/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160603.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 3, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 111 Headlines 1200 ARAPAHOE ST.: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Rent Charges ACADEMY BUS: Faces "Lapenna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ADIZ LLC: "Napier" Class Suit Moved to Dist. of S. Car. ADVOCATE HEALTH: Violated FLSA, "Vazquez" Suit Claims AGENT PROVOCATEUR: "Yberri" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code AMERICAN FLUX: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ANTHEM: Parties in Data Breach Suit Proceed to Discovery ARCADIA UNIVERSITY: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn. AVIS BUDGET: "Richardson" Sues Over Employment Discrimination BANK OF AMERICA: Boston Retirement Asserts Sherman Act Violation BAYLOR SCOTT: Faces "Sabatelli" Suit Over Age Discrimination BCA FINANCIAL: Faces