipalities. In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, numerous lawsuits were filed in the District Court: 9 putative class actions, 10 "non-class mass-joinder" actions, and 2 "individual" actions. On April 22, 2010, Cape Bruny, which had been named as a defendant in several of the lawsuits, filed a complaint for exoneration from, or limitation of, liability pursuant to the LOL Act. The LOL Act allows a vessel owner to limit its liability to the value of the vessel plus pending freight, provided that the circumstances causing the damage were outside the owner's privity and knowledge. The 21 lawsuits and the LOL action have been consolidated before the Court for the purpose of docket management, and all filings and orders are entered on the docket of Civil Case No. 09-2092. In his Memorandum and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/pQ8EcKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Besosa granted the third-party Defendants' motion for a bench trial and the claimants' request to empanel a jury for the LOL proceeding is denied. The LOL proceeding will commence on February 1, 2016, as a non-jury bench trial following the structure set forth in the Order. The Court agrees with claimants that Cape Bruny is the plaintiff in the LOL action and that, accordingly, Rule 14(c)(1) does not expressly allow Cape Bruny to implead third parties. Nonetheless, courts routinely allow a party that initiated a LOL action to bring in additional parties that it asserts may be liable for the claims against it. Claimants allege in the various consolidated cases that multiple parties are liable for causing the explosion and fire. The current scheduling order calls for a determination of liability of all of these defendants. The most efficient way to determine which parties are liable for causing the explosion and fire, and the best way to avoid inconsistent liability findings through piecemeal litigation, is to bring all potentially liable parties into a single action. This is exactly what Cape Bruny's Rule 14(c) tender does: it brings all claimants and all potentially liable parties into the LOL action. Cape Bruny's Rule 14(c) tender in the LOL action is proper. John F. Nevares, Esq. -- jfnevares@nevareslaw.com -- of John F. Nevares & Assoc. PSC serves as counsel for Plaintiff Eliezer Crus- Aponte Francisco G. Bruno-Rovira, Esq. -- fgb@mcvpr.com -- Myrna L. Ruiz- Olmo, Esq. -- myrna.ruiz@oneillborges.com -- Raul M. Arias- Marxuach, Esq. -- rma@mcvpr.com -- and Isabel C. Lecompte-Shiba, Esq. -- icl@mcvpr.com -- of McConnell Valdes, LLC serve as counsel for Consol Defendant Caribbean Petroleum Corporation CHIPOTLE: E. Coli Outbreak Source Not Found, Restaurants to Reopen ------------------------------------------------------------------ Donna Gordon Blankinship, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Washington state health officials said on Nov. 9 they have found no source for the E. coli outbreak related to Chipotle, and the chain's Pacific Northwest restaurants could reopen later in the week. All the tests of food from Chipotle stores in Washington and Oregon came back negative for E. coli, Washington state epidemiologist Dr. Scott Lindquist said. Chipotle did its own testing, and those results came back negative as well. The Chipotle restaurants in Washington and Oregon will be allowed to reopen after they have met some conditions. They must get rid of and replace all produce, do a deep cleaning of their stores, pass a local health inspection and start a new protocol for cleaning produce. Chipotle also has voluntarily decided to start doing some testing of its own of fresh food coming into its restaurants. Dr. Lindquist said he expects Chipotle will reopen the 43 restaurants it closed in Washington and Oregon by Nov. 11 or Nov. 12. The company is still finishing its own tests, and it does not plan to get ready to reopen until those tests are completed, he added. About 40 people in the Northwest have gotten E. coli in the outbreak associated with Chipotle. In Washington, the most recent person sickened by E. coli reported eating at Chipotle on Oct. 24. Jonathan Modie, a spokesman for the Oregon Health Authority, said food-borne illnesses are not easy to track to the source of the outbreak. "Finding the source of the outbreak is often like finding a needle in the haystack," Mr. Modie said on Nov. 9. Seattle attorney Bill Marler, who has filed two lawsuits on behalf of people who have gotten sick in this outbreak, said that just because health department officials haven't found the cause of the outbreak doesn't mean they aren't still blaming Chipotle for making people sick. Mr. Marler said it's obvious that Chipotle has issues with food safety. The company has been named in three high-profile cases in the past few months, and he's tracking another case of E. coli at a Chipotle in Seattle from this summer. The chain faced a salmonella outbreak linked to tomatoes that sickened dozens of people in Minnesota beginning in August. In California, health workers said norovirus sickened nearly 100 customers and employees at a Chipotle restaurant in Simi Valley in mid-August. "Clearly this is a Chipotle problem," Mr. Marler said. CLS TRANSPORTATION: Arbitration Awards Upheld --------------------------------------------- Justice Roger W. Boren affirmed a judgment confirming the arbitration awards in a lawsuit against CLS Transportation Los Angeles et al. The appellate case is captioned GREG KEMPLER et al., Plaintiff and Respondents, v. CLS TRANSPORTATION LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B256997, (Cal. App. Ct.). Kempler et al. are former employees of CLS Transportation of Los Angeles LLC (CLS). In August 2006, Arshavir Iskanian filed a class action lawsuit against CLS on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, alleging that CLS failed to pay overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, reimburse business expenses, provide accurate and complete wage statements, and pay final wages in a timely manner. Based on an arbitration agreement signed by Iskanian and other employees, CLS moved to compel arbitration, and the trial court granted the motion in March 2007. After arbitration commenced, respondents propounded discovery and various motions were filed. CLS made a number of increasing settlement offers to respondents, and all respondents eventually agreed to settle their claims, for amounts ranging from $2,000 to $6,000. Each of the eight arbitrators reached a different result regarding the amount of fees and costs to be awarded. Awards varied widely. One arbitrator, who presided over arbitrations for seven claimants, awarded a total of $35,000 in fees and costs. Another, who arbitrated eight claimants' matters, awarded a total of $41,755.73. Meanwhile, the three arbitrators whose awards are the subject of this appeal awarded much more: Hon. Kevin J. Murphy (Ret.), who arbitrated seven matters, awarded a total of $249,468 in fees and costs; Hon. Gabriel Gutierrez (Ret.), who arbitrated eight matters, awarded a total of $442,448; and Hon. William Stein (Ret.), who arbitrated seven matters, awarded a total of $174,832. CLS petitioned the trial court to vacate the awards rendered by arbitrators Murphy, Gutierrez, and Stein. Respondents opposed these petitions and petitioned to confirm all of the arbitrators' awards. The trial court denied CLS's petitions to vacate. It subsequently confirmed all of the arbitration awards and entered judgment accordingly. CLS timely appealed. In his Opinion dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/6kYTP8from Leagle.com, Justice Boren affirmed the judgment confirming the arbitration awards. The arbitration agreement allowed the arbitrators to award attorney fees if a statute at issue authorized an award of fees. Each of the three arbitrators found that recovery of fees was compelled by statute, and each found that respondents were the prevailing parties. The measure of those fees was a matter of the arbitrators' discretion. To the extent that any arbitrator awarded a greater amount of fees than what could be properly awarded by a trial court, that excessive award would constitute, at most, an error of fact or law. The arbitration agreement contains no express limitation on the attorney work that could be considered by an arbitrator in fashioning a fees award. It does not explicitly prohibit awarding fees for work that preceded the arbitration proceedings. Likewise, the agreement does not state, "the only fees that potentially may be compensable are those actually incurred by the claimant in this arbitration, and fees incurred outside of arbitration are not compensable" or specify a similar limitation. "Absent an express and unambiguous limitation in the contract or the submission to arbitration, an arbitrator has the authority to find the facts, interpret the contract, and award any relief rationally related to his or her factual findings and contractual interpretation." The Court said the awards at issue are rationally related to a plausible interpretation of the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, the arbitration agreement's clause stating "the arbitrator shall have the authority to make an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the same extent available under applicable law" is not an express limitation prohibiting the arbitrator from considering certain legal proceedings when rendering an award. It also does not provide an opening to question the arbitrators' reasoning. "A provision requiring arbitrators to apply the law leaves open the possibility that they are empowered to apply it 'wrongly as well as rightly.'" Absent a clear agreement that legal errors constitute an excess of authority reviewable by the court, we are not empowered to determine whether the arbitrators awarded fees beyond those properly awarded under applicable law. Finally, respondents' failure to submit detailed billing records did not preclude an award of fees. The arbitrators based their fee awards on declarations submitted by respondents' attorneys. Nothing in the arbitration agreement required anything more. The arbitrators apparently found this documentation sufficient, and we have no basis to second-guess their conclusions. David F. Faustman, Esq. -- dfaustman@foxrothschild.com -- Yesenia M. Gallegos, Esq. -- ygallegos@foxrothschild.com -- Cristina K. Armstrong, Esq. -- carmstrong@foxrothschild.com -- Cole Schotz, Esq., Leo V. Leyva, Esq. of Fox Rothschild serve as counsel for Defendants and Appellants Raul Perez, Esq. -- Raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com -- Glenna Danas, Esq., and Ryan H. Wu, Esq. -- Ryan.Wu@capstonelawyers.com -- of Capstone Law; Monica Balderrama, Esq. -- MBalderrama@InitiativeLegal.com -- of Initiative Legal Group serve as counsel for Plaintiffs and Respondents COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS: "Magee" Suit Over Vending Machine Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jay C. Zainey granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in the case, EMMETT MAGEE, v. COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC., Civil Action No. 15-1939, (E.D. La.) Plaintiff is legally blind. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Defendant's latest generation of vending machine, the Glass Front Vendor (GFV), is inaccessible to the visually impaired. The GFV does not display the availability of the products that it sells in any non-visual manner, nor does it offer any non-visual interface for the purchase of the products that it sells. Plaintiff alleges that in April and May of 2015 he encountered one of Defendant's GFVs at a bus station in New Orleans and that he was unable to independently use the machine. Plaintiff filed this action for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class defined as "All legally blind individuals who have been and/or are being denied access to glass front vending machines located in the United States and owned and/or operated and/or leased by Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc." Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorney's fees and costs. Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint arguing that Plaintiff cannot state a claim against Coca-Cola Refreshments under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, Coca-Cola argues that its GFV machines are not places of public accommodation under the Act. In his Order and Reasons dated October 28, 2015 available at http://is.gd/KhsDEZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Zainey granted Coca- Cola Refreshments' request to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. It is undisputed that the bus station where Plaintiff encountered the GFV machine in May 2015 was a place of public accommodation under Section 12181(7)(G). The GFV, which is clearly personal property or equipment at that public facility, must comply with the ADA so that patrons with disabilities do not suffer discrimination. The problem with Plaintiff's complaint, however, is that the defendant he chose to sue for purposes of pursing a nationwide class action, does not own, lease, or operate the place of public accommodation where he encountered the difficulty with the GFV. Section 12182(a) requires this nexus on its face which is why Plaintiff goes to great lengths to argue that the GFV itself is a place of public accommodation. But the coin-operated GFV is not akin to any of the 12 specific categories of places of public accommodation listed in the statute and the federal regulations. Plaintiff is attempting to expand the term "place of public accommodation" well beyond its statutory definition in order to sue a defendant amenable to nationwide relief. Roberto L. Costales, Esq. -- costaleslawoffice@gmail.com -- of Costales Law Office and William Henry Beaumont, Esq., of William H. Beaumont Law serve as counsel for Plaintiff Emmett Magee David Patron, Esq. -- david.patron@phelps.com -- and Jeremy T. Grabill, Esq. -- jeremy.grabill@phelps.com -- of Phelps Dunbar, LLP -- Brett E. Coburn, Esq. -- brett.coburn@alston.com -- Charles Herrick Morgan, Esq. -- charlie.morgan@alston.com -- and Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq. -- kristy.brown@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird, LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. COMCAST CORP: Judge Rejects $15.5MM Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that after cable giant Comcast and a putative class of subscribers reached a settlement agreement in an antitrust case surrounding cable boxes, a federal judge decided on Nov. 5 to deny the proposed $15.5 million settlement as well as certification of the class. U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held the prospective class -- consisting primarily of California, Washington and West Virginia residents who subscribed to premium cable channels with Comcast on Jan. 1, 2005, and paid for cable boxes -- was not ascertainable. The reason for that, according to Judge Brody, was "because plaintiffs do not have a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition. Therefore, I will not certify the settlement class. I also will not preliminarily approve the settlement agreement due to the absence of a certifiable class." According to Judge Brody's opinion, the settlement agreement reached between Comcast and the plaintiffs, who claimed the corporation unlawfully tied the sale of premium cable to the rental of a set-top box from Comcast, would have had Comcast paying all claims that do not exceed a $15.5 million aggregate. If class members submitted more than $15.5 million worth of claims, then benefits will be distributed on a pro rata basis. Comcast would retain the balance if there were less than $15.5 million in claims, Judge Brody said. Depending on how long the plaintiff subscribed, he or she would have been entitled to anywhere from $10 to $40 plus various services such as free pay-per-view movies or free access to premium channels for a limited period. Counsel for the plaintiffs, Dianne Nast of NastLaw, did not return a call seeking comment. Jaime Bianchi -- jbianchi@whitecase.com -- of White & Case's Miami office represented Comcast and did not return a call seeking comment. In order for a class to be considered ascertainable, Judge Brody said, it must be defined within its objective criteria -- such as the plaintiffs' residence and subscription status in this case -- and it must have a reliable way of determining who falls within the class definition. "The entire settlement class satisfies the first part of the ascertainability inquiry because the settlement class is defined with reference to objective criteria. Additionally, current subscribers satisfy the second part of the ascertainability inquiry because Comcast's own internal records provide a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether current subscribers fall within the class definition. Thus, current subscribers are ascertainable," Judge Brody said. "Comcast, however, lacks records for most former subscribers. The critical question is whether a reliable and administratively feasible method exists to determine if former subscribers fall within the class definition." The plaintiffs argued that class membership for former subscribers could be determined by customer account numbers, invoices, credit card receipts, canceled checks, old bills and various other documents that Comcast could review in the absence of its own records. However, Judge Brody did not accept the plaintiffs' proposed strategy. "To compensate for this absence of Comcast records, plaintiffs provide a laundry list of other possible types of evidence that former subscribers could submit to prove membership in the settlement class," Judge Brody said. "Included in the list are police reports and insurance claims. It is implausible, however, that such evidence would ever demonstrate that an individual subscribed to premium cable from Comcast and rented a set-top box." Moreover, Judge Brody said, it was unlikely that canceled checks or credit card bills would show that a person both subscribed to Comcast and rented a cable box. An additional problem, according to Judge Brody, was the lack of a sufficient method of vetting potential class members. "Although plaintiffs state that Comcast may challenge membership in the settlement class, their lack of a screening model leaves them unable to explain how these challenges would actually work," Judeg Brody said. "While plaintiffs list possible types of evidence that former subscribers could submit to prove membership in the settlement class, none of them are actually required." She added the plaintiffs relied on sworn statements alone, an ascertainability method barred by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. EMC CORP: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------- IBEW Local 129 Pension Fund, and all others similarly-situated v. Joseph M. Tucci, Jose E. Almeida, Michael W. Brown, Donald J. Carty, Randolph L. Cowen, James S. Distasio, John R. Egan, William D. Green, Edmund F. Kelly, Jami Miscik, Paul Sagan, Laura J. Sen, EMC Corporation, Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc., and Universal Acquisition Co., Case No. 15-3130 (Mass. Cmmw., October 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty arising from their attempts to sell EMC Corporation to Denali Holding Inc. and Dell Inc. The Individual Defendants are EMC's board of directors. Defendant EMC is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. EMC securities are traded on the NASDAQ stock market under the ticker symbol "EMC." EMC enables businesses and service providers to transform their operations and deliver IT as a service. Defendant Dell is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Round Rock, Texas. Defendant Denali Holding Inc. is a Delaware corporation. Defendant Universal Acquisition Co. is Delaware corporation and direct wholly owned subsidiary of Denali. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 398-5600 Fax: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jason@blockesq.com EXTREME NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that a securities class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Extreme Networks, Inc. ("Extreme" or the "Company") EXTR, +1.03% between November 4, 2013 and April 9, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Extreme and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Extreme develops and sells network infrastructure equipment and offers related services contracts for extended warranty and maintenance. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and/or misleading statements and/or omitted adverse information concerning Extreme's current financial condition and outlook for fiscal 2015, including, among other things, that the Company's revenue growth depended on the successful integration of Enterasys Networks, Inc. ("Enterasys"), which Extreme had acquired in 2013 but had not successfully integrated, which materially impaired the Company's ability to address persisting sales problems. On April 9, 2015, after market close, Extreme preannounced that it would miss guidance for the third quarter of 2015, reporting revenue of $118-$120 million and earnings per share of ($0.09)- ($0.07) -- significantly below prior guidance of $130-$140 million and ($0.03)-$0.02, respectively. The Company also announced that trading in its shares had been halted and that Jeff White, the Company's Chief Revenue Officer -- who had been hired only six months earlier to manage the integration of the Extreme and Enterasys salesforces -- was "no longer with the Company." On these disclosures, Extreme stock price fell almost 25%, from $3.24 per share to $2.50 per share. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who invested in Extreme common stock during the Class Period. If you invested in Extreme common stock as described above, and lost money on the transactions, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than December 22, 2015. A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. If you are interested in discussing your rights as an Extreme investor and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. The National Law Journal has recognized Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top plaintiffs' firms in the country. You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. Esq BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212.779.1414 Fax: 212.779.3218 Email: Seidman@bernlieb.com EXXON MOBIL: New York AG Probes Investors' Disclosure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Virtanen, writing for The Associated Press, reports that New York's attorney general is examining statements by Exxon Mobil and Peabody Energy to determine whether they deceived investors about the causes and impacts of climate change, an official familiar with the investigations said on Nov. 5. A subpoena was sent on Nov. 4 to Dallas-based Exxon after a yearlong review of shareholder disclosures, said the official, who wasn't authorized to publicly discuss the probes and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office sought similar documents on climate change from St. Louis-based Peabody in 2013, which the company disclosed last year. A spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman declined to comment on Nov. 5. New York's attorney general has authority under the state's Martin Act to investigate and prosecute securities fraud. Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri said the company has received the subpoena and rejects allegations in media reports that it suppressed research. Mr. Silvestri said that for years, Exxon has provided shareholders information about the business risks of climate change. He cited "ExxonMobil's nearly 40-year history of climate research that was conducted publicly in conjunction with the Department of Energy, academics and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." "ExxonMobil recognizes that climate risks are real and responsible actions are warranted," Vice President Ken Cohen told reporters in a conference call late on Nov. 5. He said scientists have publicly issued nearly 150 papers and obtained nearly 300 patents for technological advances in cutting emissions. "Beginning in the last decade, we've informed shareholders and investors on our perception of the business risks associated with climate change through regulatory filings, our annual corporate citizenship report and in other reports to shareholders," Mr. Cohen said. InsideClimate News reported on the New York investigation earlier on Nov. 5. The nonprofit publication reported on its own investigation earlier this year that found documents showing Exxon recognized in the late 1970s the possible threat to its own existence from global warming, said John Cushman, an editor. Company researchers later confirmed the emerging scientific consensus that doubling carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels would warm the earth with unpalatable effects, Mr. Cushman said. At Peabody, spokeswoman Kelley Wright said the company continues to work with the Attorney General's Office "regarding our disclosures, which have evolved over the years." FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bromberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., a Georgia corporation, and FIS Management Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:15-cv-07930 (C.D. Cal., October 8, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. is a payment services provider. The Company provides credit and debit card processing, electronic banking services, check risk management, check cashing, and merchant card processing services to financial institutions and merchants. FIVE STAR CARTING: Conditional Certification Granted in "Flores" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action in the case captioned MARCO ANTONIO FLORES, ANTONIO SANTOS and OSCAR TUDON, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. FIVE STAR CARTING, LLC, FIVE STAR CARTING, INC., WORKFORCE CLEANING SERVICES, LLC, ANTHONY TRISTANI and NINO TRISTANI, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 14 CV 2970 (PKC)(RML), (E.D.N.Y.) Plaintiff Marco Antonio Flores commenced this action in May 2014, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, pursuant to, inter alia, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs allege that they are current and former waste removal workers, garbage collection helpers, and demolition laborers employed by a company or enterprise that they knew as "Five Star." They contend that they were all subjected to defendants' common pay practices and policies that violated the FLSA, namely their failure to pay the prevailing wage for all hours worked and to pay overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. According to the Second Amended Complaint, the defendants were joint employers and/or a single enterprise that employed plaintiffs and the purported collective action members and were responsible for establishing and implementing the alleged payroll policies at issue in the present case. Defendants contest this allegation and aver that "each of the Company Defendants is a distinct and separate entity . . . engaged in separate businesses with their own employees." They further contend that plaintiffs are not and have never been employees of Five Star Inc. or Five Star LLC, and that the only defendant that employed plaintiffs during the FLSA class period was Workforce Cleaning Services, LLC. Finally, defendants argue that the FLSA policies of which plaintiffs complain were not carried out by Workforce, but by plaintiffs' prior employers, which were unrelated to any of the defendants. Plaintiffs moved for an order conditionally certifying an FLSA collective action and authorizing notice to be issued to all persons similarly situated so that they may be informed of the action and given an opportunity to opt in to the action as plaintiffs. Defendants Anthony Tristani, Nino Tristani, Five Star Carting, Inc., Five Star Carting, LLC, and Workforce Cleaning Services, LLC (Defendants) opposed plaintiffs' motion. In his Memorandum and Order dated October 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/L1i8qjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Levy granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The court approves plaintiffs' proposed Notice of Lawsuit with Opportunity to Join (Pelton Decl., Ex. I), Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff form in English and Spanish, and Deadline Reminder Letter in English and Spanish, to which defendants have not objected. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a modest factual nexus between the named plaintiffs and the putative collective action members, which is sufficient to support a preliminary determination that they were subjected to a common policy, plan or practice that violated the law. As plaintiffs correctly note, courts frequently grant motions for conditional certification that rely exclusively on the pleadings and sworn affidavits of the plaintiffs. While defendants contend that each of the corporate entities is separate and distinct, and that the policies of which plaintiffs complain were carried out by another employer that is not a defendant or related to a defendant in this case, plaintiffs have demonstrated that there are issues of fact regarding those contentions. These issues of fact should be determined following discovery, at the second stage of FLSA collective action certification, rather than at this preliminary stage. Alison Gayle Lobban, Esq. -- lobban@peltonlaw.com -- Taylor Bell Graham, Esq. -- graham@peltonlaw.com and Brent E. Pelton, Esq. -- pelton@peltonlaw.com -- of Pelton & Associates, PC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Marco Antonio Flores Kenneth N. Miller, Esq. -- kburnett@millerthomson.com -- of Frost & Miller, LLP serves as counsel for Defendant Five Star Carting, LLC FOREST PARK MEDICAL: Former COO Files Class Suit Over Layoffs ------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Goddman, writing for HealthCare Daily, reported that a former executive at Forest Park Medical Center's shuttered San Antonio hospital filed a class action lawsuit alleging that its managers failed to give federally mandated notice to more than 100 employees before firing them. Paul Abraham served as the hospital's chief operating officer until October 15, when Forest Park's Bexar County outpost abruptly closed its doors. His lawsuit, filed on in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges that FPMC Services LLC did not notify the facility's 139 employees of its closure 60 days in advance, as required by the federal law known as the Worker Adjustment and Restraining Notification (WARN) Act. Lawrence Morales II, Abraham's attorney, says the employees are owed 60 days worth of compensation and benefits under the law. It's not clear when the last time the San Antonio staffers got a paycheck. A spokeswoman for Forest Park did not respond to questions on, including as to when employees were notified of the layoffs and when the last time they were paid. FPMC Services LLC is a shared entity between the chain's hospitals (which is now down to four: in Dallas, Frisco, Southlake, and Fort Worth) that handles things such as general counsel, payroll, vendor relations, and contracting. Each facility pays a monthly fee to retain it. The lawsuit pins the failure to notify its employees on this entity, alleging that it notified the Texas Workforce Commission of the layoffs on October 16, one day after they actually occurred. The WARN Act requires employers to provide at least 60 days notice in the case of mass layoffs. However, there is a provision known as the Faltering Company Exception for businesses that are "actively seeking capital or business which, if obtained, would have enabled the employer to avoid or postpone the shutdown and the employer reasonably and in good faith believed that giving the notice required would have precluded the employer from obtaining the needed capital or business." Morales says he doesn't believe Forest Park's managers can prove that. "I think the question is when people knew what. (Abraham) certainly didn't know," of the layoffs, Morales said. "FPMC Services knew long ago that they exhausted their options for capital." The San Antonio hospital had been flirting with foreclosure for months. Texas Capital Bank, the lender, posted the property in September and October, but pulled it just before auction each time. The posting said that Forest Park had defaulted on its original principal loan of more than $68 million. On October 6, the real estate entity that owned the hospital filed for bankruptcy. The hospital closed just over a week later. Todd Furniss, chairman of The Management Company at Forest Park Medical Center, has blamed the revenue problems on the inability to secure in-network managed care contracts in San Antonio. John Dragovits, the management company's CEO, resigned. Morales, meanwhile, says he is amending the original petition to include at least another dozen employees as complainants who have come forward. Forest Park has suffered significant setbacks in recent months. Its Frisco hospital filed for bankruptcy in September, and its managing partners are facing a lawsuit from Kansas City physicians who allege that their money was partially spent to help that hospital stay afloat. GENERAL MOTORS: Court Denies Certification of Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- and Christina M Janice, Esq. -- cjanice@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology, reported that an order recently issued in James Robinson III, et al. v. General Motors Company, et al., Case No. 15-CV-158-Y (N.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2015), Judge Terry R. Means of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied class certification to two employees of General Motors Company ("GM"), who sought to represent a nationwide class of employees seeking unpaid leave to observe religious holy days. The Court further granted GM's motion to dismiss the class action complaint, but granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. This case is instructive for employers defending class actions and dealing with requests for religious accommodation in the workplace. Case Background In 2008, two employees of GM's Arlington, Texas facility began making requests for unpaid leave to observe their respective religious holy days. GM employee James Robinson, III ("Robinson") alleged that he requested and received unpaid leave for religious holy days, including. Id. at 1 -- 2. GM employee Chris Scruggs ("Scruggs") alleged that he requested but was denied unpaid leave for religious holy days until GM began granting his requests for unpaid leave in 2010. Id. at 2. The two plaintiffs are of different faith communities; Robinson a member of the Seventh Day Sabbatarian community of Tyler Sabbath Fellowship, and Scruggs a member of Messianic Jewish Beth Yeshua Congregation. Id. at 1 -- 2. Plaintiffs alleged that in 2013 GM began denying Robinson's requests for unpaid leave to observe holy days and, once Robinson's attorney identified Scruggs as another employee being denied similar unpaid leave, that GM resumed denial of Scruggs' requests for unpaid leave to observe holy days. Id. Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint against GM in March 2015, alleging that GM violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying them the religious accommodation of unpaid leave to observe their respective holy days, despite the availability of volunteers to cover their shifts. The lawsuit demanded damages and a class-wide injunction ordering GM to allow unpaid leave on holy days, to inquire about the availability of volunteer coverage, and to seek no-cost methods of allowing religious leave. Id. at 2 -- 3. Plaintiffs sought certification of a class of "all General Motors workers within the United States subject to the 2011 UAW-GM National Agreement and who may seek unpaid leave for a holy day because of a religious belief." Id. at 5. GM opposed the motion by arguing that the class that Plaintiffs purported to represent constituted an impermissible "hypothetical -- i.e., the possibility that GM employees may seek unpaid religious leave at some time the future," and would require individualized inquiries not suited for class treatment. Id. (emphasis in original.) The Court's Decision Finding that the Plaintiffs' class definition "includes any GM employees who might request unpaid religious leave in the future," the Court determined that the class was not adequately defined or ascertainable. Id. at 6. (emphasis in original.) Noting that in this case the Court would be required to evaluate each class member's religion, that religion's holy days, and the days each member requested for leave, the Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to identify common questions of law or fact applicable to the class, and further failed to prove numerosity. Id. at 6, n. 1. The Court further observed that "[c]lass relief is most appropriate where the issues in the case turn on questions of law or fact 'applicable in the same manner to each member of the class'" Id. (internal citations omitted). The Court's order, however, allows Plaintiffs until November 23, 2015, to file an amended complaint, and the opportunity to propose a definition of a more ascertainable class. Id. at 7. Implications For Employers Religious accommodation under Title VII requires employers to engage in factual inquiries to determine if a requested accommodation is appropriate under Title VII or similar state law. For this reason, and as illustrated by the ruling in Robinson, these individualized factual inquiries precluded class-wide treatment of religious accommodation claims. Carefully articulating neutral policies and managing to consistent procedures for investigating and responding to requests for religious accommodation best enable employers both to respond to the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce, and to develop internal business records that may help avoid costly litigation. GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Ignition Switch Punitive Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a federal bankruptcy judge has ruled that people suing General Motors over faulty ignition switches can seek punitive damages that could cost the company millions of dollars or more. When General Motors emerged from a 2009 bankruptcy, it became known as "New GM." The new company essentially was shielded from liabilities of the old company that was left behind. But Judge Robert Gerber in New York ruled on Nov. 9 that employees and knowledge transferred from the "Old GM" to the new company. Plaintiffs, he ruled, can seek punitive damages if they can show that "New GM" knew of the faulty switches but covered it up. The ruling has the potential to open GM to large jury verdicts, because the company has admitted knowing about the faulty switches for a decade or more but failed to recall the cars until February of 2014. Many of the engineers, attorneys and safety investigators who had knowledge of the switches went from the old company to the new one. But in a statement, GM said the ruling was not a victory for those suing the company. Although the court ruled that New GM could be liable for punitive damages for claims based solely on its conduct, "plaintiffs to date have not established any such independent claims against New GM," the statement said. The ignition switches can slip out of the run position and shut off the engine, knocking out the power steering, power brakes and air bags. They are responsible for crashes that killed at least 169 people and injured hundreds of others. Texas attorney Robert Hilliard, who has several wrongful death and injury lawsuits pending against GM, said the ruling was a complete win for plaintiffs. He said the New GM admitted in an agreement to settle criminal charges with the Justice Department that it knew of the faulty switches for 20 months before notifying federal safety regulators in February of 2014. The company can't contradict the agreement in legal proceedings, so it has no defense, Hilliard argued. Texas attorney Robert Hilliard, who has several wrongful death and injury lawsuits pending against GM, said the ruling was a complete win for plaintiffs. "A jury now will be allowed to hear evidence of GM's cover-up and determine what monetary punishment to assess for so many needless deaths and injuries," Mr. Hilliard said. There are still about 250 wrongful death and injury lawsuits pending in state and federal courts, according to Hilliard. He says the ruling exposes GM to billions of dollars in punitive damages. Judge Gerber's ruling also applies to cases in which plaintiffs allege that the value of their cars declined because of GM's conduct. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, says both sides are posturing about the ruling. The plaintiffs, he said, must show "egregious misconduct" to get punitive damages, which is a heavy burden. But he said they can rely on the Justice Department documents to do that. "I think that makes it pretty strong on the plaintiffs' side," he said. GLOBUS MEDICAL: Howard Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The law offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Globus Medical, Inc. ("Globus" or the "Company") (NYSE: GMED) securities between February 26, 2014 through August 5, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Globus investors have until November 30, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors who suffered losses on their investment in Globus securities are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action. Globus is a medical device company that develops products to treat patients with musculoskeletal disorders. The Company is currently focused on products to treat patients with spine disorders. On August 5, 2014, Globus issued a press release announcing its financial results for the 2014 second quarter and substantially lowered its revenue guidance for the 2014 year. In announcing its results, the Company disclosed that certain operating challenges had resulted in sales growth below its historical trends. On this news the Company's shares fell $4.05 per share, or 17.9%, to close on August 6, 2014, at $18.51 per share, on unusually high volume. The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's relationship with a significant distributor was deteriorating; (2) that the deterioration was negatively impacting the Company's financial performance; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Globus' business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of Globus during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than November 30, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll- free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com Howard G. Smith, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 Toll Free: 1-888-638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com GNC HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of GNC Holdings Inc. (NYSE:GNC) securities from May 2, 2013 through October 22, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GNC investors under the federal securities laws. To join the GNC class action, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-543.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) GNC unlawfully sold thousands of units of products in Oregon that contained picamilon; (2) GNC unlawfully sold thousands of units of products in Oregon that contained BMPEA; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 28, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-543.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com GNC HOLDINGS: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Goldberg Law PC (www.Goldberglawpc.com) announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against GNC Holdings Inc. ("GNC" or the "Company") (NYSE: GNC), for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between May 2, 2013 and October 22, 2015, are advised to contact the firm in advance of the December 28, 2015, lead plaintiff deadline. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at info@goldberglawpc.com. The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the complaint, on October 22, 2015, the State of Oregon initiated a lawsuit against GNC claiming that the Company's nutritional and dietary supplements are laced with unapproved drugs, including picamilon, a Russian prescription medicine for neurological conditions, and BMPEA, which was first synthesized in the 1930s as a replacement for amphetamines and never studied in humans. When the truth was revealed, shares dropped causing investors harm. If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401, or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us at info@goldberglawpc.com. Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights litigation. Michael Goldberg, Esq Brian Schall, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW PC 13650 Marina Pointe Dr., Suite 1404 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Phone 800-977-7401 Email: info@goldberglawpc.com GRAIN PROCESSING: Judge Approves Nuisance Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Dar Danielson, writing for RadioIowa, reported that a District Court Judge approved class action cases for two groups in a lawsuit against Grain Processing Corporation's (GPC) Muscatine corn wet milling operation. Some residents of Muscatine who lived near the plant filed the lawsuit claiming nuisance, trespass and negligence against the plant for alleged pollution released in the milling process. Attorney Jim Larew represents the Muscatine residents. "We're very pleased for our plaintiffs and the citizens of Muscatine that the court has certified two classes, which will enable them to proceed with the case," Larew says. The District Court Ruling creates one class of people who live within one-and-half miles of the plant, and another which lives outside that first area. Larew says the company now has some options. "Iowa law allows either party after a class certification is made by the trial courts to appeal that issue to the Iowa Supreme Court. Normally a party has 30 days to make that decision -- whether to appeal or not," Larew says. He says those involved would be notified if the case goes forward. "Normally class members have the chance to either opt in or opt out. The court will make it clear procedurally what happens," according to Larew. This lawsuit was first filed in April of 2012. The district court initially had thrown out the case, siding with the company which said the issues fell under the federal Clean Air Act. But the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in June of 2014 that there were claims that could be decided in the state court and ordered the lawsuit to proceed. The company agreed in March to a record $1.5 million civil penalty for violating environmental regulations. GPC also agreed to convert its boilers from coal-fired to natural gas-fired to cut air pollutant emissions as part of the settlement. GRAIS & ELLSWORTH: "Stauffer" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Raymond E. Stauffer, and all others similarly-situated v. Grais & Ellsworth LLP and Update, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08238 (S.D. N.Y., October 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, pre and post judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendant Grais & Ellsworth LLP is a mid-sized litigation law firm in New York City. Defendant Update, Inc. is one of the preeminent legal recruiting and placement firms in the country, with offices in 10 major cities across the U.S. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond E. Stauffer, Esq. 9 Sentinel Court, Unit F Chatham, NJ 07928 Tel: (973) 701-0877 GREEN FLEET: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Penalties and Back Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Pineda-Amaya and Laura Hernandez Pineda v. Green Fleet Systems, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC596958 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) asserts that each of the Plaintiff, as representatives of the general public, seeks to recover penalties, damages and back wages. Green Fleet is a Corporation authorized to do business in California, which maintained offices at Carson, California. Green Fleet is one of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Port trucking companies. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvin M. Gomez, Esq. GOMEZ LAW GROUP 853 Camino Del Mar, Suite 100 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (858)552-0000 Facsimile: (858) 755-3364 E-mail: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com HILLCREST DAVIDSON: "Wattley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Wattley, and all others similarly-situated v. Hillcrest, Davidson, & Associates, LLC, Keith Burkett, and Sean Atwood, Case No. 3:15-cv-03349 (N.D. Tex., October 16, 2015), seeks damages for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief and reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a debt collection business in Dallas, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christine A. Hopkins, Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 5956 Sherry Lane Suite 1000, PMB 106 Dallas, TX 75225 Tel: (214) 716-4597 Fax: (855) 867-4455 E-mail: christine@rosslawgroup.com HOME DEPOT: "Seramur" Suit Alleges JFPA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Dennis R. Seramur dba Seramur and Sons Builders, and all others similarly-situated v. Home Depot USA, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-00394 (N.D. Ind., October 16, 2015), seeks damages for Defendant's violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The Defendant owns and operates home improvement retail stores. The company offers building materials, home improvement, lawn and garden, and kitchen, lighting, storage, and flooring design products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Tel: (847) 368-1500 Fax: (847) 368-1501 HOMEAWAY INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California ---------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Vacation rental company HomeAway Inc. and its online payment partner YapStone Inc. didn't do enough to prevent a yearlong security breach that exposed user information including bank account and Social Security numbers, plaintiffs lawyers allege in suit filed on Nov. 2. HomeAway, which operates HomeAway.com, VRBO.com and VacationRentals.com, alerted users in September that its security had been compromised, leaving data accessible to outsiders from July 2014 to August 2015, according to the suit. Plaintiffs claim the breach compromised the names, email addresses, physical addresses, dates of birth, bank account information and Social Security numbers of property owners and managers. Though HomeAway and YapStone learned of the breach in August, the companies took six weeks to notify customers, the suit alleges. "Because defendants failed to take necessary precautions to safeguard class members' information," the lawyers wrote, "class members' personal data may remain available for illegal misuse for years." HomeAway did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Plaintiffs lawyers with Levi & Korsinsky in New York and Del Mar Law Group in San Diego filed the complaint on Nov. 2 in the Northern District of California. Bonnema v. HomeAway, 15-5023, seeks damages for negligence, unfair competition, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of California data breach law. Both HomeAway and YapStone promise to protect their customers' personal data, according to the complaint. The HomeAway.com and VRBO.com websites assure users that "paying online through HomeAway is more secure for you and your travelers." And YapStone claims to "maintain the highest level of security possible" and to have "developed a rich suite of security features for [its] online payment processing platform," according to the complaint. The defendants offered credit monitoring and identity theft insurance in the wake of the breach, but the plaintiffs lawyers dismissed the remedy as insufficient. Suggesting that potential victims protect themselves by reviewing their account statements, monitoring their credit reports and changing their passwords puts the burden on victims and may force them to incur additional out- of-pocket expenses, the lawyers wrote. IHEARTMEDIA INC: "Sheridan" Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement --------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Sheridan and Barbara Sheridan, and all others similarly- situated v. iHeartMedia, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-50266 (N.D. Ill., October 16, 2015), seeks damages for common law copyright infringement. The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendant has violated and continues to violate Plaintiffs' rights under Illinois law through the marketing, sale, and provision of internet and terrestrial radio services that include Pre-1972 Recordings. iHeartMedia, Inc. is an American mass media company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1144 West Lake Street, Suite 400 Oak Park, IL 60301 Tel: (708) 628-4949 Fax: (708) 628-4950 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com JASON SCHEAR: Filed a Petition for Turnover of Account Proceeds --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Schear, Eduard Stanciu, Bareket Drori, Stella Kim, Dana Beierle, Michael Martinez, and Odin Redd, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, filed a petition with the Supreme Court of The State Of New York County of New York demanding an Order and Judgment directing Respondent Citigroup Inc., to turnover to New York City Marshal Stephen W. Biegel, the proceeds of Account #C17067965, and belonging to Judgment Debtor Masahiro Origuchi. The case is JASON SCHEAR, EDUARD STANCIU, BAREKET DRORI, STELLA KIM,DANA BEIERLE, MICHAEL MARTINEZ, and ODIN REDD, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, Petitioners v. Citigroup Inc., Case No. 159986/2015. The Petitioners are represented by: Jonathan D. Warner, Esq. WARNER & SCHEUERMAN 6 West 18th Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 924-7111 JM HOLLISTER: "Pang" Suit Transferred From E.D. to W.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Pang, et al. v. J.M. Hollister, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01148, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Rochester). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-06604- FPG to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid compensation, damages and fees relating to the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. J.M. Hollister, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Louis Scher, Esq. Jeffrey A. Block, Esq. BLOCK O'TOOLE & MURPHY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 5315 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (646) 825-4005 Facsimile: (212) 971-9840 E-mail: DScher@blockotoole.com JBlock@BlockOToole.com The Defendants are represented by: Jon S. Brooks, Esq. PHILLIPS, NIZER LLP 666 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10103 Telephone: (212) 977-9700 Facsimile: (212) 262-5152 E-mail: jbrooks@phillipsnizer.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Debt Collection Suit for $100 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Don Thompson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the nation's largest bank will pay $100 million to settle a California lawsuit alleging it used illegal methods to collect debts from more than 125,000 credit card holders, the state's attorney general announced on Nov. 2. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the largest U.S. bank by assets, will pay an estimated $10 million to consumers in California as part of a previously announced $50 million national agreement, and will pay another $50 million in penalties to the state to settle a 2013 lawsuit. It is agreeing to change practices that the state says violated California law and led the company to file thousands of debt collection lawsuits between 2008 and 2011. They include collecting incorrect amounts, selling bad credit card debt, and running what Attorney General Kamala Harris' office calls a debt collection mill that "robo-signed" court documents. The deal includes reimbursing military members in California in cases where the company improperly obtained default judgments. The state says the company failed to check if customers were on active military duty but falsely swore it had done so. "This settlement provides real relief to tens of thousands of Californians, including servicemembers, and prevents JPMorgan Chase from continuing these deceptive and illegal debt collection practices," Ms. Harris said in a statement. JPMorgan Chase spokesman Paul Hartwick said the company reached a similar settlement with 47 other states' attorneys general in July. He provided a statement from that settlement that says the company stopped the practices years ago. Among other allegations, the state said the company used illegal threats; sued borrowers based on insufficient evidence, betting that they wouldn't challenge the lawsuits; and failed to tell customers they were being sued while swearing they had been properly notified. Ms. Harris said the company frequently "robo-signed" legal documents including sworn declarations without first reviewing the files as it rushed to obtain court judgments and wage garnishment orders. The state said the company also provided 30,000 robo-signed sworn statements backing lawsuits filed by outside debt-collectors. Those accounts were often inaccurate or not collectable because the debt had been settled, discharged in bankruptcy or wasn't owed, the state said. Robo-signing was also widely used in mortgage foreclosures until it was outlawed. JPMorgan Chase is one of five major national banks that settled with California and other states over such practices after the housing market collapsed. As part of the lawsuit, the company is required to permanently stop attempting to collect more than 528,000 customer accounts valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. KOLBE & KOLBE: Wisconsin Judge Rules on Insurers' Motions --------------------------------------------------------- MARY HALEY and MICHAEL HALEY, LESLIE BANKS and JAMES HAL BANKS, ANNIE BUINEWICZ and BRIAN BUINEWICZ, TERRANCE McIVER AND JEAN ANN McIVER, SUSAN SENYK, CHRISTIAN SENYK, GARY SAMUELS, PATRICIA GROOME, MATTHEW DELLER, RENEE DELLER and MARIE LOHR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KOLBE & KOLBE MILLWORK CO., INC., Defendant, and FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor Defendants, No. 14-CV-99-BBC, (W.D. Wis.), is a proposed class action in which plaintiffs allege that the windows they purchased from defendant Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co. are defective. In her Opinion and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/j0rNX1from Leagle.com, District Judge Barbara B. Crabb addressed three motions for summary judgment related to peripheral disputes between defendant and its insurers, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company and United States Fire Insurance Company. United States Fire seeks summary judgment on defendant's claims that United States Fire breached its duty to defend defendant and acted in bad faith. Both insurers seek a declaration that they owe no duty to defend or indemnify defendant. Judge Crabb granted United States Fire's motion with respect to defendant's claims because defendant has not shown that United States Fire's conduct violated defendant's rights. However, the Court denied both insurers' motion regarding their duty to indemnify and their continuing duty to defend because there is still a possibility that defendant could be required to pay damages that are covered by the insurers' policies. Counsel for Plaintiffs: Dixon R. Gahnz, Esq. -- dgahnz@lawtoncates.com -- of Lawton & Cates, S.C.; James A. Olson, Esq. -- jolson@lawtoncates.com -- of Lawton & Cates, S.C.; Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC -- Katrina Carroll, Esq. -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC; Susana Cruz Hodge, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC; Benjamin D. Elga, Esq. -- belga@cuneolaw.com -- of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP; Bonnie J. Prober, Esq. -- bprober@cuneolaw.com -- of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP; Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman -- Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. -- danielc@cuneolaw.com - - of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca; Jill T. Lin, Esq. of Audet & Partners, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq. of Audet & Partners, LLP; Katherine W. Van Dyck, Esq. -- kvandyck@cuneolaw.com -- of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca; Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC; Michael J. Flannery, Esq. -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca; Michael Andrew McShane, Esq. of Audet & Partners, LLP; Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. -- rapeterson@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. -- of rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. counsel for Kolbe and Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc.: Gordon Davenport, III, Esq. of Foley & Lardner LLP, Michael D. Leffel, Esq. of Foley & Lardner; Susan G. Schellinger, Esq. -- sschellinger@dkattorneys.com -- of Davis & Kuelthau, S.C.; Elizabeth K. Miles, Esq. -- emiles@dkattorneys.com -- of Davis & Kuelthau s.c.; Krista J. Sterken, Esq. of Foley and Lardner and Matthew D. Lee, Esq. of Foley & Lardner LLP. LONG BEACH CARE: Arbitration Bid in "Guerra" Case Revived --------------------------------------------------------- Justice Roger W. Boren of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two, reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration in the appeal case captioned PAOLO GUERRA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LONG BEACH CARE CENTER, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B257157, (Cal. App. Ct.) Paolo Guerra was employed at Long Beach Care Center, Inc. (LBCC) as a laundry attendant. Guerra signed a two-page Mediation and Arbitration Agreement (the Agreement) on the day he was hired. He and LBCC agreed to arbitrate "any disputes [and] all claims," including "all employment and employment related matters," specifically "claims regarding wages, compensation or employment benefits, and any and all claims covered by any federal, state or local laws. . . ." The Agreement reads, "Both parties to this contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional right to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury, and instead are accepting the use of mediation and arbitration." One month after Guerra was hired, his attorney threatened LBCC with a class action lawsuit. He then filed a complaint alleging that LBCC failed to pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, keep accurate payroll records, or pay wages at the end of employment. He asserts that LBCC's conduct violated the Labor Code, and was an unfair or unlawful business practice. LBCC moved to stay the lawsuit and compel arbitration because the Agreement covers all employment-related disputes and does not authorize class actions. LBCC asserted that Guerra expressly agreed to arbitrate his individual claims. No exception to arbitration applies, the Agreement is not unconscionable, and it meets legal standards for employment arbitration agreements. The trial court deemed the agreement unconscionable and denied the motion. In his Opinion dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/1wwKY5from Leagle.com, Justice Boren reversed the trial court's order denying the petition to compel arbitration. The trial court is to enter a new order dismissing the class claims and granting the motion to compel arbitration of Guerra's individual claims, with the proviso that the one sentence relating to arbitrator fees and costs be removed. Long Beach Care Center, Justice Boren said, is entitled to recover its costs on appeal from Paolo Guerra. He said the parties' agreement is not unilateral or unfairly one-sided. The Agreement meets the requirements for a mandatory employment arbitration agreement, save for one: (1) it provides for arbitrators named by each party, or a mutually agreeable neutral arbitrator; (2) it provides for discovery pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure; (3) it requires a written award; and (4) it allows the same types of relief that would be available in court. The only requirement that is not met is that employees must pay arbitrator fees. LBCC concedes that it is responsible for the cost of the arbitration. The Appeals Court directed the removal of the sentence "Each party will pay the fees and costs associated with their own party arbitrator" from the Agreement, and instead impose the costs of the arbitration on LBCC. The Court added that the provisions in the Agreement requiring that a claimant arbitrate in a single proceeding all claims arising from "the same incident" does not give Guerra the right to arbitrate on behalf of other employees, only his own wage and hour claims. Frank A. Magnanimo, Esq. -- frank@magdeanlaw.com -- and Rebecca L. Gombos, Esq. -- rebecca@magdeanlaw.com -- of Magnanimo & Dean serve as counsel for Defendant and Appellant Kevin Mahoney, Esq. -- kmahoney@mahoney-law.net -- of Mahoney Law Group serves as counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent LOUISIANA: Order Granting In Forma Pauperis Status Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. vacated a court order granting Plaintiff Tramaine Harrison in forma pauperis status in the case captioned TRAMAINE A. HARRISON, ET AL., v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL., Civil Action No. 14-0811-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.) Pro se plaintiff Tramaine A. Harrison and five purported pro se co-plaintiffs, Kendall Summers, Spencer Ford, Jarvis Young, Larry Drawsand and Larry Warren, commenced this proceeding as a purported "Class Action" on a form for the assertion of the violation of constitutional civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Complaint is deficient, however, because it is signed (and hand-written) only by plaintiff Harrison, and none of the purported 5 co-plaintiff detainees has signed the Complaint, submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise signified a willingness to participate in the instant lawsuit. Harrison asserts that all of the co-plaintiff detainees are housed in "different buildings [and] their signatures can't be obtained." Named as defendants are the State of Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal, CEO Steve Lee of the Feliciana Forensic Facility ("FFF") (where the plaintiffs are confined), and "all Drs. (psychiatrist and psychologist), nurses, social workers, and correction guards" at the Forensic Facility. Harrison's claim that the defendants have violated his constitutional rights, as well as the rights of the other five co- plaintiffs and un-named detainees confined at the Facility, by the conditions to which they have been subjected. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that although the Forensic Facility is a "so- called" hospital, it does not provide medical treatment to the persons confined therein. Instead, the Facility acts only as an under-funded "incarceration outlet" for patients with mental illness and others who have pleaded, or been induced to plead, "not guilty by reason of insanity" to criminal offenses charged against them. Harrison asserts that he himself is being falsely imprisoned and should not be confined, both because of improprieties in connection with his probation proceedings and because his mental condition has changed or improved to the extent that confinement and treatment are no longer necessary. The plaintiff further asserts, in conclusory fashion, that every other plaintiff at the Facility meets the same criteria and is a "victim of this corrupt system." Finally, the plaintiff asserts that security officers, nurses and other personnel at the Facility treat the detainees harshly, and the plaintiff includes allegations that one of the co-plaintiffs, Jarvis Young, was raped on one occasion because of inattention by a security officer, and that another, Larry Warren, has been confined at the Facility for more than 20 years on a charge of simple burglary. The plaintiff includes no specific factual allegations relative to the other three co-plaintiff detainees. The Court initially granted leave to the lead plaintiff in the present case, Tramaine Harrison, to proceed in forma pauperis. In his Order dated October 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/t4IVK9from Leagle.com, Judge Bourgeois, Jr. vacated the Order dated February 24, 2015 pursuant to which Harrison was granted in forma pauperis status in the proceeding. The Court denied Harrison's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court gave Harrison 30 days from the date of the Order within which to pay $400.00, the full amount of the Court's filing fee. The filing fee must be paid in full in a single payment. No partial payments will be accepted. Failure to pay the filing fee within 30 days shall result in the dismissal of plaintiff Harrison's claims without further notice from the Court. Judge Bourgeois also ruled that, within 30 days of the date of the Order, Plaintiffs Kendall Summers, Spencer Ford, Jarvis Young, Larry Drawsand and Larry Warren must each re-submit the Complaint, personally signed by them on the last page thereof. Failure to re-submit the Complaint in proper form within 30 days shall result in the dismissal of the individual plaintiff's claims without further notice from the Court. Each of them must also pay the full amount of the Court's filing fee ($400.00) or submit properly completed motions to proceed in forma pauperis, together with properly completed Statements of Account, signed by an authorized official at the plaintiffs' facility, certifying to the average six-month deposits and balance in the plaintiffs' detainee accounts. Failure to pay the Court's filing fee or submit a properly completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis and Statement of Account within 30 days shall result in the dismissal of the individual plaintiff's claims without further notice from the Court. Tramaine A. Harrison, Plaintiff, Pro Se MACOMB COUNTY, MI: Court Tosses "Cowans" Complaint -------------------------------------------------- District Judge Terrence G. Berg summarily dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice in the case captioned MARK COWANS, DESMOND TURNER, PETER LABRECK, TIMOTHY FRADENECK, RYAN NEELY, and ALL OTHERS SO SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. KYLE DUPRIS, ANTHONY WICKERSHAM, AND MACOMB COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 15-12739, (E.D. Mich.) This is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 brought by five individuals who, at the time the lawsuit was filed, were incarcerated at the Macomb County Jail. The Complaint names the Macomb County Deputy Sheriff, the Macomb County Sheriff, and the Macomb County Sheriff's Department as Defendants. The Complaint alleges that the Deputy Sheriff, Defendant Dupris, has threatened and harassed inmates confined in the mental health ward of the Macomb County Jail. It alleges that Defendant Sheriff, Anthony Wickersham, has failed to maintain adequate living conditions in both the jail and in the mental health ward in particular. The Complaint lists a number of reforms Plaintiffs would like to see implemented concerning how prisoners are treated in the Macomb County Jail's mental health unit, and it seeks $10,000,000 in damages. Plaintiffs have also filed a joint application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, noting that none of them have any money in their inmate account, but that one of them, Plaintiff LaBreck, has assets in the form of real estate. Plaintiffs are seeking to file this suit on behalf of themselves, and "all others so situated." In his Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/0dPBn6from Leagle.com, Judge Berg dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' complaint. Each Plaintiff, should they wish to do so, may file an individual complaint on his own behalf, Judge Berg said. Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint without prejudice, Plaintiffs' motion to amend and motion for an injunction are both denied as moot. Plaintiffs' Complaint is construed to request prospective injunctive relief, that is, seeking to order Macomb County to make systemic changes to its jail policies and procedures, such a claim is moot for several of the prisoners since they have been released or transferred to other facilities. In this case, however, Plaintiffs do not merely seek to bring a claim jointly; rather, they appear to be attempting to file a class action on behalf of themselves and "all others so situated." The law is clear that class actions by pro se prisoners are disfavored because of the difficulties such plaintiffs have in adequately representing the interests of their class. Given the difficulties involved in allowing this case to proceed as a class action, the Court believes that the best course of action would be to dismiss the Complaint without prejudice, and permit the individual plaintiffs to file individual complaints on their own behalf if they wish to do so. The Court also noted that three of the five named Plaintiffs are no longer housed at the Macomb County Jail, making their claims for prospective injunctive relief moot. Plaintiff Cowans, who appears to be the "lead" Plaintiff that hand-wrote the pleadings, is among those Plaintiffs no longer housed at the Macomb County Jail. According to the records of the Michigan Department of Corrections that are available online, Plaintiff Cowans is now housed in a prison in Ionia, Michigan (located in the Western District of Michigan). The fact that several of these Plaintiffs are no longer residing at the facility where the alleged mistreatment was occurring, and that they are now in separate prisons geographically distant from one another, are circumstances that make the joint prosecution of this case -- particularly as a potential class action -- highly impractical and counsel strongly in favor of dismissing this case without prejudice, and permitting each individual Plaintiff to file his own lawsuit. MCWANE INC: Jan. 28 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- If You Directly Purchased Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings between January 11, 2008 and December 31, 2013, You Could Be Affected by Proposed Class Action Settlements Please read the entire Notice carefully. These Settlements may affect your rights. What Is This Lawsuit About? There are two Proposed Settlements, a SIGMA Settlement and a Star Settlement, in a class action lawsuit called In re Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings ("DIPF") Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, which is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Proposed Settlements are partial because there is a defendant remaining in the case and litigation is continuing. The defendants in this lawsuit are McWane, Inc. and its divisions Clow Water Systems Co., Tyler Pipe Company, and Tyler Union (collectively "McWane"); SIGMA Corporation and its subsidiary SIGMA Piping Products Corporation (together, "SIGMA"); and Star Pipe Products, Ltd. ("Star"). The lawsuit alleges that from January 11, 2008 through June 30, 2011, defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices for DIPF in the United States in violation of the antitrust laws. Plaintiffs also claim that from September 17, 2009 through December 31, 2013, defendant McWane illegally monopolized, and defendants SIGMA and McWane conspired to restrain trade and monopolize, the market for Domestic DIPF in the United States in violation of the antitrust laws. Defendants deny all of plaintiffs' allegations. Am I A Class Member? The SIGMA Settlement has two classes: (1) All persons or entities in the United States that purchased DIPF directly from any defendant from January 11, 2008 through June 30, 2011; and (2) All persons or entities in the United States that purchased Domestic DIPF directly from McWane or SIGMA from September 17, 2009 through December 31, 2013. The Star Settlement has only one class: All persons or entities in the United States that purchased DIPF directly from any defendant from January 11, 2008 through June 30, 2011. Full descriptions of DIPFs are available at www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com What Do The Settlements Provide And How Do I Get A Payment? Under the respective Settlements, SIGMA has agreed to pay $4,895,000 and Star has agreed to pay $3,633,750. If you are a Class Member, you may be eligible to receive payment from one or both of the Settlements. To qualify for payment, you must complete and send in a valid Claim Form, available at www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com The Claim Form is the same for each Settlement, and you need to submit only one Claim Form to participate in both Settlements. Be sure to sign the Claim Form and mail it by first-class mail postmarked no later than January 29, 2016 to DIPF Direct Purchaser Market Antitrust Settlement, c/o GCG P.O. Box 10095, Dublin, OH 43017-6695. If the Court approves the SIGMA and Star Settlements, the Net Settlement Funds from each Settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis among all Class Members who submit valid and timely Claim Forms. There are specialized companies that may offer to fill out and file your claim in return for a percentage of the value of your claim. The Court has not authorized any of these companies to contact you. Before you contract with one of these companies, you can always seek help from the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel in filing your Claim. Can I Exclude Myself? If you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue SIGMA or Star (or both of them) about the legal issues in this case, then you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class with SIGMA and Star. If you exclude yourself from either or both Settlement Classes, you will not get any payment from the Settlement(s) from which you are excluded. To exclude yourself, you must send a letter saying that you want to be excluded. Important instructions about how to exclude yourself can be obtained from www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com Your letter must be postmarked by December 29, 2015. How Do I Object? You can object to either or both of the Settlements if you are a Class Member and have not excluded yourself. To object, you must send a letter to the Court. Instructions about how to object may be obtained from www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com Your letter must be filed by January 8, 2016. What If I Do Nothing? If you do nothing, you will not receive payment, you will remain in the Class for the SIGMA and Star Settlements, and you will be bound by the Releases regarding claims in this matter. The only way to qualify for a payment from these Settlements is to send in a Claim Form. Who Represents Me? The Court has appointed Kit A. Pierson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Robert N. Kaplan of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP to represent the Class. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. These lawyers will ask the Court to approve the reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of the lawsuit in the amount of $2,842,916.67 (one-third of the total amount of the SIGMA and Star Settlements). The request for expenses will be available for viewing on the website below once it is filed with the Court. When Will The Judge Decide? The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to decide whether to approve the terms of the SIGMA and Star Settlements at 10:30 a.m. on January 28, 2016, at the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 402 East State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608. If there are objections or comments, the Court will consider them, but may still approve the Settlements. You may appear at the hearing, but you are not required to do so. The hearing may be moved to a different date or time without notice. You should check the Settlement Website below for updates. This Notice is only a summary. For more information visit the website below. www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com MERRILL LYNCH: Zale Corp Buyout Class Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reported that a Delaware judge dismissed a shareholder class action against Merrill Lynch for its role in the buyout of the Zale Corp jewelry chain, reversing a ruling from just four weeks earlier. Donald Parsons of the Court of Chancery ruled on Oct. 1 that Merrill Lynch had to defend its role in the sale of Zale. But the following day, he said the Delaware Supreme Court issued an opinion that clarified the standard of review in such cases. Given the Supreme Court ruling, Merrill asked for Parsons to reconsider, which led to the unusual ruling reversing his four- week-old opinion. Seth Rigrodsky, the attorney for the Zale shareholders, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Zale case and several similar class actions have garnered attention on Wall Street for the way Delaware judges have found financial advisers like Merrill Lynch may be exposed to millions of dollars in damages in merger deals. Zale agreed in 2014 to be acquired by rival Signet Jewelers for $21 per share, or $690 million. TIG Advisors, which held nearly 10 percent of Zale stock, called the deal grossly unfair and shareholders only narrowly approved the sale. Soon after the deal was announced, shareholders filed a class action challenging the deal price and named as defendants Zale's board, Signet and Merrill, a unit of Bank of America . Parsons dismissed the other defendants but on Oct. 1 ruled that Merrill could be liable to shareholders because the bank failed to disclose potential conflicts. Merrill Lynch never told Zale's board that a month before it was hired by the board the bank made a presentation to Signet's chief financial officer about acquiring Zales for $17 to $21 a share. Shareholders of ambulance company Rural/Metro won $76 million in damages against RBC Capital Markets, a unit of Royal Bank of Canada. Like Merrill with Zale, RBC was alleged to have aided the Rural/Metro board in breaching its duty to shareholders. The Delaware Supreme Court is considering RBC's appeal of the Rural/Metro ruling. Parsons' term on the court officially ended on Oct. 22. The Delaware Senate on confirmed corporate lawyer Tamika Montgomery- Reeves as his replacement. The case is In re Zale Corporation Stockholders Litigation, Delaware Court of Chancery, No. 9388. MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: "Hood" Suit Asserts California UCL Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Hood, and all others similarly-situated v. Millennium Products, Inc., Case No. 115CV286910 (Ca. Super., October 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for mislabeling its Kombucha products in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The Defendant manufactured and sold Kombuchas in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, Ca 95126 Tel: (408) 429-6506 Fax: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street NE Washington, DC 20003 Tel: (202) 789-3960 Fax: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: jone@cuneolaw.com - and - Eliabeth Tipping, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC One Nashville Place, Suite 2000 150 Fourth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-1713 E-mail: etipping@nealharwell.com MIZUHO BANK: Appeals District Court Order in "Laydon" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd., now known as Mizuho Bank, Ltd., et al., ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to grant a writ of mandamus to correct an alleged erroneous ruling that the nine Japanese Bank Defendants waived their right to assert a personal jurisdiction defense. The ruling was entered by Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the class action lawsuit styled Jeffrey Laydon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-03419-GBD-HBP. In April 2012, Plaintiff Jeffrey Laydon filed a putative class action against 25 defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and common law in connection with alleged manipulation of yen LIBOR and euroyen TIBOR rates. The Japanese Bank Defendants are each organized and have their principal place of business in Japan. The other Japanese Bank Defendants-Petitioners are The Bank of Yokohama, Ltd., The Shoko Chukin Bank, Ltd., Shinkin Central Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, The Norinchukin Bank, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., and Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation. The Japanese Bank Defendants-Petitioners argued, among other things, that the District Court indisputably abused its discretion because it subjected 10 foreign banks to its jurisdiction without applying (or even acknowledging) the Appellate Court's guidance that courts should approach claims of jurisdictional waiver with "enhanced caution." In applying this standard, they contend, courts in this Circuit have found jurisdictional waiver only in situations in which the defendant's delay prejudiced the Plaintiff, provided an advantage to the defendant, or wasted judicial resources. The appellate case is captioned Jeffrey Laydon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., et al., Defendants-Petitioners, Case No. 15- 3014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Skelton, Esq. Vincent Briganti, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, LLP White Plains Plaza One North Broadway, Suite 509 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: tskelton@lowey.com vbriganti@lowey.com Defendant Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd. is represented by: Jerome S. Fortinsky, Esq. John A. Nathanson, Esq. Jeffrey J. Resetarits, Esq. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4000 E-mail: jfortinsky@shearman.com john.nathanson@shearman.com jeffrey.resetarits@shearman.com Defendant The Bank of Yokohama, Ltd. is represented by: Gary W. Kubek, Esq. Erica Weisgerber, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 E-mail: gwkubek@debevoise.com eweisgerber@debevoise.com Defendant The Shoko Chukin Bank, Ltd. is represented by: Robert C. Mason, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 715-1000 E-mail: robert.mason@aporter.com - and - James W. Thomas, Jr., Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 E-mail: james.thomas@aporter.com Defendant Shinkin Central Bank is represented by: Andrew C. Smith, Esq. Andrew J. Kim, Esq. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 1540 Broadway New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 858-1000 E-mail: andrew.smith@pillsburylaw.com andrew.kim@pillsburylaw.com Defendant Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd. is represented by: Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Esq. Michael B. Weitman, Esq. SEWARD & KISSEL LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 574-1200 E-mail: christensen@sewkis.com weitman@sewkis.com Defendant Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation is represented by: Jon R. Roellke, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2020 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 373-6000 E-mail: jon.roellke@morganlewis.com - and - Michael L. Spafford, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 875 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 551-1700 E-mail: michaelspafford@paulhastings.com Defendant The Norinchukin Bank is represented by: Andrew W. Stern, Esq. Alan M. Unger, Esq. Tom A. Paskowitz, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: astern@sidley.com aunger@sidley.com tpaskowitz@sidley.com Defendant Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. is represented by: Daryl A. Libow, Esq. Christopher M. Viapiano, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1700 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 956-7500 E-mail: libowd@sullcrom.com viapianoc@sullcrom.com Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, J.P. Morgan Securities PLC, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. are represented by: Thomas C. Rice, Esq. Paul C. Gluckow, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 E-mail: trice@stblaw.com pgluckow@stblaw.com Defendants The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, and RBS Securities Japan Limited are represented by: Robert C. Houck, Esq. James D. Miller, Esq. CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 878-3224 E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com jim.miller@cliffordchance.com Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by: Moses Silverman, Esq. Andrew C. Finch, Esq. PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1825 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: msilverman@paulweiss.com afinch@paulweiss.com Defendants UBS AG and UBS Securities Japan Co., Ltd. are represented by: Peter Sullivan, Esq. Lawrence J. Zweifach, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 E-mail: psullivan@gibsondunn.com lzweifach@gibsondunn.com Defendant Barclays Bank PLC is represented by: Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq. Leigh M. Nathanson, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com lnathanson@bsfllp.com - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com mzappala@bsfllp.com - and - David H. Braff, Esq. Yvonne S. Quinn, Esq. Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq. Matthew J. Porpora, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com quinny@sullcrom.com scottj@sullcrom.com porporam@sullcrom.com Defendants HSBC Holdings plc and HSBC Bank Plc James M. Goodin, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 111 S Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (313) 443-0472 E-mail: jmgoodin@lockelord.com - and - Gregory T. Casamento, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 3 World Financial Center, 20th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 415-8600 E-mail: gcasamento@lockelord.com - and - Roger B. Cowie, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201 E-mail: rcowie@lockelord.com Defendants Citibank NA, Citigroup Global Markets Japan, Inc., and Citibank Japan LTD. are represented by: Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING L.L.P. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 E-mail: aruffino@cov.com - and - Alan M. Wiseman, Esq. Jonathan J. Gimblett, Esq. Thomas A. Isaacson, Esq. One City Center 850 10th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: awiseman@cov.com jgimblett@cov.com tisaacson@cov.com Defendant Societe Generale is represented by: Steven Wolowitz, Esq. Henninger S. Bullock, Esq. Andrew J. Calica, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 E-mail: swolowitz@mayerbrown.com hbullock@mayerbrown.com acalica@mayerbrown.com Defendant Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. is represented by: David R. Gelfand, Esq. Mark D. Villaverde, Esq. Melanie W. Yanez, Esq. Sean M. Murphy, Esq. MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 E-mail: dgelfand@milbank.com mvillaverde@milbank.com mwestover@milbank.com smurphy@milbank.com Defendant R.P. Martin Holdings Limited is represented by: Keith W. Miller, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 262-6900 E-mail: keithmiller@perkinscoie.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme --------------------------------------------------------- Trilogy Holding, LLC dba Bounce Sporting Club; New Lounge 4324, LLC dba Bounce Sporting Club; Pedal Haus Brewery, LLC; Whiskey Rocks Tempe, LLC dba Gringo Star Street Bar; and Jonathan Frantz, and all others similarly-situated v. National Football League, Inc.; NFL Enterprises LLC; Arizona Cardinals Holdings, Inc.; Atlanta Falcons Football Club LLC; Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership; Buffalo Bills, LLC; Panthers Football LLC; Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc.; Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC; Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd.; PDB Sports, Ltd. dba Denver Broncos Football Club; Detroit Lions, Inc.; Green Bay Packers, Inc.; Houston NFL Holdings LP; Indianapolis Colts, Inc.; Jacksonville Jaguars LLC; Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc.; Miami Dolphins, Ltd.; Minnesota Vikings Football Club LLC; New England Patriots, LP; New Orleans Louisiana Saints LLC; New York Football Giants, Inc.; New York Jets LLC; Oakland Raiders LP; Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc.; Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.; Chargers Football Co., LLC; San Francisco Forty Niners II, LLC; Football Northwest LLC; The Rams Football Company LLC; Buccaneers Limited Partnership; Tennessee Football, Inc.; Washington Football, Inc.; CBS Corporation; Fox Broadcasting Company; NBCUniversal Media, LLC; ESPN Inc.; DirecTV Holdings, LLC; and DirecTV, LLC., Case No. 1:15-cv-08188 (S.D. N.Y., October 16, 2015), seek injunctive relief putting an end to the Defendants' anticompetitive scheme and damages to compensate the Class for the supracompetitive overcharges they have paid pursuant to the Sherman Act. Defendant National Football League, Inc. is an incorporated association of the 32 football teams in the National Football League (the "Teams") with its principal place of business in New York, New York. The "Network Defendants" refer collectively to CBS, Fox, NBC, and ESPN, contracts with NFL to produce and broadcast live video presentations of regular season NFL games. Defendant DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in El Segundo, California. DirecTV Holdings LLC is the principal United States operating arm of DirecTV, Inc. Defendant DirecTV, LLC is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in El Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to commercial subscribers to its satellite television packages, including Sunday Ticket. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 NEIL JONES FOOD: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case captioned LUIS VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE NEIL JONES FOOD COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-CV-00519-AWI-SAB, (E.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint against Defendant Jones alleging failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay required "reporting time", failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay wages due upon termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfair business practices, conversion, and violation of the Private Attorneys General Act. Plaintiffs reside in Fresno County and were employed as non-exempt hourly employees by Defendant Jones. Defendant operates San Benito Foods which is a product line producing a wide variety of products such as chopped and crushed tomatoes, pasta sauces, diced and stewed tomatoes, purees, pizza sauces, peeled tomatoes, and seafood cocktail sauces. Defendant has canning and packing facilities in Firebaugh and Hollister, California. At the time the complaint was filed Plaintiff Martinez was still employed by Defendant and worked in the unskilled position of a hand processor or general laborer. Plaintiff Valdez was employed as a skilled mechanic who handled and worked with machinery. He was terminated on October 28, 2011. Both Plaintiffs were laid off from the Firebaugh facility. Plaintiffs Valdez and Martinez filed this employment action on behalf of themselves and all others similar situated in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno on January 11, 2013, alleging violations of California law. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was denied. The parties eventually reached a settlement deal. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Defendant agrees to pay $850,000 as gross settlement amount to resolve the claims of any class members who do not timely and validly opt out. In his Findings and Recommendations dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Q83axdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Boone granted preliminary certification of two classes as follows: a. Settlement class A as any and all persons who were employed by Neil Jones in an hourly union-represented position at Neil Jones' Toma-Tek facility located in Firebaugh, California at any time from January 11, 2009 through May 10, 2013. Settlement class A includes all current and former employees at the Toma-Tek facility who, at any time and for any duration during the class period, held an hourly position that is or was subject to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between Neil Jones and Teamsters District Council No. 2 Local 388M, even if that current or former also held a position during the class period that was not covered by the collective bargaining agreement. Settlement class A also includes all hourly employees whose employment ended during a probationary period as defined by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (the first 45 days of employment in a position covered by the collective bargaining agreement); and b. Settlement class B as any and all persons who were employed by Neil Jones in an hourly union-represented position or hourly non-union position at Neil Jones' Toma-Tek facility located in Firebaugh, California at any time from January 11, 2009 through December 31, 2013, but excluding anyone whose employment never ended during the class period by reason of a layoff. Layoff for this purpose means any period during which the class member was instructed not to return to work either permanently or until recalled in the future by reason of the end of the processing season or the scheduling of work during periods other than the tomato processing season. Named Plaintiffs Luis Valdez and Carolina Martinez are designated as representatives for settlement class A and Plaintiff Carolina Martinez is designated as representative for settlement class B. The Court appointed as class counsel for the settlement class: Dennis P. Wilson WILSON TRIAL GROUP 3210 E. Shields Avenue, Suite 3 Fresno, CA 93726 Of the $850,000 gross settlement amount, $650,000 is allocated to the released claims of settlement class A and $200,000 is allocated to the released claims of settlement Class B. The parties propose the following deductions from the gross settlement amount: -- Up to $5,000 each to Plaintiffs Martinez and Valdez for their services and participation as class representatives; -- Up to $238,000 (28% of the gross settlement fund) to class counsel for attorney fees; -- Up to $30,000 in legal costs and expenses; -- $40,215.64 in claims administrator costs; -- $15,000 for civil penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act; and -- Defendant's portion of FICA, FUTA, and all other state and federal payroll taxes on the individual settlement payments. A final approval hearing will be scheduled. Dennis Patrick Wilson, Esq. -- WILSONTRIALGROUP@ATT.NET -- of Law Offices Of Dennis P. Wilson serves as counsel for Plaintiff Luis Valdez Andrea Bednarova, Esq. -- abednarova@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- and Michael Eugene Wilbur, Esq. -- mwilbur@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- of Foster Employment Law serve as counsel for Defendant The Neil Jones Food Co. NEW YORK: City Foster Care Leader Takes Over Amid Problems ---------------------------------------------------------- Laura Nahmias, writing for Capital NewYork, reported that Julie Farber is taking charge of New York City's foster care system in unusually awkward circumstances. Tasked with turning around a historically troubled system, she is now fighting a lawsuit filed against the city agency by her former employer, and joined by Public Advocate Letitia James -- a lawsuit that seems to be caught up in the increasingly fraught political dynamic between Governor Andrew Cuomo and his erstwhile ally, Mayor Bill de Blasio. The suit against the Administration for Children's Services, filed by attorney Marcia Robinson Lowry, founder of the advocacy group Children's Rights -- Farber's former employer -- alleges that the city's foster care system is fundamentally mismanaged. But James, and then Cuomo, have effectively transformed the litigation from something routine into a much larger legal headache for the city, after the public advocate joined the suit against the city and state and then the Cuomo administration -- locked in a broader, running feud with City Hall -- reached a quick, highly unusual settlement with the plaintiff, leaving the city to fight on its own. Farber, is aware of the irony of her current position. "So, the person I used to work for is suing the city," Farber said, with a grim smile, during an interview in an office high above lower Manhattan. As deputy commissioner for Family Permanency Services at ACS, she has been thrust into the middle of tensions between the city and those who are suing it. The suit argues that the city's foster care system has been fundamentally mismanaged, that its children remain in foster care twice as long as any other jurisdiction in the country, and that a lack of urgency pervades the system. The problem of how to care for New York City's children in the welfare system has plagued city officials for decades. In 1996, under former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the city overhauled its child welfare system. The reforms came after six-year-old Elisa Izquierdo was beaten to death by her drug-addicted mother the previous year, and an investigation into the case revealed the city had failed to intervene, despite warning signs the girl was being abused. Izquierdo's death prompted changes, but high profile abuse cases and shocking deaths of city children did not disappear. In 2006, seven-year-old Nixzmary Brown died in Brooklyn after she was beaten and tied to a chair by her stepfather. ACS case workers had fielded complaints about Brown's family and failed to follow up. In 2014, 24 children in the city's system died. That number has held steady for several years. De Blasio promised to pay increased attention to child welfare when he took office in 2014, and allocated roughly $27 million for enhanced training for child welfare workers, as part of an $100 million outlay to help improve outcomes for children under ACS's care. Lowry, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, is known for filing landmark class-action lawsuits against government child welfare agencies in an effort to force reforms. Her newest lawsuit has drawn criticism from people who would generally be thought of as allies in such litigation, the nonprofit groups advocating for child welfare in New York City. The head attorney for juvenile justice at Legal Aid, which represents roughly 90 percent of the nearly 11,000 children in the city's foster care system, called the lawsuit "shortsighted." Farber, Lowry's former employee, wondered about Lowry's motivations in filing the suit. "She is a lawyer who forged this area of litigation, you know she's famous and infamous for it," Farber said. "I think there's a little bit of, when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Lowry said she was pursuing litigation as a last resort, after years of promises from the city to fix problems. "Julie worked for me for a number of years . . . and was a great believer in litigation at the time," Lowry said in an interview with POLITICO New York. In addition to pitting onetime allies against each other, the lawsuit has become part of the ongoing narrative of city-state antagonism. In late May, as relations between Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio were deteriorating, the governor was at James' side at a press conference and made a point of singling her out for fulsome praise. James, Cuomo said, was "doing a great job. She speaks for people without a voice." Not long afterwards, James and Lowry filed their suit, leading to the swift settlement in Albany while the case against the city seems destined to drag on. Co-defendants typically don't split, with one party deciding to settle while the other keeps fighting the lawsuit, James's spokeswoman Anna Brower said. "Our lawyers tell me it is not typical for plaintiffs to settle with one defendant and not another," Brower said. "But we did it because . . . it was really the best thing to do for the children, and the best thing to do to start reforming the system. So even though that's not typical for a case, it really made the most sense in this case." While court filings show lawyers for the attorney general's office filed motions in response to the initial complaint, in which they sought more time to develop the state's response to the lawsuit, the actual settlement and its terms were agreed to by Cuomo's office, and signed by his counsel Alphonso David, who is also one of his closest aides. Dani Lever, a spokeswoman for Cuomo's office, initially told POLITICO New York that "the governor's office was engaged in settlement discussions and consulted with the attorney general's office." She later clarified that negotiations were handled by the governor's office and the affected agency, and the attorney general's office was informed about the settlement, but had no role in negotiating it. The terms of the settlement agreement are favorable to Cuomo. The state Office of Children and Family Services agreed to install a monitor to oversee the city, with the authority to investigate the ACS's actions and file quarterly reports documenting any problems. The reports can compel the city to respond with plans for how they will correct problems and a timetable for solving them. A spokesperson for ACS and Ishanee Parikh, a spokeswoman for Mayor Bill de Blasio, both declined to comment when asked if they believed there was politics at work in the Public Advocate's decision to settle with the state. "All of the issues raised by this settlement are already being addressed by ACS' aggressive efforts to protect New York City children and continuously improve and increase services for our children and families," McKniff said in a statement. Another unusual factor in the case -- the child and parent advocacy organizations representing children and their families in the foster care system, groups who typically oppose each other in court, have been opposed to the litigation from the beginning. Those groups joined forces to issue a swift denunciation of the settlement, holding a press conference to condemn the agreement as bad for the children it purported to help. Tamara Steckler, attorney-in-charge of the juvenile rights practice at the nonprofit Legal Aid Society, said the settlement equaled an "added layer of bureaucracy that is unnecessary to effectuate the change that even the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are looking for." Steckler noted that OCFS already has a fully staffed office to oversee ACS in New York City. She questioned why a new monitor was necessary. Sue Jacobs, the president of the Center for Family Representation, said the unanimity of opposition to the lawsuit and settlement among social welfare groups was telling. "The fact that we are united in opposing the state's position in this proposed settlement is, I think, the headline in many ways, and should be a significant message ... about why it is that we feel that the proposed settlement and in fact the lawsuit is wrongheaded," Jacobs said. "We represent collectively over 90 percent of the cases of families in the child welfare system in the five boroughs, so that when the public advocates or plaintiffs in the lawsuit suggest that they in fact speak for those children and families, we are here to say, not so much," she said. Against the political backdrop of frayed state and city relations, some child welfare advocates are worried the settlement -- which appears to give the state an extra layer of power over the city at the expense of some of its poorest and most vulnerable residents - - was just another salvo in Cuomo's fight with de Blasio. Cuomo's office reached out to James's office almost immediately after the suit was filed, eager to discuss a settlement, a spokeswoman for James said. The governor's office has maintained that the agreement does not give the state new power over the city in any way, because the state already oversees ACS. Lowry sees it differently. Under the terms of the lawsuit, the state is agreeing to provide the kind of oversight it should have been providing all along, she said. Under the settlement terms, the state didn't admit any liability, "but all defendants are like that," Lowry said. Of the state, she said, "There's virtually no oversight that's being provided with regard to how the city is being monitored." Lowry dismissed criticism from advocates and Farber, her former employee, that the lawsuit ignored the reforms de Blasio's administration had already undertaken under ACS Commissioner Gladys Carrion. State budget included an additional $100 million to help lower social workers' average caseloads from 20 clients each to 12, a change that is expected to take effect in January 2016. Asked if the new administration under Carrion and De Blasio had been given enough time to implement its own reform agenda, Lowry said she had heard similar promises from ACS officials for years, dating back to the previous administration. It's been long enough, Lowry said. "Who knows how many children have had their lives destroyed by the way the system operates? The administration's been in office almost two years. We thought it was time," Lowry said. Farber admits there are problems at ACS. "No one here is saying the system is perfect," she said. "We still have a lot of work to do, but the resources are there and the work is happening," she said. "I mean, there's a lot of things that need work. No question. No, no question." PEABODY ENERGY: N.Y. AG Says Climate Statements Mislead Investors ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that New York's attorney general says Peabody Energy violated state laws with misleading statements to investors and the public about the financial risks from climate change and potential regulatory responses. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says St. Louis-based Peabody, the largest publicly traded coal company, has agreed to file revised shareholder disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission that objectively represent the risks. Investigators say the company repeatedly denied in public filings that it had the ability to predict the impact of regulation, despite internal projections it could reduce the dollar value of coal sales in its primary U.S. markets by 33 percent or more. Mr. Schneiderman's office began investigating Peabody two years ago. It subpoenaed similar documents from Exxon Mobil Corp. on Nov. 4. PEET'S COFFEE: Sued Over French Press Serving Sizes --------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that Chicago lawyers Daniel Voelker and Alexander Loftus of the Voelker Litigation Group on Oct. 30 filed a class action against Peet's Coffee and Tea Inc., which has more than 243 stores nationwide, demanding an end to this "deceptive and unfair conduct" and also compensatory damages and legal fees. Peet's vice president Lyda Velez said in an email that the press pot coffees represent 1/10 of 1 percent of cafe sales, and that the company is "committed to full transparency and integrity with our customers and to industry best standards for our product labeling and in-store signage." The plaintiffs lawyers don't see it that way. In the complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, they say that Peet's size description serves to "trick unsuspecting consumers, including plaintiff and other members of the proposed class, into believing that they are purchasing more ounces of press pot coffees for their money than they actually are receiving." According to the complaint, the 12-ounce serving is actually more like 8 ounces, and the 32-ounce serving is around 20 ounces. PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Supreme Court Rejects $10BB Verdict ----------------------------------------------------------- Alan Scher Zagier, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a divided Illinois Supreme Court has again rejected a $10.1 billion class-action judgment against Philip Morris over its past efforts to market "low-tar" and "light" cigarettes as healthier alternatives. The 4-2 ruling, released on Nov. 4, vacates a 2014 decision by the state's 5th District Appellate Court to reinstate a 2003 verdict by a county trial court in the southwest part of the state. The Illinois Supreme Court first overturned the Madison County court's decision in 2005. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Illinois smokers, was one of the nation's first to accuse a tobacco company of consumer fraud. It claimed that Philip Morris deceptively marketed "light" and "low-tar" Marlboro cigarettes as a healthier alternative. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration now bars cigarette makers from labeling their products with such terms. The Nov. 4 ruling still allows the plaintiffs to directly appeal to the state Supreme Court to reinstate the award. The state's high court has cited previous support by the Federal Trade Commission for categorizing certain cigarettes as safer substitutes. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of three Maine residents who said smokers should be able to use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers over their promotional efforts. An official affiliated with Philip Morris' parent company said the ruling "effectively wipes away the last seven years of court proceedings and requires the plaintiffs to start from scratch." "The court held that the plaintiffs filed the wrong motion in the wrong court," said Murray Garnick, senior vice president and associate general counsel for Altria Client Services, which represents Richmond, Virginia-based Altria Group Inc.'s subsidiary Philip Morris. Attorneys with the St. Louis law firm that represented Illinois smokers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The case led to aggressive efforts by plaintiffs' attorneys to oust Illinois Supreme Court justice Lloyd Karmeier, whom they wanted recused from the suit amid allegations that his judicial decisions in the Philip Morris case and in another overturning a $1.2 billion judgment against State Farm Insurance were influenced by pro-business campaign donations in the 2004 election. Justice Karmeier, who declined to step aside and has denied receiving direct contributions from Philip Morris, won a November 2014 retention election in which he finished less than 1 percentage point above the needed 60 percent approval threshold. Plaintiffs' attorneys and law firms spent more than $1 million fighting Justice Karmeier's re-election through a political committee named Campaign for 2016. RENTECH NITROGEN: Brodsky LLC Files Class Suit Over Buyout ---------------------------------------------------------- Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of all holders of Rentech Nitrogen Partners, LP ("Rentech" or the "Partnership") (NYSE:RNF) common units in the United States District Court for the Central District of California relating to the proposed acquisition by CVR Partners, LP ("CVR") (the "Proposed Transaction"). If you are a Rentech unitholder and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Jason Brodsky or Evan Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC at (877) LEGAL-90 by visiting http://brodsky- smith.com/997-rnf-rentech-nitrogen-partners-lp.html, or via e-mail at investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com. There is no cost or obligation to you. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rentech is a nitrogen fertilizer company formed by Rentech, Inc. as a publicly traded master limited partnership. The complaint alleges that Rentech and its Board violated its Limited Partnership Agreement and breached their duties to Rentech unitholders and that Rentech and CVR aided and abetted such violation, in connection with their attempt to consummate the Proposed Transaction pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price. In addition, the complaint alleges that Rentech and the Board, through CVR, disseminated a false and misleading Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the "S-4") in violation of 14(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder in connection with the Proposed Transaction. On August 9, 2015, Rentech and CVR entered into a definitive agreement (the "Merger Agreement") whereby CVR would acquire all outstanding units of Rentech. Thereafter, on September 17, 2015, defendants caused the S-4 to be filed with the SEC and disseminated in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The complaint alleges the S-4 contains a number of false and misleading statements that are material to unitholders who are expected to rely upon the S-4 to determine whether to approve the Proposed Transaction. The S-4 omits a number of material facts necessary to make statements made therein not false and misleading, including the events leading to the Merger Agreement, the analyses conducted by the Board's financial advisor, and Rentech's prospective financial information. Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and case action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. Jason L. Brodsky, Esq. Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610.667.6200 Fax: 610.667.9029 Email: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Suit Seeks to End Use of Cash Bail System ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Emslie. writing for KQED, reported that a federal class- action lawsuit filed alleges San Francisco's bail system is unconstitutional. The Washington, D.C.-based civil rights organization bringing the lawsuit is hopeful that it could not only topple the "money bail" system in San Francisco, but also across the state. "State law actually requires City and County of San Francisco to use the generic bail schedule," said Phil Telfeyan, head of Equal Justice Under Law. "Our lawsuit is focused on San Francisco, but the impact could be broader." The suit was initially brought on behalf of two women arrested in San Francisco, but Telfeyan is asking the court to certify a class action on behalf of "all arrestees unable to pay for their release pursuant to Defendants' fixed bail schedule who are or who will become in the custody of the City and County of San Francisco." Prosecutors discharged the cases against both named plaintiffs -- Riana Buffin and Crystal Patterson -- meaning they were both released and aren't currently facing charges, said Telfeyan and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Buffin was arrested under suspicion of grand theft. She stayed in jail for two days until her case was discharged. Patterson was arrested under suspicion of assault with force causing great bodily injury. Her case was also discharged -- a matter of hours after she paid a bail agent $1,500, or 1 percent of her $150,000 bail. Because she made that deal, she owes the bail agent a full 10 percent of the bond, or $15,000. "Had she been able to wait another six hours or 12 hours in jail," Deputy Public Defender Chesa Boudin said, "she wouldn't have had to go into debt. The problem that we see in Ms. Patterson's case and in so many of my clients' cases is that people are faced with this coercive choice: Go into tremendous amounts of debt, plead guilty to a crime you may not have committed or wait in jail and lose everything that's dear and meaningful in your life." A district attorney's spokesman said prosecutors are awaiting further investigation into both cases in order to pursue charges. The president of the California Bail Agents Association called the lawsuit "misleading." "We've already seen in California the crime rates have gone up," said Maggie Kreins, who is proprietor of Maggie's Bail Bonds in Long Beach in addition to heading the association. "It's getting scary out there, and they're making it so nobody's going to be held accountable for anything anymore." Kreins said bail agents have a proven record of "bringing people back to court, and bringing justice to victims." "When these individuals don't go to court, who's going to go look for them?" she said. "The taxpayers are going to have to pay two or three times to arrest the same person." But in San Francisco, there's widespread agreement among law enforcement leaders for doing away with the "money bail" system. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi filed a declaration in support of the lawsuit and joined Telfeyan and Boudin in announcing it. He said between 75 and 85 percent of San Francisco's jail population is pretrial at any given time. About one-third are there because they can't afford $5,000 bail. Mirkarimi said if people are not a safety or flight risk but are nonetheless taken from their families and their jobs, "this furthers the destruction and ruination of people and families in San Francisco." Former Chief Deputy Sheriff Vicki Hennessy -- who is challenging Mirkarimi for the top job -- said in an email to KQED that "the current system is inherently unfair." District Attorney George Gasc¢n said he's been working for years to replace the monetary bail, "not only in San Francisco but more broadly, hopefully around the state." "Money bail doesn't necessarily deal with risk," he said. "You can have people that are very risky but are financially capable of posting bail, and they're going to get released. And you've got people on the other end that may not be a risk, but they may not have the monetary ability to post bail, and they remain in custody for days, weeks and sometimes longer." Gasc¢n said he's been working with the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to develop a predictive tool that could inform judges about the likelihood any given arrestee would reoffend, hurt someone or fail to show up for his or her court date. He hopes to introduce the system into San Francisco courts early. He said he wasn't in support of ditching "money bail" without a comprehensive system to replace it. "Just simply taking money without a validated risk assessment tool would be a horrible mistake," he said. SEPHORA: Attorneys Attempt to Resolve Discrimination Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Melanie Woodrow, writing for ABC 7 News, reported that a popular San Francisco beauty retailer is under fire for alleged discrimination. Attorneys tried to resolve a discrimination class action lawsuit that alleges the company deactivated thousands of Asian customer accounts because it believed they were buying products in bulk to re-sell. Sephora says the case has no merit. Sephora calls its customers Beauty Insiders. If you spend a lot of money you can become a VIB, or Very Important Beauty Insider. VIBs get special perks like access to exclusive sales. There's one coming up in early November. But during sale, this class action lawsuit alleges many Asian customers couldn't shop the sale because Sephora deactivated their accounts. "I'm definitely a big shopper at Sephora," said customer Rahil Daud. Daud has spent so much money at Sephora she's gained elite status -- VIB Rouge. The title means she gets access to exclusive sales. "It's definitely a really nice little red carpet treatment that you're getting," she said. Many customers who earned the treatment are angry their Sephora accounts got deactivated. A class action lawsuit alleges Sephora discriminated against Asian customers during one of its VIB exclusive sales. According to the suit, Sephora posted a message on its Facebook Page admitting it de-activated customer accounts due to reselling, which is purchasing products in large volume to resell through other channels. The suit alleges the accounts deactivated used web domains originating in Asia "The only account holders who could not access the website had email addresses associated with three Chinese email service providers," said attorney Jeanne Christensen. Christensen says email addresses with Asian sounding names were also deactivated. Sephora denies the claims. The company says clients from many countries including the U.S. were impacted. In an emailed statement the company said: ""As we have said before, the allegations in this lawsuit are untrue and the claims are entirely without merit. In fact, clients from many countries around the world, including the U.S., were impacted by the temporary outage of the Company's website during a promotional event. Sephora would never engage in any form of discrimination with respect to its clients, and it looks forward to full exoneration in this lawsuit." While the attorney is not allowed to share details about the mitigation it could include some sort of relief for customers whose accounts were deactivated. SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Court Trims Suit by Mortuary Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned CURTIS JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SERENITY TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-02004-JSC, (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs Curtis Johnson (Johnson) and Anthony Aranda (Aranda, and together Plaintiffs) filed suit against their employer, Defendants Serenity Transportation, Inc. (Serenity Transportation), its owner David Friedel (Friedel), as well as Service Corporation International (SCI), SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. (SCI California), the Neptune Society of Central California, Inc. (Neptune Society), Lifemark Group, Inc. (Lifemark), and the County of Santa Clara. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint (TAC) is that Plaintiffs -- mortuary drivers -- have been misclassified as independent contractors and denied the benefits of California and federal wage-and-hour laws. Defendants seek dismissal of all claims against Friedel for failure to plead alter ego liability, all claims against SCI, SCI California, Neptune, Lifemark, and the County -- the Customer Defendants -- for failure to plead that they are joint employers, as well as dismissal of various causes of action for failure to state a claim. In her Order dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/FX6EFXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Corley granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Specifically, the Court declined to dismiss the claims against Friedel or the third and seventh causes of action. However, the Court dismissed the claims against the Customer Defendants, but Plaintiffs were given leave to amend to add allegations that establish that the Customer Defendants were joint employers for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. In addition, the Court dismissed with leave to amend the second cause of action to the extent that it asserts failure to compensate for on-call time. Plaintiffs' amended complaint is due by November 16, 2015. Peter Scott Rukin, Esq. -- prukin@rhdtlaw.com -- and Valerie Jean Brender, Esq. -- vbrender@rhdtlaw.com -- of Rukin Hyland Doria Tindall LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Curtis Johnson Jeffery M Hubins, Esq. -- jhubins@schauman-hubins.com -- of Gurnee Mason & Forestiere LLP serves as counsel for the Defendants. SIENTRA INC: November 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- MarketWatch, reported that the following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Sientra, Inc. ("Sientra") (nasdaqgs:SIEN) between March 18, 2015 and September 24, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Central District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Sientra securities between March 18, 2015 and September 24, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: http://zlk.9nl.com/sientraor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that Sientra's exclusive reliance on Silimed's Brazilian manufacturing facilities carried significant quality control risks and that the manufacturing processes at the Silimed Rio de Janeiro manufacturing plant were contaminated. On March 18, 2015, Sientra filed its Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which stated that it was primarily responsible for the manufacturing and quality assurance of its products. On September 24, 2015, the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency suspended sales of Silimed products after an audit of Silimed's manufacturing processes revealed contamination in the manufacturing plant. On this news, Sientra stock fell $10.88, or nearly 52.9%, to close at $9.70 per share on September 24, 2015. If you suffered a loss in Sientra you have until November 24, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Joseph E. Levi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad St., 24th FL New York, NY 10004 Toll Free: 877-363-5972 Tel: 212-363-7500 Fax: 212-363-7171 Email: jlevi@zlk.com SPLENDOR LANDSCAPE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enrique Rubio Rojas, Oscar Saravia, David Antonio Hernandez Umana, Jose Rolando Osorio, Juan Armando Hernandez and Bartolo Adelio Cortez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Splendor Landscape Designs Ltd. and Robert Hirsch, individually, Case No. 2:15-cv-05809-LDW-AKT (E.D.N.Y., October 8, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Splendor Landscape is a Long Island-based landscape design company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO 503 Route 11, Suite 203 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: peteraromero@gmail.com - and - Jose G. Santiago, Esq. THE SANTIAGO LAW FIRM, P.C. 356 Middle Country Rd., Suite 311 Coram, NY 11727 Telephone: (631) 240-4355 Facsimile: (631) 406-4911 E-mail: jose@santiagolawfirm.com SPOKEO INC: High Court Divided Over Data Collection Dispute ------------------------------------------------------------ Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that no one at the Supreme Court on Nov. 2 disputed the fact that an online profile of Thomas Robins was riddled with false and misleading information. The profile of the Virginia resident compiled by Internet search site Spokeo.com said Robins had a graduate degree, a good job and was married with children. In fact, Mr. Robins had no advanced degree and was unemployed, with no wife or children. But the justices appeared sharply divided along ideological lines over whether Mr. Robins can sue the company for a technical violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, even if the mistakes didn't cause him any specific harm such as a lost job opportunity or denial of credit. The case pits business groups concerned about exposure to costly litigation against consumer protection advocates who say such lawsuits are the only way to hold companies accountable for mistakes. Mr. Robins is pursuing a class action case against Spokeo on behalf of thousands of plaintiffs, which could lead to damages in the billions of dollars. Liberal justices seemed to side with Mr. Robins' view that being falsely portrayed is enough to show harm. But conservatives insisted the law required Robins to show how he was injured. "Seems like a concrete injury to me," Justice Elena Kagan said of the mistakes. "If somebody did it to me, I'd feel harmed." Justice Kagan said that Congress passed the fair credit law in the first place because lawmakers were concerned about people being injured by the dissemination of false information. "People get these reports and you don't know what they are doing with these reports," she said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested the false information could have harmed Robins in unexpected ways. "I will tell you that I know plenty of single people who look at whether someone who's proposed to date is married or not," she said. "So if you're not married and there's a report out there saying you are, that's a potential injury." Spokeo lawyer Andrew Pincus argued that Mr. Robins' claims are too speculative and not the kind of "tangible" injury to economic or property rights that Congress intended when it passed the fair credit law. The law was designed to keep companies from compiling inaccurate information that could jeopardize a person's ability to get loans or find work. Violators can face damages of $1,000 per violation, but that can climb into the millions in class action cases. Justice Antonin Scalia said Congress was not focused on faulty information itself, but on the failure of credit reporting agencies to follow proper procedures in collecting and reporting data. "In fact, Congress has not identified misinformation as a suable harm," Justice Scalia said. A lower court ruled that Robins could not sue because the errors were harmless. But a federal appeals court overturned that decision, saying it was enough that Spokeo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Arguing for Mr. Robins, attorney William Consovoy said Congress meant to allow lawsuits for people with a "personal stake" in the publication of inaccurate information. Chief Justice John Roberts wondered what would happen if a person had an unlisted number and a data company published a phone number that happened to be wrong. Is there still an injury? Mr. Consovoy agreed that would be enough. But Chief Justice Roberts said the court has historically required an "injury in fact" that seems to be lacking in Mr. Robins' case. Spokeo's website allows subscribers to look up personal information about almost anyone. It has a searchable database of profiles that includes addresses, phone numbers, marital status, age, employment information, education and economic health. But the information is collected from a variety of public sources and the company warns that it sometimes contains inaccuracies. The case is being closely watched by Facebook, Twitter and a host of other technology firms concerned about class action lawsuits that would open them up to billions of dollars of damages for trivial violations of the fair credit law and similar statutes protecting consumer privacy rights. A decision is expected by the end of June. STREAM: Fifth Circuit Decertifies Class Suit -------------------------------------------- Stream, a leading direct selling company and provider of essential services, on October 16 realized a key appellate victory in its ongoing Federal class action litigation before the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Arising out of oral arguments held during February 2015, the Fifth Circuit panel voted to decertify a purported class of plaintiffs whose two named representatives alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. This appellate ruling reverses a prior January 2014 order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas that erroneously certified a class of plaintiffs consisting of current and former Stream Independent Associates. The Federal class action lawsuit in question alleges that Stream operates a pyramid scheme in violation of Federal racketeering laws. Stream has vehemently denied these charges and steadfastly maintains that the company's Independent Associates sell essential services (including energy, mobile and protective services) in a legal and ethical manner. "We are pleased with the court's decision and appreciate its careful and considered analysis. There is no doubt that Stream sells real services through a proven and efficient network marketing model that incents our sales force of Independent Associates to gather customers on our behalf across America. We look forward to the end of this nagging litigation and will continue to doggedly defend our good name," said Mark "Bouncer" Schiro, president and CEO of Stream. The two remaining plaintiffs have indicated their desire to file a petition for rehearing en banc with the Fifth Circuit, thereby requesting that the matter be reconsidered by all active justices serving the Fifth Circuit. The case will only be reheard if a majority of the 15 active justices now sitting on the Fifth Circuit so agree. About Stream Stream (Stream Energy), headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a leading nationwide provider of essential services, including Energy Services, Mobile Services and Protective Services. Stream innovated the energy market in 2005 by applying a direct selling model to energy, generating more than $7 billion in total revenue in just ten years. A consistently ranked top direct selling company globally, Stream provides its Independent Associates with the opportunity to earn additional income through such product sales. STUDENT AID CENTER: Must Defend Against "Abella" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Stewart Dalzell denied the motions to dismiss, to strike and for a more definite statement, which were filed by the defendant in the case captioned BENJAMIN ABELLA, v. STUDENT AID CENTER, INC. and MOZEA LLC, Civil Action No. 15-3067, (E.D. Pa.) Plaintiff Benjamin Abella brings this putative class action claim pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C.A. Section 227. Defendant Student Aid Center (SAC) is a student loan consolidation and forgiveness service that offers assistance to consumers hoping to alleviate their student loan debt burden. Defendant Mozeo is an online platform designed to facilitate "bulk sms (sic) text blasting" and allow a business to "easily reach all of [its] mobile contacts." SAC partnered with Mozeo to conduct a nationwide "bulk sms (sic) text blast," or a mobile marketing campaign. The campaign sent unsolicited text messages to consumers' cellular telephones without obtaining any form of prior express consent. Abella was the recipient of many unwanted text messages in March and April of 2015. Abella received a text message from SAC through Mozeo and responded "STOP." This request was followed by the receipt of a Mozeo Promotional Text Message disguised as an opt- out text message. Abella is not a customer of SAC or Mozeo. He did not provide his cellular telephone number to either company and did not supply any form of prior express consent to receive text messages from SAC or Mozeo. Abella alleges that SAC and Mozeo were aware that these text messages were being made on a widespread basis to consumers who had not consented to receive them. Defendant SAC has submitted four motions: -- to dismiss Abella's complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). -- to dismiss Abella's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). -- to strike the class definition and the complaint's reference to the "legion" of alleged complaints made against SAC pursuant to Rule 12(f). -- in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). In his Memorandum dated October 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/x2k9k0from Leagle.com, Judge Dalzell denied the SAC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, motion to strike the class definition and allegations of consumer complaints, and its motion for a more definite statement. The Court rejects SAC's assertion that Abella must plead that he was charged for the messages in order to state a plausible claim for relief. SAC has made a factual attack asserting that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction because it "served Plaintiff with a Rule 68 Proposal for Settlement which would fully resolve all of his claims." The Court does not find that Abella's complaint so vague as to preclude SAC from framing a responsive pleading. The complaint alleges that SAC has sent text messages to the cell phones of Abella and other individuals without their consent in violation of the TCPA. Abella has stated the exact dates on which he received these text messages in his complaint. He has also buttressed his class allegations by alleging numerous consumer complaints about receiving unwarranted text messages from SAC. In fact, Abella has painstakingly detailed the alleged relationship between defendants SAC and Mozeo in a way that clearly describes how certain individuals end up receiving text messages they had not consented to receiving. This goes beyond the pleading requirements set out by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. SAC's motion for a more definite statement is without merit, and should therefore be denied. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. -- brichman@edelson.com -- Courtney C. Booth, Esq. -- cbooth@edelson.com -- and Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- of Edelson McGuire LLC and David S. Senoff, Esq. of Caroselli Beachler McTiernan and Coleman serve as counsel for Plaintiff Benjamin Abella Gustavo D. Lage, Esq. -- glage@smgqlaw.com -- of Sanchez-Medina Gonzalez Quesada Lage and Patrick T. Henigan, Esq. -- phenigan@eckellsparks.com -- of Eckell Sparks Levy Auerbach Monte Rainer Sloane Matthews serve as counsel for Defendant Student Aid Center, Inc. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Mares" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Sadashiv Mares v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv- 03253-JSW, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-07920-DMG-MRW to the proceeding. The complaint seeks damages for alleged wage and hour violations. Swift Transportation is a Phoenix, Arizona based publicly held American truckload motor shipping carrier. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald Joseph Clapp, Esq. AIMAN-SMITH AND MARCY 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1020 Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone: (510) 590-7115 Facsimile: (510) 562-6830 E-mail: djc1.asm@gmail.com Defendant Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona LLC is represented by: Ronald John Holland, II, Esq. Babak G. Yousefzadeh, Esq. John David Ellis, Esq. Paul Scott Cowie, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: rholland@sheppardmullin.com byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com pcowie@sheppardmullin.com SYNCHRONY BANK: Accused of Violating TCPA in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ Bradley Moore, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 3:15-cv-02261-CAB-JMA (S.D. Cal., October 8, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com T & W RESTAURANT: "Weng" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Li Weng, and all others similarly-situated v. T & W Restaurant Inc., T & W Payroll Services, Inc. dba Shun Lee West, Michael Tong, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-08167 (S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, reimbursement for expenses relating to tools of the trade, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Manhattan, doing business as Shun Lee West. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com TERRRAFORM GLOBAL: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Cal. under Sec.11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against (1) TerraForm Global, Inc. ("TerraForm Global") (NASDAQ:GLBL); (2) the sponsor of the IPO and TerraForm Global's controlling entity, SunEdison, Inc. ("SunEdison"); (3) certain of TerraForm Global's senior executives and directors who signed the July 31, 2015 Registration Statement for TerraForm Global's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") (the "Offering"); and (4) each of the underwriters of the Offering. TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted "clean power" generation assets in emerging market countries. Prior to its IPO, TerraForm Global was known as "SunEdison Emerging Markets Co." The bulk of TerraForm Global's business is acquiring power generation assets that produce long-term contracted cash flows, primarily by serving utility and commercial customers from SunEdison. The Sponsor of the TerraForm Global IPO was SunEdison. SunEdison is one of the world's largest developers of wind and solar energy projects and is one of the world's prime developers and installers of solar energy facilities. In the IPO, TerraForm Global and the Defendants sold 45,000,000 shares of common stock at an offering price of $15.00 per share, representing gross proceeds of $675 million. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose a number of problems seriously undermining TerraForm Global's business and prospects. Specifically, unbeknownst to investors, the Registration Statement's representations were materially untrue, inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose, inter alia, that, by the time of the July 31, 2015 IPO: (i) SunEdison was experiencing unprecedented losses that would be revealed mere days after TerraForm Global's IPO was finalized; (ii) SunEdison was experiencing severe liquidity and debt issues that ended its ability to develop projects to sell to TerraForm Global, meaning that the Company's "YieldCo" business model was effectively moribund from the outset; and (iii) the aggressive growth plans for SunEdison and TerraForm Global were unachievable. On August 6, 2015, only two days after the TerraForm Global IPO closed, SunEdison reported a loss of $263 million in its second quarter on $455 million of revenue, and a net loss of $0.93 per share compared to consensus estimates of a net loss of $0.55 per share. SunEdison's debt was also reported at nearly $11 billion. On this news, the Company's shares fell from $13.66 on August 5 to $11.27 on August 6, a drop of over 17%. Then, on October 7, 2015, SunEdison revised down its installation projections for 2016 and said it did not expect to sell any projects through to TerraForm Global. Rather, SunEdison will be looking exclusively for outside buyers or will hold the projects on SunEdison's balance sheet. You can view a copy of the complaint here: Complaint If you purchased TerraForm Global stock and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than December 28, 2015. Any member of the class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott- scott.com, (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott- scott.com. Joseph V. Halloran, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT LLP The Chysler Building 405 Lexington Ave., 40th Flr New York, NY 10174-4099 Phone: (646) 582-0121) Fax: (212) 233-6334 Email: jhalloran@scott-scott.com TRANSURBAN USA: Virginia Judge Narrows Claims in "Brown" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James C. Cacheris granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the captioned case JO-ANN BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRANSURBAN USA, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 1:15CV494(JCC/MSN), (E.D. Va.) This case involves Virginia's hotly contested "Public-Private" toll lane scheme. Plaintiffs in this case seek class action status, and are all users of the High-Occupancy Toll Roads operated by Defendants in Northern Virginia. Plaintiffs bring four causes of action under state law against all Defendants: unjust enrichment (Claim Four), violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) (Claim Six), violation of the Virginia Consumer Protect Action (VCPA) (Claim Seven), and tortious interference with contract (Claim Eight). Three motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint were filed by (1) Defendants Transurban (USA), Inc., Transurban (USA) Operations, Inc., Capital Beltway Express, LLC, 95 Express Lanes, LLC (the "Transurban" Defendants); (2) Defendant Faneuil, Inc. ("Faneuil"); and (3) Defendant Law Enforcements Systems, LLC ("LES"). Pursuant to the Public-Private Transportation Act (PPTA), passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1995, Transurban contracted with the Commonwealth of Virginia to maintain and operate high- occupancy toll lanes ("HOT lanes") on the Capital Beltway, Interstate 495 ("I-495"), which opened on November 17, 2012, and on Interstate 95 ("I-95") and Interstate 395 ("I-395"), which opened on December 29, 2014. The HOT lanes on I-495 are colloquially known as the "495 Express Lanes" and the HOT lanes on I-95 and I-395 are colloquially known as the "95 Express Lanes." Both the 495 Express Lanes and the 95 Express Lanes collect HOT lane tolls through the use of an E-ZPass transponder mounted on the inside of the vehicle's windshield, which is linked to the driver's bank account or credit card; no cash toll booths are offered and instead, an E-ZPass transponder is required. HOT lane prices on the 495 Express Lanes and the 95 Express Lanes vary dynamically "according to real-time traffic conditions: the more drivers using the HOT Lanes, the more expensive the toll, and vise-versa." When an E-ZPass account is out of money to pay tolls, the bank account or credit card is automatically charged to reload the E-ZPass account. An E-ZPass account can become inadequately funded if the linked credit card expires or is otherwise cancelled. In his Memorandum Opinion dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/pcjd3Ufrom Leagle.com, Judge Cacheris granted in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss as follows: -- Claims Three and Four are dismissed in their entirety. -- Claims Six and Seven are dismissed as applied to The Collection Defendants, LES and Faneuil. -- Claims One, Two, Six, Seven, and Eight against Transurban will remain, as will Claims Five and Eight against LES and Faneuil. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their complaint. The Court finds that Plaintiffs could more than likely cure the pleading defects with regards to Claim Six and Claim Seven. Stated differently, an amendment would likely save Plaintiffs' VCPA and MCPA claims against Defendants' Faneuil and LES. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' request to amend the Amended Complaint. Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq. -- bdimuro@dimuro.com -- and Stephen Lybrook Neal, Jr., Esq. -- sneal@dimuro.com -- of DiMuro Ginsberg PC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Jo-Ann Brown Nathaniel Thomas Connally, III, Esq. -- tom.connally@hoganlovells.com -- and Jon Myer Talotta, Esq. -- jon.talotta@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells US LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Transurban USA, Inc. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Taps Criminal Defender in Sex Assault Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that Uber Technologies Inc. has enlisted white-collar defense boutique Clarence Dyer & Cohen to fight a lawsuit over the alleged sexual assaults of two women by Uber drivers. Partner Joshua Cohen entered an appearance on Nov. 4 in the Northern District of California. The suit was filed last month on behalf of two "Jane Doe" plaintiffs who claim they were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers after hailing a ride through the company's app. Plaintiffs lawyers with Wigdor and Anderson & Poole accuse Uber of putting its customers at risk by failing to implement adequate safety precautions and background checks. By marketing heavily to young women who have been drinking, the company puts profits ahead of safety, according to the complaint. The lawsuit seeks punitive damages and an injunction forcing Uber to correct the practices plaintiffs deem unsafe. Mr. Cohen, a former assistant federal public defender, did not immediately respond to phone or email messages seeking comment. Mr. Cohen's firm bio states that he specializes in representing criminal defendants in complex cases and is experienced managing parallel criminal and civil suits. It's the second case where San Francisco's Clarence Dyer & Cohen, a five-lawyer firm known for criminal defense and civil litigation, has stepped in to publicly defend Uber. Partner Nanci Clarence represents Uber in a separate case brought by two district attorneys over Uber's background checks and safety representations. The San Francisco and Los Angeles DAs sued Uber in San Francisco Superior Court, claiming the company falsely purports to conduct "rigorous background check[s]" on its drivers and charges customers a $1 "Safe Rides Fee" for the service. UNITED CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------- Louis Geser, and all others similarly-situated v. United Capital, Corp., A.F. Petrocelli, Anthony Miceli, Michael Weinbaum, Michael Lamoretti, Howard Lorber, Arnold Penner, and Robert Mann, Case No. 11619 (Del. Ch., October 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties related to a buyout of the minority stockholders' interest in United Capital by A.F. Petrocelli. United Capital is a diversified company engaged in the business of investing in and managing real estate properties, including the operation of full service hotels, and manufacturing engineered products. The Individual Defendants are board members of United Capital. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Berkery" Suit Over Phone Bills Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gerald Austin McHugh granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned JOHN C. BERKERY SR., Plaintiff, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-1085, (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiff, John C. Berkery, Sr., filed this action against Defendants Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership, alleging that Verizon fraudulently computed his telephone bills. Specifically, Berkery alleges that Verizon improperly charged him for In-Network calls and regularly miscalculated his monthly usage. Berkery brings claims under the Federal Communications Act (FCA), the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as well as state law claims for breach of contract and fraud. Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, arguing that Berkery's claims are each legally deficient and/or that the applicable statutes of limitations have lapsed. In his Memorandum dated October 29, 2015 available at http://is.gd/BPk3Aqfrom Leagle.com, Judge McHugh granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss on all counts. Berkery only pleads that he informed the credit reporting agencies that he disputed his credit information related to his former contract with Verizon. Berkery fails to allege that a credit reporting agency notified Verizon, as the furnisher of information here, of the dispute, and Verizon subsequently failed to undertake a reasonable and timely investigation. Therefore, Berkery's FCRA claim does not state a plausible claim for relief as currently pleaded. Count Six of the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, as an amendment may be able to cure the identified pleading deficiencies. Moreover, Counts One through Four of Plaintiff's Complaint are time-barred pursuant to the applicable statutes of limitations. Count One arises under the FCA and alleges that Defendants failed to adequately disclose billing practices in violation of the statute. The relevant statute of limitations is two years from the date that the cause of action accrued. According to the Court, viewing all allegations in the light most favorable to Berkery and interpreting the pleadings liberally, Berkery's FCA claim accrued in December of 2009, the latest date that Berkery may have canceled his service with Verizon due to dissatisfaction with his bills. Consequently, Berkery's FCA claim expired in December of 2011, well before he brought suit on February 18, 2015. Count Two, brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201, mirrors the allegations in Count One. The only distinction between the two counts is the relief requested, as Plaintiff requests a judicial declaration to ascertain the parties'" respective rights and duties with respect to Defendants' billing practices" under Count Two. As Berkery's underlying FCA claim is barred by the statute of limitations, his request for a declaratory judgment is also barred because it is predicated upon the same cause of action. Count Three is a common law breach of contract claim, which has a four-year statute of limitations under Pennsylvania law. The latest date that Berkery's contract claim accrued is December 2009. Therefore, Count Three has been time-barred since December of 2013. Count Four advances a claim for common law fraud. Pennsylvania has a two-year statute of limitations for fraud. Assuming that Berkery discovered Verizon's alleged fraudulent activity in December 2009, at the latest, this claim expired in 2011. Berkery is not entitled to equitable tolling in the present action, and his first four claims remain time-barred for failure to bring suit within the time allotted by the applicable statutes of limitations. John C. Berkery, Sr., Plaintiff, Pro Se Gregory T. Sturges, Esq. of Greenberg Traurig LLP serves as counsel for Defendant Verizon Communications, Inc. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shirley" Suit Alleges RICO Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Kerry N. Shirley, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Robert Bosch GmbH, Case No. 5:15-cv-01811 (N.D. Ala., October 16, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, false advertising and consumer fraud for intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009. Defendant Volkswagen USA is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, doing business as Volkswagen Group and/or Volkswagen AG, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Germany, with its principal place of business located in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation of Volkswagen USA. Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States. Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH ("Bosch") is a German multinational engineering and electronics company, headquartered in Stuttgart Germany. At all times from at least January 1, 2007 through the present, Bosch supplied the defeat device to Volkswagen. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC 301 Washington Street, Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Tel: (256) 532-2222 Fax: (256) 513-7489 E-mail: Artrip@mastandoartrip.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Warner" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Concealment -------------------------------------------------------------- Molly K. Warner, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Audi of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04791 (N.D. Calif., October 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud/fraudulent concealment, violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violations of California's False Advertising Law, violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, violations of the Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and unjust enrichment. Defendant Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation of Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Audi of America, Inc. The Defendants designed, manufactured, imported, and sold vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Zifkin, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Tel: (310) 752-2400 Fax: (310) 752-2490 E-mail: dzifkin@bsfllp.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wigley" Suit Alleges Deceptive Trade Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Wigley and Madonna Wigley, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01816 (N.D. Ala., October 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and Magnuson-Moss Act. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business in all 50 states and is organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all times relevant to this action, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Subject Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq. PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC 2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1 Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 208-9588 E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Urged to Quickly Report Emission Probe Findings ----------------------------------------------------------------- David McHugh and Geir Moulson, writing for The Associated Press, report that the fallout from Volkswagen's emissions-cheating scandal intensified on Nov. 4, as investors bailed out and European regulators pressured VW to quickly disclose the findings of an internal investigation. In the U.S., the company halted sales of seven models that allegedly were part of the cheating. On Nov. 3, VW admitted that it had understated the carbon dioxide emissions for 800,000 cars, widening the scope of a scandal that has forced the ouster of a CEO and prompted investigations and lawsuits on several continents. The company has been unable halt the flow of bad news since mid- September, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Volkswagen had installed software on 482,000 cars that enabled them to cheat on emissions tests for nitrogen oxide, a pollutant that contributes to smog and respiratory problems. The software reduced emissions when the car was on a test stand. Volkswagen acknowledged that 11 million vehicles with small diesel engines worldwide have the software -- but only after denying its use for more than a year. On Nov. 2, the EPA charged that Volkswagen also used cheating software in some cars with larger diesel engines, including Volkswagen's elite Porsche brand. Volkswagen has denied that claim, but over the past two days halted sales in the U.S. and Canada of the models involved: the Volkswagen Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, and the Audi A6, A7, A8, Q5 and Q7. Late on Nov. 3, VW said it had also found "unexplained inconsistencies" in emissions from some of its vehicles of carbon dioxide. The cars were sold under the Volkswagen, Audi, SEAT and Skoda brands, most of them in Europe and none in the United States. The company said the carbon dioxide problem could cost it 2 billion euros ($2.2 billion), on top of 6.7 billion euros it had already set aside to cover the costs of recalls. Analysts say the total costs in fines and lost sales could be several times that. Amid concerns over the escalating costs, the German carmaker's ordinary shares slid 9.5 percent to close at 100.45 euros. The shares have tumbled 23 percent since the scandal was revealed, and VW's total value has fallen $26.3 billion to $57.21 billion at the Nov. 4 euro-to-dollar conversion rate. The EU's executive Commission told Volkswagen to speed up its investigation, which is being led by law firm Jones Day. "Public trust is at stake here," spokeswoman Lucia Caudet told reporters on Nov. 4. "We need all the facts on the table." The commission has enforcement powers to ensure that manufacturers respect their obligations in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, including the possibility of imposing fines. Germany's transport minister indicated that VW will be on the hook for the costs of higher car taxes following the revelation that carbon dioxide emissions were understated. Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt noted that Germany's car tax is calculated on the basis of engine size and carbon dioxide emissions, and so "if these vehicles emit more CO2, over and above the respective limit, that makes a new calculation necessary." Mr. Dobrindt also said VW is responsible for finding a solution where "customers face neither extra costs nor effort." Of the 800,000 vehicles found to have excessive CO2 emissions, 98,000 had gasoline engines, Mr. Dobrindt said. Up until now, the scandal had only involved diesel engines. The widening scandal also prompted Moody's Investors Service to cut the rating on the Volkswagen's debt, which could make borrowing money more expensive for the company. The agency cited "mounting risks to Volkswagen's reputation and future earnings" from this week's new developments. VW CEO Matthias Mueller has promised the company will "relentlessly and completely clarify the matter." He has said the company must re-examine its corporate culture to prevent such missteps from occurring again. The news that Porsche vehicles might also have had the deceptive software is a potential embarrassment for Mr. Mueller, who headed Porsche before he became CEO. Mr. Mueller has said that upper management would not have involved itself in the details of software development and has pointed to "a few" employees who altered the software code. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Offers Car Owners $1,000 in Gift Cards, Vouchers ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Krisher, Dee-Ann Durbin in Detroit and Carlo Piovano, writing for The Associated Press, report that Volkswagen is offering $1,000 in gift cards and vouchers as a goodwill gesture to owners of small diesel-powered cars involved in an emissions cheating scandal. The offer announced on Nov. 9 goes to owners of 482,000 cars in the U.S., many who are angry at the company because they paid extra for the cars to be environmentally sensitive without losing peppy acceleration. VW is working on a fix for the cars, which are equipped with software that turns on pollution controls during government tests and turns them off while on the road. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the cars, with 2-liter four-cylinder diesel engines, emit 10 to 40 times the allowable amount of harmful nitrogen oxide while being driven. The offer also includes free roadside assistance for the diesel vehicles for three years. "We are working tirelessly to develop an approved remedy for affected vehicles," said Michael Horn, VW's U.S. CEO, said in a statement. "In the meantime we are providing this goodwill package as a first step towards regaining our customers' trust." VW said that its Audi luxury brand would launch the same program on Nov. 6. Meanwhile, Germany's Transport Ministry said on Nov. 9 that of the 2. 4 million vehicles being recalled for fixes in Germany, regulators "currently expect that approximately 540,000 will also need hardware changes" as well as software changes. It says Volkswagen will inform owners of the details. The company is recalling 8.5 million 2009-2015 model year cars with the software across Europe, starting next year. It says about 11 million cars worldwide have the software. Also on Nov. 9, Fitch, the credit rating agency, downgraded Volkswagen's debt by two notches to reflect the potential financial costs of the scandal as well as the management problems that led to the crisis in the first place. The downgrade follows a similar move by Moody's. Fitch cited the "possibility of further problems still to be uncovered" by the company's internal investigation as well as "relatively weak corporate governance." To get the gift cards and vouchers in the U.S., owners will not be required to sign anything giving up their right to sue Volkswagen or forcing them into arbitration, spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan. "There are no strings attached," she said. The fix of the 2-liter diesels in the U.S. could wind up hurting performance or perhaps fuel mileage, the two main reasons why people buy the diesels. More than 200 class-action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. against VW alleging that the scandal caused the diesel cars to drop in value. Early in October, Kelley Blue Book said the average resale value of Volkswagens with two-liter diesel engines fell 13 percent since mid-September, when VW admitted it cheated on the tests. Used car values often drop in the fall, since demand for them is stronger in the summer. But VW's diesel decline is unusually large. The price of gas-powered Volkswagens dropped 2 percent in the same period. Volkswagen already is offering $2,000 to current VW owners to trade in their cars for new vehicles, and the gift cards and vouchers would add $1,000 to that. The scandal expanded, when the EPA accused VW of cheating with different software on larger six-cylinder diesels in about 10,000 vehicles. VW also acknowledged finding irregularities in carbon dioxide emissions in 800,000 other vehicles, all outside the U.S. Some of those were powered by gasoline engines. The scandal drew protests from the Greenpeace environmental group on Nov. 9 outside the main entrance to VW's headquarters in Wolfsburg, Germany. Protesters unfurled a banner reading "Das Problem" -- a play on the carmaker's marketing slogan "Das Auto." In addition to their banner, the Greenpeace protesters also held a "C'' and a "2'' on either side of the round VW logo at the factory entrance, spelling out "CO2." WARRIOR GIRL: January 25 Trial Scheduled in Stock Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Attention purchasers of Warrior Girl Corp. ("WRGL") and/or Everock, Inc. ("EVRN") stock between September 2008 and March 2014: Charges have been filed against Harold Bailey Gallison II, a/k/a B.J. Gallison, a/k/a Bart Williams; Anna Hiskey; Michael Randles; Roger Coleman; Carl Kruse Sr.; Carl Kruse Jr.; Frank Zangara; Mark Dresner; and Charles Moeller in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The indictment was filed on June 24, 2015 and charges the defendants for their alleged involvement in an international stock manipulation and money laundering scheme involving Warrior Girl Corp. and Everock, Inc. The stocks were traded on the over-the-counter market under the ticker symbols "WRGL" and "EVRN." The alleged scheme was designed to artificially inflate stock prices and volume through promotional activities. Defendants then allegedly sold the shares at inflated prices and laundered the proceeds through offshore accounts. The scheme was facilitated through an offshore brokerage and money laundering platform located in Costa Rica that went by various names including: Sandias Azucaradas, Moneyline Brokers, and Trinity Asset Services. The indictment charges Gallison, Hiskey, Kruse Sr., and Kruse Jr. with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of securities fraud in connection with a pump-and-dump scheme involving Warrior Girl, Corp. Gallison, Hiskey, Zangara, Moeller, and Dresner are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of securities fraud in connection with a pump-and-dump scheme involving Everock, Inc. Additionally, Gallison, Hiskey, Coleman, and Randles are charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering. At this time, there has been no finding of guilt with respect to any of the defendants, and they are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The case is scheduled for trial on January 25, 2016, before United States District Court Judge Anthony J. Trenga in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandra Division, case number 1:15cr178. If you believe that you were a victim of these crimes, and you wish to receive notice of future developments in the cases, to submit written information concerning the impact these crimes have had on you to assist the court in determining defendants' sentences, should they be convicted, and any possible restitution, or to attend any hearings, please contact the Victim/Witness Coordinator at the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section at telephone number 1-888-549-3945 or go to the Case Updates section on the Criminal Division's Victim Witness webpage at: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/vns/index.html WEXFORD HEALTH: Suit by Menard Inmate Dismissed ----------------------------------------------- Michael Jackson, currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard"), brought a pro se civil rights action before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He sues a host of officials at four different prisons where he has been incarcerated since 2010. Two hospitals are also included among the Defendants. Plaintiff claims that various Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious mental health condition, as well as to other medical needs. Further, several Menard officers physically assaulted Plaintiff in June 2015. According to the complaint, Plaintiff has suffered from mental illness since childhood. While he was in prison at Western Illinois Correctional Center in March 2010, he was having a mental breakdown and got into a fight with his cellmate. He was on psychotropic medications at the time, but they were not working. He was charged with a disciplinary infraction; he was found guilty after a hearing where no mental health staff participated to inform the disciplinary committee that Plaintiff was mentally ill and not responsible for his actions. He was punished with three months in a small segregation cell. During Plaintiff's time in segregation, he received no meaningful mental health treatment, and his mental breakdown became worse. Because of this, his behavior caused him to incur several more disciplinary tickets, and his segregation time was extended. Again, no mental health staff appeared at his hearing, and he got no effective treatment. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, in the form of release from segregation, restoration of his lost good time, referral for a mental health evaluation, and a transfer to a medium-security prison that offers better mental health services. He notes that his complaint was written for him by a jailhouse lawyer. In her Memorandum and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/EzAUTFfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The individual defendants and defendants Memorial Hospital-Chester, St. Joseph Hospital, and Two Unknown Party Defendants (Doctor, Western IL CC; and Mental Health Psychologist, Western IL CC) are dismissed from this action without prejudice. Plaintiff is advised that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. The case is captioned MICHAEL JACKSON, # M-15131, Plaintiff, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES (Director), et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-920-NJR, (S.D. Ill.) WILMINGTON TRUST: Judge Grants Prosecutors to Join in Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The News Journal, reported that the shareholder class action against Wilmington Trust could hit a speed bump if the federal judge handling the case decides to halt discovery. On, U.S. District Court Judge Sue L. Robinson granted federal prosecutors the right to intervene in the civil case. the U.S. Attorney's Office in Wilmington is bringing criminal charges against bank executives in a separate suit. Shareholders had filed their civil class action claiming that they got burned by the bank's cover up of the state of its finances in the lead up to its acquisition by M&T Bank in 2010. Prosecutors argued in a filing earlier that they should be allowed to intervene in that civil suit and halt discovery -- including depositions and documents -- until the criminal case is done. Robinson said she would decide later whether to stay discovery. Prosecutors have brought criminal charges against seven executives and three customers of the bank -- two of those defendants have pleaded guilty. The criminal trial is scheduled for a year from now -- September 2016. WYANDOTTE, MI: Wayne County Sues Over Tax Court Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Charles E. Ramirez, writing for The Detroit News, reported that Wayne County has filed a class-action lawsuit against the city of Wyandotte over tax money that was supposed to be collected as part of a judgment levy earlier. The county alleges the city and its Downtown Development Authority and Tax Increment Finance Authority collected taxes intended for the judgment levy for their own use. The levy stems from a ruling in June that requires the county to replenish funds it pulled from a retirement fund. Downtown Development Authorities, or DDAs, and Tax Increment Finance Authorities, TIFAs, are systems cities, villages and townships use to fund improvement projects in specific districts. They use a mechanism that freezes the property taxes of the businesses in that zone at a specific level and tax increases above that level can be used to pay for the projects. "The (city of Wyandotte, its DDA and TIFA) have stated that they . . . intend to capture revenue raised from a special purpose millage levied by Wayne County," the county said in its lawsuit filed in Wayne County Circuit Court. "(They) have misconstrued applicable law to conclude that they are required to capture revenue from the judgment levy," the lawsuit said. "If (the city of Wyandotte, its DDA and TIFA) divert a portion of the judgment levy to their own use, the county will be unable to satisfy the judgment levy because the revenue collected will be insufficient." The county filed a class-action lawsuit to ensure, if successful, other municipalities' DDAs or TIFAs could not capture and use revenues from the judgment levy, officials said. It's not clear how much money Wyandotte's tax increment finance systems collected. The county's lawsuit only said "the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000,exclusive of interest and costs." Wayne County is asking the court for a speedy hearing on the matter. Wyandotte City Administrator Todd Drysdale and Mayor Joseph Peterson could not be reached for comment. Earlier, county attorneys gave Wayne County commissioners a briefing on the lawsuit. The commission met as a committee of the whole to discuss several matters, but went into closed session to discuss the suit and potential legal action on other issues. No formal action on any of the items was taken during the meeting, officials said. Commissioners are scheduled to meet next on as a full board. In June, the county levied a one-time tax on property owners to pay a $49 million judgment in favor of a county retiree fund. The lawsuit does not specify the amount allegedly withheld by Wyandotte. The judgment stemmed from a lawsuit retirees filed against the county for pulling $32 million from its "Inflation Equity Fund." For three decades, the fund provided retirees what's known as the "13th check." The $49 million made up for the amount taken from the fund, plus lost earnings. Commissioners passed a resolution to use the delinquent revolving tax fund to pay for the judgment, but County Executive Warren Evans vetoed it and the commission decided against overriding it. The result was the average Wayne County homeowner had to pay an extra $35 on their summer tax bill. Commissioners also discussed the county Treasurer's proposal to transfer $82 million from the delinquent tax revolving fund to the county's general fund. Earlier, Wayne County Treasurer Ray Wojtowicz told the commission there is an $82.5 million surplus in the county's delinquent tax revolving fund and he planned to transfer it to the county's general fund. ZAFGEN INC: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Zafgen, Inc. ("Zafgen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ZFGN). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the Firm immediately to discuss their legal options. If you purchased shares of Zafgen during the Class Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at joon@khanglaw.com. There has been no class certification in this case. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. According to the complaint, on October 16, 2015, the Company announced that the FDA had ordered a "partial clinical hold" on the Company's Beloranib clinical trials following the death of a patient. If you purchased shares of Zafgen during the Class Period, you have until December 21, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at joon@khanglaw.com. Joon M. Khang, Esq. KHANG & KHANG LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: 949-419-3834 Facsimile: 949-225-4474 Email: joon@khanglaw.com ZAFGEN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Zafgen, Inc. ("Zafgen" or the "Company") between January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders of Zafgen, Inc.who incurred losses on shares purchased within the Class Period are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. If you purchased the shares of Zafgen, Inc. during the period January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015, inclusive, you may, no later than December 21, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. The filed Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading public statements, and/or failed to disclose material information concerning adverse thrombotic events experienced by patients in the Company's clinical trials of its primary new drug product, beloranib. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that one participant in the beloranib Phase 3 study, who had died, was receiving beloranib and not a placebo. In addition, the Complaint alleges that while Zafgen had reported 2 thrombotic events in prior clinical studies, there had actually been 4 such events, as well as 2 additional thrombotic events in other ongoing studies. The Complaint further alleges that on October 15, 2015, the Food and Drug Administration placed a partial clinical hold on beloranib. On that news, the price of the Company's common stock fell to a close of $10.36 per share on October 16, 2015, from a close of $21.02 per share on the previous day. This 50% decline resulted in a market capitalization loss of $288 million.. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to the "Zafgen Investigation." Patrick Donovan, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-545-4708 Email: donovan@whafh.com ZYNGA: Settles Peeved Investors' Class Suit ------------------------------------------- Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge gave preliminary approval to a class action settlement of claims that video game developer Zynga artificially inflated its share prices. Lead plaintiff David Fee claimed in the 2012 lawsuit that Zynga executives, aware of the company's poor financial condition, sold their shares of the company for hundreds of millions of dollars - allowing them to shift the company's revenue losses from the first quarter to the second quarter of 2012, which artificially inflated the price of Zynga stock during the first quarter. By the time Zynga disclosed its true financial status, its stock price had fallen 37 percent in a single day, according to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley's order. Corley preliminarily approved a $23 million settlement fund. Deducted from the fund will be taxes, attorneys' fees, litigation costs and notice and claims-administration expenses. The plaintiff class consists of Zynga shareholders who purchased their stock between Dec. 15, 2011 and the close of trading on Feb. 14, 2012. If all class members make claims, they will receive $0.15 per share purchased, the order said. Jeffrey Norton, who represents the plaintiffs, said in a telephone interview that he expects about 100,000 claimants. Corley said in her ruling that the settlement "appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiation." She set a final fairness hearing for Jan. 28, 2016. Norton said that he was very pleased with the settlement's terms. "We feel confident that it will get final approval, and we think it's a fantastic settlement for the class," he said. The defendants' counsel did not respond to request for comment on morning. Norton is with Newman Ferrara, in New York City. The defendants are represented by Anna White, with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermot Continues to Defend Insurers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ McDermott International, Inc., continues to defend itself against a lawsuit filed by certain London Insurers asserting they have no obligation to indemnify the company for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. The Company states: "On or about August 23, 2004, a declaratory judgment action entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al., was filed by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company Limited (the "London Insurers"), in the 23rd Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish, Louisiana, against MII, J. Ray McDermott, Inc. ("JRMI") and two insurer defendants, Travelers and INA, seeking a declaration that the London Insurers have no obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI for certain bodily injury claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various state courts. Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim requesting a declaration of non-coverage in approximately 20 underlying matters. This proceeding was stayed by the Court on January 3, 2005. We do not believe an adverse judgment or material losses in this matter are probable, and, accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts relating to this contingency. Although there is a possibility of an adverse judgment, the amount or potential range of loss is not estimable at this time. The insurer- plaintiffs in this matter commenced this proceeding in a purported attempt to obtain a determination of insurance coverage obligations for occupational exposure and/or environmental matters for which we have given notice that we could potentially seek coverage. Because estimating losses would require, for every matter, known and unknown, on a case by case basis, anticipating what impact on coverage a judgment would have and a determination of an otherwise expected insured value, damages cannot be reasonably estimated." McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering, procurement, construction and installation company. The Company is focused on designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Brands Has 192 MARDOC Cases at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chiquita Brands International, Inc., has 192 MARDOC cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. The Company states: "Regarding the asbestos cases pending in the Northern District of Ohio and the Pennsylvania Federal Court, there are currently 192 MARDOC cases against the Company that have been remanded from the Pennsylvania Federal Court and we expect that the 182 cases still pending against the Company in Pennsylvania are likely to be remanded by the end of 2015. Pursuant to an order issued by the Ohio court, the Company and other interested parties are attempting to develop a process through which the remanded cases may be resolved without trial, either by settlement or dismissal. At this time no final agreement has been reached." Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (CBII) ,along with its subsidiaries, is an international marketer and distributor of bananas and pineapples sold under the Chiquita and other brand names in 70 countries, and packaged salads sold under the Fresh Express and other brand names primarily in the United States. The Company operates in three segments: Bananas; Salads and Healthy Snacks, and Other Produce. The Bananas segment includes the sourcing (purchase and production), transportation, marketing and distribution of bananas. The Salads and Healthy Snacks segment includes ready-to-eat, packaged salads, and other value-added products, such as healthy snacking products, fresh vegetable and fruit ingredients used in food service, processed fruit ingredients. The Other Produce segment includes the sourcing, marketing and distribution of whole fresh produce other than bananas. The primary product of the Other Produce segment is pineapples. ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Part Units Continue to Defend PI Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend themselves against asbestos-related lawsuits , according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary WAG, are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements. U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. (U.S. Auto Parts) is an online source for automotive aftermarket parts and repair information. The Company is an online provider of aftermarket auto parts, including body parts, hard parts and performance parts and accessories. Its Websites provide a range of stock keeping units (SKUs) with detailed product descriptions and photographs. The Company operates through two segments: Base USAP, which is the core auto parts business, and AutoMD, an online automotive repair source. The Company offers a range of aftermarket auto parts. The Company classifies its products into three categories: body parts serving the collision repair segment, hard parts to serve the replacement/wear parts market and performance parts and accessories. The Company sells its products through its network of Websites and online marketplaces, including www.autopartswarehouse.com, www.carparts.com, www.jcwhitney.com and www.AutoMD.com. The Company has approximately 2,100 repair shops. ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Corp. Has No Insurance for Fibro Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- VWR Corporation says insurance for liability relating to asbestos is not available, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. The Company states: "Our business involves risk of product liability, patent infringement and other claims in the ordinary course of business arising from the products that we source from various manufacturers or produce ourselves, as well as from the services we provide. Our exposure to such claims may increase as we seek to increase the geographic scope of our sourcing activities and sales of private label products and to the extent that we expand our manufacturing operations. We maintain insurance policies, including product liability insurance, and in many cases the manufacturers of the products we distribute have indemnified us against such claims. We cannot assure you that our insurance coverage or indemnification agreements with manufacturers will be available in all pending or any future cases brought against us. Furthermore, our ability to recover under any insurance or indemnification arrangements is subject to the financial viability of our insurers, our manufacturers and our manufacturers' insurers, as well as legal enforcement under the local laws governing the arrangements. In particular, as we seek to expand our sourcing from manufacturers in the Asia-Pacific region and other developing locations, we expect that we will increase our exposure to potential defaults under the related indemnification arrangements. Insurance coverage in general or coverage for certain types of liabilities, such as product liability or patent infringement in these developing markets may not be readily available for purchase or cost-effective for us to purchase. Furthermore, insurance for liability relating to asbestos, lead and silica exposure is not available, and we do not maintain insurance for product recalls. Accordingly, we could be subject to uninsured and unindemnified future liabilities, and an unfavorable result in a case for which adequate insurance or indemnification is not available could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations." VWR Corporation (VWR) is a provider of laboratory products, services and solutions to the life science, general research and applied markets. The Company operates in two segments: North, Central and South America (Americas) and Europe, Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific (EMEA-APAC). It has a presence in Europe and North America with respect to the laboratory products market. It also has operations in Asia-Pacific and other markets to support its multinational customers across the globe. The Company offers a portfolio of and private label laboratory products and a range of services, including custom manufacturing. The Company's portfolio includes chemicals, reagents, consumables, durable products and scientific equipment and instruments. The Company's branded and private label product portfolio includes service offerings marketed under the VWRCATALYST brand, including sourcing and procurement, logistics, chemical and equipment tracking and sample management. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint, Units Continue to Defend PI Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, and its subsidiaries continue to defend themselves in lawsuits filed by individuals who claim injury due to 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 June 30, 2015. Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries, including CenterPoint Houston, have been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by CenterPoint Energy or CenterPoint Houston, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's other subsidiaries or CenterPoint Houston. In 2004 and early 2005, CenterPoint Energy sold its generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to a company which is now an affiliate of NRG. Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the generating business from CenterPoint Energy and its sale of that business, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by the NRG affiliate, but CenterPoint Energy has agreed to continue to defend such claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by CenterPoint Energy, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such defense by the NRG affiliate. CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, CenterPoint Houston or CenterPoint Energy, as appropriate, intends to continue vigorously contesting claims that it does not consider to have merit and, based on its experience to date, CenterPoint Houston does not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, is an electric transmission and distribution utility based in Houston. The Company caters toretail electric providers (REPs) in the Texas Gulf Coast area. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Worker Dies of Mesothelioma --------------------------------------------------------- Sophie Wills, writing for Workshop Guardian, reported that the widow of a worksop construction worker who died of an asbestos- related cancer is appealing for any information which will support her search for answers regarding his death. Graham Stocks, who lived in Worksop, died aged 77 in January 2014, around five months after being diagnosed mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of the lung caused by asbestos exposure decades ago. His widow Betty has now instructed specialist industrial illness lawyers to help her gain answers regarding how Graham was exposed to asbestos and is appealing to former colleagues to come forward and help with their enquiries. Graham worked for various construction companies between 1952 and 1981, including Morris and Oldfield Builders, General Refractories Ltd, Dernie & Bell Sons & Co Ltd, J.J. & A.R. Jackson Ltd, F.P.A. Finnegan Ltd, George Wimpey & Co Ltd J.T.Bell & Sons Ltd and P. Hassall Ltd on projects based in Worksop and Sheffield. Betty recalls his work often involved multiple roofing projects which may have involved asbestos sheeting and other work which saw him come into contact with pipes which were likely to have been lagged with asbestos. Betty said: "The shock of how quickly the illness affected Graham so soon after he was diagnosed still upsets me. " But I am determined to find answers and seek justice for him more than ever. "I am only able to pass on the information Graham told me when he was alive about the working conditions, but hopefully people who he worked with might be able to help to provide more information so that we can determine what caused his terrible illness." Laura Haigh, industrial disease expert at law firm Irwin Mitchell, representing Betty, said: "Mesothelioma is an aggressive and incurable cancer and has devastating consequences for sufferers and their loved ones. Sadly, despite employers knowing how dangerous it is, many in the past did not do enough to manage the risks of asbestos exposure to protect their employees. "Because the illness is linked to exposure to asbestos decades ago it can sometimes be difficult to find information on the working conditions the victims have endured. "In Graham's case, he worked for numerous different employers across the region and we would urge anyone who worked with him at any of the companies across Worksop, Sheffield and Newcastle to get in touch, as they might be able to provide vital information that may assist with our investigations." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employers Sued for Exposing Workers to Fibro ------------------------------------------------------------- Charlotte Helston, writing for Infotel.ca, reported that WorkSafe B.C. has slapped two local employers with heavy fines for exposing workers to asbestos. The first, Kelowna's Kone Inc., was handed a $15,000 penalty for potentially exposing its workers to harmful levels of asbestos. According to WorkSafe B.C., the company, which installs, maintains and repairs elevators and escalators, was first told to come up with an exposure control plan for preventing exposure to asbestos in November 2012, but as of April 2014, had not submitted an acceptable plan. WorkSafe B.C. says it 'repeatedly discussed ECP (exposure control plan) requirements with the firm.' Another workplace was also penalized for asbestos-related violations. The Sorrento Centre Anglican Church of Canada in the Shuswap was fined $14,384 for allowing workers to be in an area where there was damaged and exposed asbestos without using adequate personal protective equipment or safe work procedures. "The firm should first have ensured that all friable (easily crumbled) asbestos-containing materials were removed or enclosed so as to prevent the release of asbestos fibres. These designated high-risk violations may have exposed workers to asbestos, a known carcinogen," a WorkSafe B.C. report says. The church has filed a notice of appeal. Asbestos was a popular building material between the 1950s and 1990s due to its heat resistant properties and resilience to chemical erosion -- but we now know that it causes a number of serious health problems. It's often described as a hidden killer because asbestos-related diseases take a long time to develop. Once diagnosed, it's often too late for treatment. According to WorkSafe B.C., asbestos-related diseases resulted in 77 deaths in 2014, up from 59 in 2013. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victims Need to Sue Insurers for Payment --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Petro, writing for Bizjournal.com, reported that before taking on several cases for former Durez Plastics workers exposed to asbestos, attorney Michael Ponterio had never seen this type of ploy by an insurance company in these matters. His client, Joseph Muir, a former factory worker diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, was recently awarded $5.6 million from Hedman Resources Ltd. as part of a decision by Justice Deborah Chimes in New York State Supreme Court for Erie County. Hedman Resources sold raw asbestos to Durez in North Tonawanda for use in the manufacturing of a plastic molding compound that was sold to other U.S. plastics manufacturers. However, Muir will have to bring a second lawsuit and it must be successful for him to be able to collect the judgment. In 2012, Hedman's CEO entered into a series of agreements with liability insurers in which the insurance companies paid approximately $6 million to be released from their continuing obligations to pay company claims like Muir's. Ponterio, who co-founded Lipsitz & Ponterio in 1995 with law partner John Lipsitz, said he estimated the limits of Hedman's liability coverage to be in the range of $200 million. He said these cases have been like no others that he and Lipsitz have seen in their 30 years of asbestos litigation. And just like with three other cases initiated by former Durez workers, he plans to move forward with Muir and his family and litigate the case in federal court, even though it could take two to three years to reach resolution. "The family is aware that there's going to have to be another lawsuit that's filed to try to collect on this, but we think it's the right thing to do," Ponterio said. "It's setting a very bad precedent for the insurance companies to try to escape their liabilities." He said what makes these cases unique is the confidential nature of the deal that released Hedman's insurer from any future obligation to pay people who were exposed to and affected by asbestos. The company ceased mining operations many years ago and has no assets except for insurance policies covering it for personal injury claims. "There was no transparency for this deal and we feel like it smelled from Day One," Ponterio said. "You can't have an insurance company with an obligation for potential exposure for millions of dollars enter into a secret deal with no transparency and insulate themselves from any further liabilities." Muir and his wife, Nancy, live in Connecticut, where he is an engineer and project manager at General Dynamics Corp. The 58- year-old was diagnosed with cancer in July 2014 and has undergone chemotherapy and more than a dozen surgical procedures. In September he was told by doctors that tumors spread from his lymph nodes to his liver and spine and that he wasn't a candidate for more chemotherapy. Muir, a father of three, is undergoing experimental immunotherapy at an out-of-pocket cost of more than $30,000. During the summers of 1976 and 1977 he worked at Durez, handling and testing the molding compound that contained Hedman asbestos fiber. He also was exposed to asbestos brought home on the clothing of his father, Melvin Lee Muir, who was a career employee at Durez. The majority of his $5.6 million judgment was for lost income and medical expenses. The rest was for past and future pain and suffering. "Based upon the findings of fact, the court finds that the plaintiff established the defendant was negligent and the negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's claimed injury," the judge wrote in her decision. However, Muir's lawsuit has turned into a two-step process. Ponterio said that under normal circumstances, there would be a jury trial and Hedman Resources would have an attorney present and an opportunity to defend itself. But the company decided not to appear at trial, despite receiving notice of the proceedings. The Durez cases handled by Ponterio's firm have had a trial in which proof was presented and medical and liability testimony was given. When the decisions were issued, the firm had to enter judgment and then follow up by suing the umbrella access insurance carriers on the grounds that the deal brokered with Hedman was intended to prevent people from making legitimate claims against them. "From a common-sense point of view, insurance companies that have hundreds of billions of dollars in coverage cut a deal with the insured for pennies on the dollar," Ponterio said. "It was created to deprive legitimate consumers -- people in our community exposed to this product -- from being able to collect monies from the insurance companies." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma to Cost Insurers $85B, AMBest Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Ascher, writing for Insurance Insider, reported that the level of reserves US insurance companies are holding for future asbestos losses remains a concern, AM Best has said, maintaining its prediction that the mesothelioma crisis will cost the industry a total of $85bn. The rating agency said that of the expected total industry loss, only $79.7bn had been funded so far -- a 6 percent shortfall. But it said that the unfunded liability was "small" relative to the losses that the industry had already paid out. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Affirms Remand Order in Fibro Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an appellate court has affirmed an order remanding asbestos claims to Louisiana state court, concluding that the defendants had failed to show a causal nexus between their actions and the plaintiffs' claims. In the Oct. 19 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit noted that the plaintiffs' claims do not deal with the design of the vessels in question. The plaintiffs in the underlying cases alleged that they were exposed to asbestos-containing products while working as merchant mariners aboard vessels operated or owned by the defendants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Korean Mesothelioma Deaths on the Rise ------------------------------------------------------- Scientists in Korea say "slates" made of concrete and chrysotile asbestos are among the products that are likely to keep the mesothelioma death rate rising in the country until it peaks in 2021. "We predicted the mortality from asbestos-related diseases by year, from 2014 to 2036, according to the amount of asbestos used," explains study author Su-Young Kim of Kyungpook National University in Daegu. "As a result, it was predicted that a total of 1942 people (maximum, 3476) will die by 2036." The report in Science of the Total Environment predicts that the asbestos-containing slates alone, used extensively in Korean buildings in the 1970s, could cause 555 deaths from mesothelioma and other asbestos diseases by 2031. "This report is a sobering reminder that, because of the long latency period of mesothelioma, the threat posed by asbestos exposure does not end when the exposure is over," notes Surviving Mesothelioma Managing Editor, Alex Strauss. Kim, SY et al, "Predicting the mortality from asbestos-related diseases based on the amount of asbestos used and the effects of slate buildings in Korea", October 26, 2015, Science of the Total Environment, Epub ahead of print, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971530930X For nearly ten years, Surviving Mesothelioma has brought readers the most important and ground-breaking news on the causes, diagnosis and treatment of mesothelioma. All Surviving Mesothelioma news is gathered and reported directly from the peer- reviewed medical literature. Written for patients and their loved ones, Surviving Mesothelioma news helps families make more informed decisions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups Ask Caucus to Oppose Fibro Trust Bill ------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reported that public interest groups are appealing to the House Cybersecurity Caucus for help in fighting a Republican-backed bill they say will further harm people who have been poisoned by asbestos. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action Fund and five other interest groups, including Public Citizen and the Center for Justice & Democracy, wrote a letter to caucus co-chairs Reps. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) and Michael McCaul (R-Texas) asking the caucus to oppose the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015. The bill, which was approved by the Judiciary Committee in May and has been introduced in the Senate, would require asbestos trusts, which were set up to compensate workers and family members injured by a company's manufacturing of asbestos, to file quarterly reports on their public bankruptcy dockets that include information on demands for payments and the basis for payments made. Supporters, such as Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who introduced the bill, claim the legislation is needed to protect these finite trusts from paying out money for fraudulent or inflated claims. But the EWG Action Fund said the bill will force victims to disclose sensitive personal information on the Internet -- full names, birth years, work histories, medical conditions and a portion of their social security numbers -- when seeking claims, putting their personal security at risk. "If the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus is to maintain its credibility as a bipartisan group whose mission is to protect all Americans from the growing threats of identity theft and cyber attack, it must oppose any legislation that would put any American at increased risk," their letter said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK PM Pledges Help to Veterans with Mesothelioma ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Owen, writing for Independent.co, reported that the Prime Minister is to review the way in which veterans dying due to being exposed to asbestos during their military service are compensated, it emerged. During Prime Ministers Questions, David Cameron was challenged by Labour MP Dave Anderson over the unfair treatment of former service personnel suffering from mesothelioma, a deadly lung cancer caused by asbestos. The law protects the Ministry of Defence (MoD) from being sued for compensation for illness or injury caused before 1987. This means some 2,500 Royal Navy veterans who will die of mesothelioma from asbestos exposure on ships decades ago can only apply for a war pension. At around GBP31,000 a year, this is a fraction of the GBP180,000 lump sum a 63-year-old can expect under the Government's compensation scheme for civilians, claims the Royal British Legion. The Prime Minister described the military covenant as "one of the most important things that we have -- when we make a promise to our military that, because of the sacrifices they make on our behalf, they should not have less good treatment than other groups of people." Mr Anderson asked Mr Cameron to look into the issue of veterans who "stand to lose out massively when compared with people in civilian life," in what the Labour MP said was "a moral outrage" and "a clear breach of the military covenant." In response, the Prime Minister said: "I'm very grateful to the honourable gentleman for raising this issue, I understand that the Defence Secretary is looking at it." In relation to the military covenant, the Government has tried to make progress on issues such as "particular groups who have been disadvantaged in some way," he said. "I'm very happy to go away and look at the points that he makes," added Mr Cameron. The decision comes days after The Independent revealed the gulf in compensation given to civilians and veterans suffering cancer from asbestos exposure, prompting service charities and former military chiefs to demand action. Chris Simpkins, director general of The Royal British Legion, said: "We welcome the fact the Prime Minister has said that both he and the Defence Secretary will look into the current situation regarding compensating veterans suffering from cancer as a result of being exposed to asbestos while serving." He added: "The fact that veterans could receive around GBP150,000 less in compensation than their civilian counterparts is a clear breach of the Armed Forces Covenant. We look forward to the Government coming forward with a solution soon." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctor Has Arrangement with Sheldon Silver ----------------------------------------------------------- John Riley, writing for Newsday, reported that a prominent cancer doctor who referred asbestos-disease patients to former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's personal injury law firm testified he used the potentially lucrative cases to curry favor in hopes of getting research funding, but did not say that Silver ever explicitly linked the two. "I wanted to maintain a relationship with him so that he would be incentivized to be an advocate for mesothelioma research and he would help us with funding for mesothelioma research," said Dr. Robert Taub, the star government witness at Silver's corruption trial in federal court in Manhattan. But during cross-examination, the bow-tied former Columbia University professor seemed conflicted about the arrangement, calling Silver a "friend" and telling a defense lawyer the mesothelioma research funding Silver pushed was "absolutely the right thing" and funded "good work for New Yorkers." And when Silver lawyer Steve Molo asked if Taub and Silver had "an explicit agreement to exchange patients for grants," Taub responded, "I did not." Taub's testimony came on the second day of Silver's trial on bribery, extortion and money-laundering charges. The longtime Albany power broker is accused of giving two $250,000 state research grants to Taub in return for patient referrals, and doing legislative favors for developers in a similar scheme. Silver, 71, resigned after two decades as speaker when he was charged in January by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara but continues to represent Manhattan's Lower East Side. The case, along with the upcoming trial of former Senate leader Dean Skelos, is viewed as a linchpin of Bharara's crusade against Albany corruption. Taub, 79, a widely regarded expert on mesothelioma who established a research foundation at Columbia, said he had devoted his life to helping those with the "terrible" disease, but was fired when the Silver charges became public. He said he was suing Columbia. Silver and Taub first met in 1984, he testified, through a common friend, one-time Assembly aide Daniel Chill, and Taub approached Silver in 2003 because he had joined a major New York law firm for asbestos victims -- Weitz & Luxenberg -- that didn't donate to asbestos research, and he wanted to see if Silver could change the policy. Silver said he couldn't help, but "one to two weeks later" Taub said he learned -- in a conversation with Chill that he was not allowed to detail after a hearsay objection -- that Silver wanted referrals. @Newsday Taub said he knew the cases were "valuable," generating legal fees of one-third on multimillion-dollar recoveries, and felt Silver -- who got one-third of the firm's fee on referrals -- would make sure his patients were taken care of. "I hoped to develop a relationship with him that would help fund mesothelioma research, and would help my patients," Taub testified. At some point, he said, Silver "conveyed that he was pleased with the referrals he was getting." "Several months" later, Taub testified, he learned through Chill that Silver wanted him to apply for state research funding. He drafted a letter describing the research and requesting money. Prosecutors introduced an Assembly copy of it with a handwritten notation, "Shelly is very interested in this." Taub said he got $250,000 grants in 2005 and 2006, with less than the normal "vetting." Silver, he said, turned him down for a third grant in 2007, telling him, "I can't do this anymore." The indictment says the grants stopped because the health funds Silver was using ran out. Over 10 years, Taub testified, he referred 25 to 50 cases to Silver, calling his Assembly office to give contact information on patients. Although he never testified to a conversation linking grants and referrals, Taub did say Silver had a "pattern" of expecting favors to be repaid. He recalled a conversation in which Silver asked him to keep the arrangement private. Referrals to Silver shrunk after Taub started giving cases to a law firm that donated to his research, he said, and Silver at one point asked about the reasons. They remained on friendly terms until 2014, when Taub was approached by investigators and agreed to testify under a grant of immunity. In addition to the grants, he also testified about other favors Silver did -- helping Taub's children get work, offering to clear red tape for a charity event and arranging an Assembly citation for Taub's work. He said the favors were because they were "friendly," but acknowledged the relationship was subtle. "If you ask him to do something, he would ask for something in return," he testified. "If it's family or a very close friend, that's not what you expect." Taub's testimony is expected to resume. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Gov't to Spend $100MM for Fibro Removal --------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reported that the Government promised to spend $100 million to remove the potentially deadly fibre from buildings in Government schools by 2020. However, the Opposition said that meant they would have to remove asbestos from 23 schools a month to meet the target. The Opposition's education spokesman, Nick Wakeling, said parents were still waiting for details. "For families in Ballarat, for families in regional Victoria, they want to know when the asbestos will be removed," he said. "We know across the Ballarat region, upwards of 53 schools have had asbestos, yet this Government has not provided any explanation to local families how they will remove this asbestos. "They want to know when the Government will live up to its own commitment to remove the asbestos from their school. "It's not a difficult question, the Government simply needs to explain to local families when that asbestos will be removed." A Government spokesman said it was not looking for a quick fix and had spent the past few months doing unprecedented work to remove asbestos from schools. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conspiracy Alleged in Man's Fibro-Related Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angelino Menconi, writing for West Virginia Record, reported that a Marshall County woman is blaming more than 50 companies for the asbestos-related death of her brother. Representing the estate of Robert Detemple, Jr., Veronica Detemple filed suit on Sept. 10 in the Circuit Court of Marshall against the Ohio Power Company, Owens-Fiberglass, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and more than 50 other companies. The suit alleges Robert Detemple, Jr., died as a result of mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure while working construction jobs for a number of the defendants. It also alleges that all the defendants were involved in a conspiracy dating back to 1920 to falsify or mislead the public about the dangers and risks associated with asbestos. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory, liquidated and punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs of litigation. She is represented by Leslie Ann James of Hartley & O'Brien, PLLC in Wheeling. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mashava Mine's on $1BB Fibro Deposits --------------------------------------------------------- Walter Mswasie, writing for Chronicle.cozw, reported that the disused Mashava Mine under Shabanie and Mashava Mine (SMM) Pvt limited is sitting on $ 1 billion worth of asbestos deposit that could be exploited for the bettermen of the economy, a top official he said. Addressing provincial heads during a tour of that closed mione by Vice president Phelekezele Mphoko recently, SMM chief executive officer Chirandu Ndhlenbeu said the asbestos deposits lying idle underground have a lifespan of 17 years with the mine operating at full capacity. He said for the mine to resume operations, it needs at least $20 million for recapitalization. The money, he said, can be raised through leasing some of the mine's properties as well as running programmes whereby individuals pay for the training. Ndhlembeu said Mashava Mine alone has the capacityto produce at least 75,00 tonnes of asbestos in six months. He said the asbestos industry faces competition from global producers, the quality of mineral produced by both Shabanie and Mashaba Mines was the rated best and such as there is high demand for it. "The asbestos deposits we have at MAshaba ing Mine hve a potential of raising about $1billion at the present market rate," saidNdhlenbeu. He said at their peak Shabanie and MAshaba mines used to employ about 3,000 workers. Shabani and Mashava mines were put under judicial management in 2004 after encountering viability challenges, which saw about 75 percent of the of tha employees being retrenched. The country used to be fifth best producer of asbestos in the world contributing 150,000 tonnes of the mineral to the market per year and second best exporter after Russia, Brazil and Canada. VP Mphoko said Russian investor who visted the mine early expressed interest in the asbestos and promised to come back. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Owners May Face Penalty Over Fibro Cleanup ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Landis, writing for The State Journal-Register, reported that owners of the former Pillsbury Mills plant face the threat of a $500-a-day penalty retroactive to Sept. 9 after a circuit judge found them in civil contempt for failure to contain asbestos and secure the site on the northeast side of Springfield. A member of the ownership company, P. Mills LLC, says that while an engineering firm specializing in asbestos cleanup has been hired, the company cannot afford the cleanup demanded by state environmental regulators. Judge John Madonia found P. Mills LLC, Midwest Demolition Co. and Joey Chernis of Midwest Demolition in civil contempt for "willfully failing to retain a project designer for asbestos removal, and for failing to timely secure the property with sufficient signage." Chernis' father, Joe, is owner of Midwest Demolition. Madonia set a penalty of $500 a day, effective Sept. 9, if the company failed to hire an asbestos cleanup contractor and failed to secure the site, according to court records. A status hearing on compliance is set for Dec. 7. The Illinois attorney general's office sued P. Mills LLC, Midwest Demolition, Joey Chernis and Joe Chernis in August after inspectors for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency reported improper asbestos removal, including dozens of plastic bags containing asbestos and debris contaminated with asbestos. Inspectors also reported holes in the security fence and evidence of trespassing. Inspectors described the former plant as a "substantial danger" to the public and the environment. Madonia issued a restraining order prohibiting further demolition at the site. Joey Chernis, who court documents show also is a partner in P. Mills LLC, said that hiring an environmental engineering firm alone has cost about $15,000. He added that Midwest Demolition should not be held responsible for asbestos and security problems created by previous owners. The 18-acre site at 1525 E. Phillips St. has been through a series of owners since the plant closed in 2001. "We've not gained anything from this, other than a big headache," Chernis said. "If we're forced into bankruptcy, it'll just be sitting there vacant." Chernis said the group would like to resolve the issues, but neither P. Mills LLC nor Midwest Demolition can afford the expense of cleaning up the asbestos. He said he also has found it difficult to secure the site because of vandalism and break-ins. "We're made out to be the bad guys," Chernis said. "None of us have that kind of money. We've even tried to borrow money, but we were turned down because of all the publicity." Court records indicate that Joey and Joe Chernis have represented themselves at recent court hearings. Springfield attorney Don Craven, who had represented P. Mills LLC, said he has withdrawn from the case. A statement from the attorney general's office confirmed the hiring of an engineering firm to design an asbestos cleanup and efforts to secure the site. Inspectors from Illinois EPA also have visited the site to confirm that remaining asbestos is contained. Another inspection is scheduled for. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WCA Exclusive Remedy Bars Fibro Claim, Ct Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Unrath, Brad Elward and Melissa Schoenbein, writing for the National Law Review, reported that on November 4, the Illinois Supreme Court released its decision in the much-awaited case of Folta v. Ferro Engineering, 2015 IL 118070, which considered whether an employee can bring an action against an employer outside of the Workers' Compensation Act and Occupational Diseases Act when the employee's injury or disease first manifests itself after the expiration of certain time limitations under those acts. The court, in a 4-2 decision authored by Justice Theis, held that the employee's action is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the two acts. Justices Freeman and Kilbride dissented, and Justice Thomas took no part in the decision. Short Facts The facts of the case are rather straightforward: the decedent, James Folta, worked for Ferro Engineering from 1966 to 1970 and alleged that as part of his job duties, he was exposed to asbestos-containing products. Forty-one years later, James was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and one month later, in May 2011, he filed a civil law suit in the circuit court of Cook County against 15 defendants, including Ferro. Ferro moved to dismiss, raising the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation and Occupational Diseases Acts, pointing out that the claim was governed by the Act and was barred by the 25-year statute of limitations/statute of repose contained in section 6(c) of the two Acts. Lower Court Rulings The circuit court granted Ferro's motion, but the appellate court reversed, finding that an injured employee may bring a common law action against his employer where the injury is not compensable under the Act. The appellate court concluded that the term "compensable" must relate to the ability to recover under the Act, and because James' estate could not recover under the Acts, his claim was therefore not compensable. Supreme Court Ruling Ferro appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed and upheld the dismissal based on exclusive remedy grounds. In discussing the scope of the exclusivity provisions under the Workers' Compensation Act, a majority of the court found the Act generally provides the exclusive means by which an employee can recover against an employer for a work-related injury. However, "an employee can escape the exclusivity provisions of the Act if the employee establishes that the injury: (1) was not accidental; (2) did not arise from his employment; (3) was not received during the course of employment; or (4) was not compensable under the Act." Folta, 2015 IL 118070, Par. 14. The majority focused on the fourth category, and noted it has had limited opportunity to address what was originally meant in its decision in Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 81 Ill. 2d 229, 237 (1980), when the court used the phrase "not compensable" to carve out a category of injuries for which the exclusive remedy provision would not be applicable. Folta, 2015 IL 118070, Par. 17. After reviewing Collier and numerous subsequent decisions, the majority observed, "[t]hese cases do not stand for the proposition that whether an injury is compensable is defined by whether there is an ability to recover benefits for a particular injury sustained by an employee." Id. Par. 23. Here, the majority explained, "there is no question that based on the allegations in the complaint, [the decedent] James's disease is the type of disease intended to fall within the purview of the Act." Id. Par. 24. An "occupational disease," the majority said, "is defined as one 'arising out of and in the course of the employment.' *** A disease arises out of the employment if there is a 'causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease.'" Id. Moreover, "[t]he disease 'must appear to have had its origin . . . in a risk connected with the employment and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence.'" Id. The majority concluded there was no dispute for purposes of this appeal that the decedent's disease was precipitated by occupational exposure to asbestos. Thus, "it is evident that the legislature intended that occupational diseases arising from workplace asbestos exposure are the type of injury contemplated to be within the scope of the Act." Id. Par. 25. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Acquires Fibro-Related Cancer ------------------------------------------------------------- George Torr, writing for The Star, reported that a former Sheffield school teaching assistant has been diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer -- due to possible exposure in her old workplace. Mother-of-three Susan Law, from Hillsborough, was 'absolutely devastated' to be diagnosed with mesothelioma after suffering from shortness of breath. After tests, her family was stunned to discover that asbestos exposure was the cause. Susan, aged 64, worked at Marlcliffe Primary School on Marlcliffe Road, Wadsley, for nearly two decades as both a dinner lady and teaching assistant. The Star exclusively reported that some eight in ten Sheffield schools contain asbestos. Marlcliffe Primary School is one of them. Susan said: "As a family, we have been left absolutely devastated by my diagnosis. It was even more of a shock to find out that my disease was caused by exposure to asbestos, which may have occurred at Marlcliffe School, where I worked for almost 20 years. "I hope that my former colleagues will come forward with information, no matter how small, on the presence of asbestos." Figures obtained through The Star's Your Right To Know campaign revealed that 86 per cent of primary schools and 35 per cent of the city's secondary schools contain potentially deadly asbestos - - with the problem so bad in one school that pupils and teachers do not put drawing pins in the walls as they fear disturbing the asbestos. Susan's husband, Dennis, aged 66, said she has started chemotherapy treatment at Weston Park Hospital but there is 'no real cure.' He said: "We've just got to live with it and cope as best we can." Dennis said Susan has now instructed expert asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate how and where she came into contact with asbestos -- and if more could have been done to prevent her exposure. He said he and Susan believe she could have been exposed at Marlcliffe School, and added: "We spoke about it and we can't possibly put it down to anything else. She did lots of voluntary work there including as a dinner lady, then a teaching assistant, right up to her retirement in 2011. "She used to do lots of displays where she would put pins in the walls. It could be from that." Now Susan and Dennis, along with their legal team, are appealing for Susan's former colleagues to come forward with any information they may have on the presence of asbestos at the school and what measures, if any, were implemented to protect staff and pupils from exposure. Irwin Mitchell solicitor Martyn Hayward said: "Asbestos exposure is so often linked to industrial environments, but we are seeing more and more cases where people, like Susan, have been exposed in schools. "We hope that her former colleagues from Marlcliffe School will come forward to help with our investigation into her exposure." A spokesman for Sheffield City Council, which runs the school, said: "We are very sorry to hear of Mrs Law's condition. "While we understand she has instructed her solicitors to look into her situation, at this stage it would be inappropriate for us to comment further, as the authority has not been named as a defendant in this case." Insulation material asbestos was widely used in the building industry in the 1960s and 70s. It was banned in the UK in 1999 after a link was established to a number of fatal illnesses, including mesothelioma, when the material is inhaled over a prolonged period of time. The material is safe unless it is disturbed and the council has said it follows strict national guidelines and protocols to manage the asbestos in schools. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Providence Church to Close Due to Fibro -------------------------------------------------------- ABC6.com reported that a Providence church is holding its last mass after structural deficiencies are forcing it to close. The Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church pastor requested that it be closed indefinitely due to the deficiencies, and after looking into the problem, it was decided that the final mass will be, November 8. "The indefinite nature of the closing will afford us the time to study the ultimate viability of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Parish and to follow the required canonical actions about its future," said Bishop Thomas Tobin. A report called the church, established in 1921, "unfit for human occupancy," because of lack of running water, deterioration of the bell tower, and mold and asbestos. Repairs would range from $1.1 to $1.7 million. Parishioners who are encouraged to attend Mass at nearby Holy Ghost Church at 472 Atwells Avenue, Providence, or other churches in the area. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Causation Standard Draws Attention to Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Campisi, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that when the American Tort Reform Association named the court system in Newport News, Va., a full-fledged "Judicial Hellhole," it highlighted a number of factors that contributed to its decision. One thing the legal reform advocacy group, which publishes its report every year in December but declared Newport News a "Judicial Hellhole" over the summer, took issue with was what it deems an extremely low causation standard employed in the jurisdiction. In Newport News, asbestos cases are tried under maritime law, not Virginia state law. And as such, the causation standard differs from the standard used in other tort cases. "Newport News plaintiffs enjoy the highest win rate at trial in the nation because of a confluence of laws that favor plaintiffs and one-sided rulings by Newport News judges," Mark Behrens, a defense attorney with the Washington D.C.-based law firm Shook Hardy & Bacon, said about the city's Circuit Court. Behrens took care to point out that the jurisdiction wasn't named a "hellhole" because asbestos cases are tried under maritime law as opposed to state law; you can't fault judges for following the law, he said. And it was the U.S. Supreme Court that determined such cases would be brought in Newport News under maritime law because of the fact that many of the alleged injuries were shipyard- or United States Navy-related. But the judges can be faulted for applying the law in a one-sided manner that seems to favor plaintiffs, Behrens said. In Newport News, judges instruct the juries that "any exposure" to asbestos is good enough to establish causation, Behrens said. This is not consistent with other maritime courts, Behrens says. "In other maritime law jurisdictions the exposure has to be meaningful," Behrens said. "In Newport News, the judges instruct the jury that 'substantial' is simply an exposure that is not imaginary." Virginia state law, the defense attorney says, has a very high standard on causation, whereas maritime law has a much lesser standard. What this means is it is much easier for plaintiffs to be able to recover at trial when litigation is initiated under maritime law, Behrens said. In Newport News, "they lower the bar so there is basically no bar at all in allowing the plaintiff to make a case on causation if they can identify any exposure," Behrens said. "The standard really becomes standard-less." Behrens said he is unsure of other jurisdictions that instruct the jury that "substantial exposure" simply means "non-imaginary." Because of all this, there is more flexibility by the trial courts in Newport News, at least until the Supreme Court or Congress does something to reverse the judges, according to Behrens. Not everyone shares ATRA's negative view of Newport News. Robert Hatten, a plaintiffs' attorney who is a major asbestos player in the jurisdiction, says that the ATRA's report is without merit, calling it a propaganda piece that is designed to represent special interest groups. In a lengthy statement provided to Legal Newsline, Hatten -- of the firm Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamondstein -- claims that the language of the substantial contributing factor standard about which ATRA's report complains originated in the federal asbestos cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. Even defendants in Newport News have offered the exact same instruction, he said. "This is not a 'reduced' causation standard," Hatten wrote in his statement. "It is the normal causation standard employed by almost every jurisdiction in the United States, except Virginia." Hatten goes on to state that none of the asbestos company defendants, "with their well-paid armies of lawyers," have ever appealed most of the rulings they now challenge in the "Hellhole" report. "Instead they blame plaintiffs lawyers and the local Newport News Judges, who are simply following well established federal and state precedent," Hatten wrote. "The most casual reading of the pre-trial briefs on the evidentiary issues that ATRA complains about would demonstrate that there is ample legal support and precedent for the various rulings that ATRA does not like. In any event, their remedy is a proper appeal; not slander." In an op-ed he wrote earlier for the Newport News Daily Press, Hatten, whose firm handles most of the asbestos litigation in that jurisdiction, said the "substantial contributing factor" causation standard that the ATRA says is unfair is actually dictated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hatten also wrote that despite ATRA's assertions, judges in Newport News routinely permit defense experts to testify that low exposure to a defendant's product was not a significant cause of a plaintiff's mesothelioma. Juries, Hatten wrote, simply "never believed their testimony because it is contradicted by well accepted science that low exposures do cause mesothelioma. "This is a credibility problem for asbestos defendants, not a judicial problem," Hatten wrote. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Itasca Vendor Sued Over Fibro Negligence --------------------------------------------------------- Robert Hadley, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a Cook County company is suing an Itasca vendor, alleging negligence regarding asbestos removal. DCT 191 North Avenue filed a lawsuit Oct. 22 in Cook County Circuit Court against Robertshaw Controls Co. of Itasca, alleging breach of contract, negligence, nuisance and conversion. According to the complaint, DCT bought a building in Carol Stream from Robertshaw, planning to tear it down and construct a new venue. However, the suit says, the defendant tore out an asbestos- insulated heating system in the old building without properly handling and removing the insulation. As a result, the plaintiff says it has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on asbestos cleanup. DCT seeks a jury trial and damages of more than $350,000, plus litigation costs. It is represented by attorneys Daniel G. Hildebrand and Ian D. Burkow of Greenberg Traurig of Chicago. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Grandad Dies of Mesothelioma ------------------------------------------------------- Hampshpire Chronicle reported that a Hampshire grandad died from a cancer linked to asbestos exposure from his time serving in the Royal Navy, an inquest heard. John Scott from West Meon died at Rowans Hospice on 25 July, aged 72 of mesothelioma. Winchester Coroner's Court heard evidence from Mr Scott's wife Ivy Scott who said he served onboard a World War II warship as an apprentice electrical engineer. Mrs Scott said he was exposed to the toxic substance when he rewired cables onboard the ship which were lagged with asbestos. Mr Scott served on the ship for two years and later served on a nuclear submarine for eight years. A statement from Dr Botham read out at the inquest said that Mr Scott developed a cough in 2014 which was later diagnosed as a right sided lung tumour which was "in keeping" with mesothelioma. A post mortem by pathologist Dr Burnley said the cause of death was malignant mesothelioma, which is a form of cancer strongly linked to asbestos exposure. Coroner Karen Harrold recorded a conclusion of death due to industrial disease. Mrs Scott, who was married to Mr Scott for 49 and a half years, said she was grateful they had such a long time together. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Mayors Probed Over La Scala Fibro Deaths ------------------------------------------------------------ TheLocal.it reported that Giampiero Borghini, Marco Formentini, Paolo Pilleteri and Carlo Tognoli are being investigated for manslaughter and grievous bodily harm, Ansa reported, citing sources. The period over which the mayors were in office spans between 1976 and 1997. Carlo Fontana, the former superintendent of Teatro alla Scala, which was built in 1778, is also being investigated. Fontana was in the role from 1990 to 2015. The famous opera house, which has hosted some of the greatest names in Italian opera, including Bellini, Rossini and Verdi, underwent a major renovation between 2002 and 2004. In 2009 a seating area in an upper gallery was closed off after asbestos was found in the ceiling. The building was severely damaged by bombing during the Second World War in 1943. It was rebuilt and reopened in 1946. The latest asbestos probe comes after 11 former managers at the Italian tyre manufacturer, Pirelli, were convicted of manslaughter in July over the asbestos-related deaths of 24 workers. The workers contracted tumours linked to asbestos exposure while working at the company's factories during the 1970s and 80s. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pohlman Launches Software for Fibro Case Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anna Aguillard, writing for Madison Record, reported that by the end of the year, court reporting and litigation services company PohlmanUSA hopes that all Madison County asbestos cases will be able to be accessed through the company's new webtool, MyDocFileServe. All cases filed by attorneys at Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French & Mudd in St. Louis, which agreed to be the first plaintiff firm on the system, can only be accessed through a new web server. According to PohlmanUSA's president Deborah Walters, the server makes filing, serving, and downloading asbestos case documents easier and cheaper. "Our entry into the market as a new vendor lowered the price for attorneys to electronically serve pleadings to case parties, and provided a free filing option to electronically file with the court. Firms are able to pass along substantial savings to their clients," said Walters. The program is trademarked as MyDocFileServe, and integrates directly with the court's Clericus Magnus filing system. "PohlmanUSA has 25 years of experience and knowledge of the asbestos litigation and our development team, led by our Litigation Support Services Director, Alicia Hart, PMP, has worked closely with the firms involved in this litigation to build a system customized for this litigation," said Walters. "During initial development of the system we held focus groups with plaintiff and defense attorneys and staff. (The Maune firm) agreed to be the first plaintiff firm on the system," said Walters. "We look forward to having additional plaintiff firms on the system before year-end." According to Walters, electronic filing reduces the number of lost pleadings and the number of rejected filings. It also features free bulk downloading, advanced search options, and a calendar of motion docket dates. Electronic filing and downloading is free, and electronic service is $8 per transaction Firms can register online at www.mydocfileserve.com, or by calling 877-421-0099. PohlmanUSA offers training via web and in person, and its office is located across from the courthouse in Edwardsville. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ferro's Mesothelioma Lawsuit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a widow whose husband's asbestos-related illness manifested more than 40 years after his last exposure cannot collect damages from the employer responsible for the exposure, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled. In a split decision released Nov. 4, the court reversed the decision of a state appeals court, which had itself reversed the decision of a Cook County Circuit Court judge that the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act, a companion to the Workers' Compensation Act, does not cover claims filed more than 25 years after the last day of exposure to the disease-causing agent. Chief Justice Rita B. Garman and justices Mary Jane Theis, Lloyd A. Karmeier and Anne M. Burke ruled in favor of Ferro Engineering, the company that employed James Folta from 1966 to 1970 as a shipping clerk and product tester. Forty-one years later, Folta was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which he and his counsel alleged was likely caused by exposure to asbestos during his time at Ferro. He filed a civil action against 15 defendants, including Ferro. The circuit court granted Ferro's motion to dismiss, based on the 25-year limitation provided in the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act. While the litigation was pending, Folta died, and his wife, Ellen Folta, became the plaintiff in the case. In her appeal of the circuit court's dismissal, Ellen Folta argued that the law unfairly disadvantages victims of mesothelioma, which typically takes 30 to 50 years to manifest. An appellate court reversed the circuit court's decision, citing case law that found an injured employee may bring a common-law action against his employer if the injury is "not compensable" under the act. Because James Folta's injury did not manifest before the time of repose expired, the appellate court ruled that it was not compensable, because he literally had no opportunity to file for compensation. In a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court justices Charles E. Freeman and Thomas L. Kilbride agreed whole-heartedly with the appellate court. "Plaintiff never had the right to file an application for compensation under either of these [Workers' Compensation] acts, whose time limitations expired long before plaintiff's mesothelioma was manifest," Freeman wrote in the dissenting opinion. "Through no fault of his own, plaintiff never had an opportunity to seek compensation under the Act." The dissenting justices had a different view of the term "not compensable" than the majority. In the majority opinion, Theis wrote that the justices determined from case law that whether an injury is compensable under the act depends on the nature of the injury, not whether an individual had the opportunity to collect compensation. The court found lawmakers' intentions were clear in establishing a 25-year time limit for claims. "We are cognizant of the harsh result in this case," Theis wrote. "Nevertheless, ultimately, whether a different balance should be struck under the acts given the nature of the injury and the current medical knowledge about asbestos exposure is a question more appropriately addressed to the legislature. It is the province of the legislature to draw the appropriate balance. It is not our role to inject a compromise but, rather, to interpret the acts as written." The dissenting judges wrote that the court used cases with different circumstances to form the basis of its decision, and that the justices failed to take into consideration the intent of the workers' compensation legislation, defined as "a humane law of a remedial nature whose fundamental purpose is to provide employees and their dependents prompt, sure and definite compensation." "In my view, the majority's interpretation cannot be the law," Freeman wrote. "The majority's interpretation runs directly counter to the acts' purpose." Justice Robert R. Thomas took no part in the court's decision. On appeal, Folta had been represented by attorney Nicholas J. Vogelzang, of Connelly & Vogelzang, of Chicago, and attorneys Donald P. Blydenburgh and Jerome H. Block, of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, of New York. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Reconsider Testimony Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a North Carolina federal court has denied a motion for reconsideration in an asbestos case, allowing to stand a decision in which it excluded the testimony of plaintiffs' expert Eugene Mark, M.D. In the Nov. 5 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina opined that Mark's reliance on Material Safety Data Sheets did not save his testimony from being dismissed since those documents do not specify a "durational component of exposure that is critical" to the case. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Face Fibro Risk in Demolition Jobs ----------------------------------------------------------- Mike Hager, writing for The Globe and Mail, reported that crews demolishing Metro Vancouver's older homes could be facing more exposure to deadly asbestos products as contractors try to cut corners amid the region's ongoing housing boom, according to the agency that protects B.C.'s workers. Al Johnson, vice-president of WorkSafeBC's prevention services, said Canadian workers no longer come into contact with heavy amounts of the carcinogenic mineral substance, used extensively in many industries until the late 1970s. But, those now levelling Metro Vancouver's older houses -- some of which have asbestos in linoleum and vinyl tiles, drywall and insulation -- may still be breathing in a substance that could lead to severe health problems 20 to 40 years from now, he said. "It's very hard to quantify [the ongoing risk], but we recognize that this is an industry that doesn't have a bar, if you will, to the extent of how demolition needs to be done," Mr. Johnson said. "There are a huge number of demolition companies, some are very large and employ a number of workers and some of them are very, very small. "In fact, we probably don't even know some of those out there doing this work." Across Vancouver proper, the city has fielded more demolition applications -- at least 1,141 to date -- than any in the past decade as buyers scramble to build bigger, single-family houses or denser, multifamily housing on a finite supply of existing properties. Meanwhile, a WorkSafeBC inspection blitz of 110 home renovation and demolition sites that started in July has so far brought 246 non-compliance orders, close to the 257 issued after nearly double the amount of inspections. In 2014, the agency issued 20 penalties, which can vary from $1,000 to $30,000 depending on the size of a company's payroll. "We're trying to ensure that the industry is vigilant and the municipalities are vigilant to the potential for more workers to be exposed to asbestos as these demolitions are done," Mr. Johnson said of the campaign that ends in December. Under provincial law, a home must be tested for hazardous materials before it comes down. That means a demolition company must take numerous samples from different areas of the house and analyze them for asbestos and other harmful substances. In five communities -- Vancouver, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Nanaimo and Saanich -- contractors must submit the results of these surveys before a demolition permit is granted. WorkSafe found 43 per cent of all hazardous material surveys done by contractors renovating or demolishing homes were inadequate. If asbestos is found, it must be carefully extracted and disposed of properly. Some contractors find this process too lengthy and costly, Mr. Johnson said. "Where we see flagrant non-qualified persons is where they've taken one sample and they say the house does not contain asbestos," he said. "Our officers show up and know darn well that there are five different types of product that could contain asbestos." There are no certification standards for asbestos abatement professionals, but they face performance-based inspections from WorkSafe. Phil Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C., said his 1,200 members take the issue "extremely seriously" and that specialty contractors have evolved to deal with the waste properly. "It has become a science, not an art," Mr. Hochstein said. Lee Loftus, business manager of the B.C. Insulators union local 118, said Metro Vancouver's demolition industry is still struggling to find enough qualified contractors who understand the scope and nature of the hazards involved in tearing down older homes. "We're very concerned about a cowboy approach to the demolition of housing," said Mr. Loftus, who is a retired insulation worker. "Anybody that can buy a retired backhoe or excavator and an old dump truck are now demolition experts." He says the proper disposal of material filled with asbestos can add upwards of $25,000 to a demolition and involves covering off the structure with plastic and tape while the affected parts are removed. Even low levels of exposure may raise the risk of cancer and all forms of asbestos are carcinogenic, according to the World Health Organization. Asbestos has become Canada's top driver of work-related deaths, causing diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis -- the chronic condition whereby lung tissue is scarred by inhaled particles of the mineral. 77 British Columbians died from asbestos-related diseases, according to WorkSafe's claims. Mr. Loftus, whose compensation claim for asbestosis was accepted in 2000, expects that such deaths will continue to climb over the next decade, as those exposed to asbestos in the 1970s die. It will take another 30 years until the exposures can be measured on workers, he said. "It's not a traumatic death, it's a long-term death." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maungatapu Underpass Tests Positive for Fibro -------------------------------------------------------------- Bay of Plenty Times reported that asbestos has been found at a mysterious building site in Welcome Bay by contractors working on the new Maungatapu underpass. The NZ Transport Agency confirmed the discovery of asbestos late at the site of an old, demolished building on Welcome Bay Rd near the Baden Powell Centre. The site, included in the Maungatapu underpass construction, has since been fenced off. The NZ Transport Agency stated it was working closely with specialist contractors to safely remove the asbestos, discovered while contractors were carrying out earthworks. The Transport Agency's acting Bay of Plenty highway manager, Adam Francis said Worksafe NZ, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Tauranga City Council have been informed, and there was no immediate health risk to staff or the community. "The site has been secured in line with regulations and we are currently working with specialist contractors to determine the best disposal measures going ahead," Mr Francis said. "On asbestos specialists will be onsite to investigate the site. We hope to have a disposal method confirmed later. "We are focussed on keeping the community informed as we work to find the best solution." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Man Dies of Fibro-related Illness -------------------------------------------------------- Yorkshire Evening Post reported that a daughter is appealing for help as she tries to piece together the facts behind the asbestos- related death of her beloved dad. Denis Hampshire, from Cookridge, Leeds, died aged 88 in February after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mr Hampshire had previously worked as an engineer for Clayton, Son & Co Ltd and Oxley Engineering Co Ltd, which were both based in Hunslet in the 1960s and 1970s. Now his family has asked industrial disease experts at law firm Irwin Mitchell to find out how he came to be exposed to asbestos. And, as part of the investigation, the firm wants to hear from Mr Hampshire's old colleagues about working conditions at the Hunslet companies. Mr Hampshire's daughter, Alison, said: "It was a shock when Dad received his diagnosis and he deteriorated rapidly. "Many people may know him from a number of sporting clubs in the Rothwell and Hunslet areas in Leeds. "I am just hopeful that some of his old workmates will see this appeal and will come forward." Anyone with information is asked to ring Fay Marshall at Irwin Mitchell on 0113 394 6826 or e-mail fay.marshall@irwinmitchell.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Attys Pay $390 per Google Click ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Ascher, writing for Insurance Insider, reported that plaintiff law firms harvesting asbestos victims through online advertising are paying up to $390 for each and every click they receive on Google, a new study by the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) has revealed. Ads on Google are purchased through an online auction process in which advertisers bid to top the sponsored search results for a particular keyword. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fed. Cir. Affirms Dismissal of USF&G Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. appeal the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting the government's motion to dismiss their amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, in an opinion dated Nov. 6, 2015, concluded that the Tucker Act cannot be read to waive sovereign immunity for a general liability insurer, such as USF&G, who brings suit as an equitable subrogee of a prime contractor. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing USF&G's amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case is FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC., UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee, NO. 2015-5036 (Fed. Cir.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/6hWzl6from Leagle.com. RICHARD L. McCONNELL, JR., Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by BRENDAN J. MORRISSEY, Bentonville, AR. LAUREN MOORE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., DEBORAH A. BYNUM. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Expert Exclusion Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned REBECCA FUQUAY YATES, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of GRAHAM YATES, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., successor-in-interest to Bendix Corporation f/k/a Allied-Signal, Inc., Defendants, NO. 5:12-CV-752-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, in an order dated Nov. 5, 2015, denied a motion for reconsideration of the court's June 29, 2015, order excluding testimony of Dr. Eugene Mark. A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's Decision is available at http://is.gd/aPOYPcfrom Leagle.com. Rebecca Fuquay Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Stuart J. Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C.. Rebecca Fuquay Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Tiffany N. Dickenson, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C.. Rebecca Fuquay Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Soechting, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jay E. Stuemke, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jeffrey B. Simon, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black Law. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Kiger, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Jessica Floyd Middlebrooks, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Kirk G. Warner, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Thurston H. Webb, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Addie K.S. Ries, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Samuel Lewis Tarry, McGuireWoods, LLP & Shepherd D. Wainger, McGuire Woods. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, LLP & Bruce T. Bishop, Willcox & Savage, PC. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Holly A. Hempel, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason Larry Walters, Davis & Hamrick, LLP & Kevin P. Greene, Willcox & Savage, PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Ship Worker's Suit Barred by WCA -------------------------------------------------------- In an opinion filed Nov. 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that we hold that an employee's action is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2010)) and the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act (820 ILCS 310/1 et seq. (West 2010)). In this case, James Folta, who was employed as a shipping clerk and product tester for Ferro Engineering from 1966 to 1970, filed a complaint alleging that during his employment he was exposed to products containing asbestos. Forty-one years later, in May 2011, James was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He brought a civil action in the circuit court of Cook County against 15 defendants, including Ferro Engineering, to recover damages for the disease he developed allegedly as a consequence of his exposure to the asbestos-containing products while employed by Ferro Engineering. James specifically sought relief against Ferro Engineering under several theories, including, inter alia, negligence. The case is ELLEN FOLTA, Indiv. and as Special Adm'r of the Estate of James Folta, Deceased, Appellee, v. FERRO ENGINEERING, a Division of ON Marine Services Company, Appellant, NO. 118070 (Ill.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/YZjmaYfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thorpe Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Walashek" --------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, in an order dated Nov. 2, 2015, granted defendant J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled GAIL ELIZABETH WALASHEK, Individually and as successor-in-interest to THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL WALASHEK and THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER LINDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14CV1567 BTM(BGS)(S.D. Calif.). Judge Moskowitz held that because Thorpe has satisfied its initial burden, the burden shifts to the Plaintiffs, who must produce enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. The Plaintiffs, according to Judge Moskowitz, have not submitted any evidence in opposition to the motion and have instead filed a notice of non-opposition. A full-text copy of Judge Moskowitz's Decision is available at http://is.gd/VGIHBPfrom Leagle.com. Gail Elizabeth Walashek, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. Michelle Walashek, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. Keith Walashek, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. Laura Page, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. Christopher Linden, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Rod Jeffrey Cappy, Selman Breitman LLP. Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shaun E. Swiger, Foley & Mansfield PLLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles Park, Hugo Parker, LLP, David Blow, Sedgwick, LLP & Sara J. Savage, Hugo Parker, LLP. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Jenkins, Law Offices of Charles W. Jenkins, APC. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader and Berkon LLP. J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alice K Loh, Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum, Jennifer J. Lee, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP & Reshma Bajaj, Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum. Lamons Gasket Company, Defendant, represented by Vick K Mansourian, Perkins Coie LLP. Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Justin E. Garratt, Tucker Ellis LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by John F. Hughes, Law Offices of Gordon & Rees, LLP & Richard R Ames, Gordon & Rees LLP. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Michael B. Giaquinto, Hawkins Parnell Tackston and Young LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles Park, Hugo Parker, LLP & Edward R Hugo, Brydon Hugo & Parker. Fraser Boiler Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kathleen B. Ebrahimi, Pond North LLP, Ketul D. Patel, Pond North LLP, Previn A Wick, Pond North LLP & Thomas Joseph McNamara, Pond North LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Derek S. Johnson, Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, Dylan Daniel Rudolph, Walsworth Franklin Bevins McCall LLP & Katherine Gardiner, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP. Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven K Hwang, Perkins Coie LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Respondent, represented by Alex P. Catalona, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Constance R. Fraenkel, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Emily D Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett and Schweitzer & Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Plant Products & Supply Co., Respondent, represented by Carol Lee Healey, Bisohp Barry & Mary Margaret Ryan, Bishop Barry Drath. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Respondent, represented by Ehren Reno Cross, Esq. -- rcross@behblaw.com -- Bassi, Edlin, Hiue & Blum LLP & Joseph B Adams, Esq. -- jadams@behblaw.com -- Bassi, Edlin, Hiue & Blum LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Dismissed as Defendant in "Spychalla" --------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge William C. Griesbach of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin issued an order dated Nov. 2, 2015, dismissing without prejudice defendant General Electric Company in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI) - Spychalla v. AVCO Corporation, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. MDL 875, CASE NO. 11-C-497 (E.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Griesbach's Decision is available at http://is.gd/D6U3r1from Leagle.com. Shirley D Spychalla, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. Boeing Aerospace Operations Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning, Howard P Goldberg, Manion Gaynor & Manning, Steven W Celba, Celba LLC, Timothy D Pagel, Celba LLC & Lance E Mueller, Mueller SC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David M Setter, Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP, Michael L Lisak, Esq. -- mlisak@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Timothy E Kapshandy, Esq. -- tkapshandy@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & Nora E Gierke, Esq. -- ngierke@gierkefrank.com -- Gierke Frank LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Nelson" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In a memorandum dated Oct. 26, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary judgment filed by various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned GERARD A. NELSON, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV- 30555-ER (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at http://is.gd/tQ9tmXfrom Leagle.com. GERARD A. NELSON, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC. CHESTERTON CO., A. W., Defendant, represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON, TUCKER ELLIS WEST. EXXON COMPANY USA, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP, RICHARD C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY & WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG ASSOC LLP. EXXON SHIPPING CO., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG ASSOC LLP. GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP. JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, represented by EVAN J. PALIK, MCMAHON DEGULIS & STEPHEN H. DANIELS, MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP, MARTIN J. MURPHY, DAVIS AND YOUNG & WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG ASSOC LLP. SEARIVER MARITIME INC., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP, KATHERINE LYNN GLENN, LAUTMANN & GLENN LLP & WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG ASSOC LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Recommends Dismissal of Inmate Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Moore, a prisoner proceeding, filed a Complaint asserting claims against John Loder, et al., for violating the Clean Air Act by exposing plaintiff to asbestos while employed as a construction worker for Defendants. In a report and recommendation dated Oct. 13, 2015, Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, recommended that the Plaintiff's purported claims under the Clean Air Act should be dismissed with prejudice. The case is ALEXIS MOORE, Plaintiff, v. JOHN LODER, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 8:15-CV-1425-T-27AEP (M.D. Fla.). A full-text copy of Magistrate Porcelli's Report and Recommendation is available at http://is.gd/VhOKBvfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Martin" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In a memorandum dated Oct. 29, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary judgment filed by various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled MURIEL MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN EXPORT ISBRANDTSEN, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-33621-ER (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at http://is.gd/9zzN68from Leagle.com. MURIEL MARTIN, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC. UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & SUSAN K. DIRKS, THOMPSON HINE LLP. DELAVAL TURBINE DIV., IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by JAMES T. MILLICAN, II, GALLAGHER SHARP. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent, represented by COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP. COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by HENRY E. BILLINGSLEY, II, TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Jacobs" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In a memorandum dated Oct. 26, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary judgment filed by various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP and Inland Steel Company captioned styled HERBERT L. JACOBS, Plaintiff, v. A- C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, E.D. PA. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-30143-ER (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at http://is.gd/QhCpDxfrom Leagle.com. HERBERT L. JACOBS, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP CO., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. BOLAND & CORNELIUS, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. CHESTERTON CO., A.W., Defendant, represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON, TUCKER ELLIS WEST. GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP. INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL & ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES. JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS, MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP. PICKANDS MATHER & CO., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. REISS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL, ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES & SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES. BOLAND & CORNELIUS, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL, ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES & SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES. PICKANDS MATHER & CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. REISS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL & ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES. INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL & ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. BOLAND & CORNELIUS, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. CHESTERTON CO., A.W., Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON, TUCKER ELLIS WEST. GATKE CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP. JOHN CRANE INC., Cross Defendant, represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS, MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP. PICKANDS MATHER & CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. REISS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL & ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES. INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL & ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. BOLAND & CORNELIUS, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. CHESTERTON CO., A.W., Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON, TUCKER ELLIS WEST. GATKE CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP. JOHN CRANE INC., Cross Defendant, represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS, MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP. PICKANDS MATHER & CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. REISS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Bartel" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In a memorandum dated Oct. 27, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary judgment filed by various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate of Nestor Ojeda), Plaintiffs, v. FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-30571-ER (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at http://is.gd/hu88qTfrom Leagle.com. WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC, DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C.. DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC. FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY, Defendant, represented by NICHOLAS L. EVANCHAN, EVANCHAN & PALMISANO, LLC & RALPH J. PALMISANO, EVANCHAN & PALMISANO, LLC. COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant, represented by HENRY E. BILLINGSLEY, II, TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., Defendant, represented by DONALD A. POWELL, HANNA CAMPBELL & POWELL, LLP, REGINALD S. KRAMER, OLDHAM KRAMER & ROBERT L. TUCKER, HANNA CAMPBELL & POWELL, LLP. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOHN A. HELLER, SIDLEY AND AUSTIN & REGINALD S. KRAMER, OLDHAM KRAMER. DELAVAL TURBINE DIV., IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP & JAMES T. MILLICAN, II, GALLAGHER SHARP. TEXACO INC., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM T. SMITH, CALFEE HALTER & GRISWOLD. UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & SUSAN K. DIRKS, THOMPSON HINE LLP. A.L. BURBANK & COMPANY LTD., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & MICHAEL T. COLE, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RICHARD D. SCHUSTER, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE & STEPHEN C. MUSILLI, VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP. A.W. CHESTERTON CO., Defendant, represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON, TUCKER ELLIS WEST. GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN. B.F. GOODRICH, Defendant, represented by RICHARD D. SCHUSTER, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE & STEPHEN C. MUSILLI, VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Defendant, represented by RICHARD D. SCHUSTER, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE & STEPHEN C. MUSILLI, VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP. MORTELL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER A. RIESTER, WESTON HURD. UNION CARBIDE CORP., Defendant, represented by RICHARD D. SCHUSTER, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE & STEPHEN C. MUSILLI, VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER A. RIESTER, WESTON HURD. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent, represented by COLLEEN A. MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP & KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Day" -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum dated Oct. 26, 2015, denied the motion of various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP for summary judgment in the asbestos-related action styled ALFREADY DAY, SR., Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-30340-ER (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at http://is.gd/0rVeuzfrom Leagle.com. ALFREADY DAY, SR., Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC. AW CHESTERTON CO., Defendant, represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON, TUCKER ELLIS WEST. GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN. JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS, MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP. MARITIME OVERSEAS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. OCEAN CARRIERS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. WILLAMETTE TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *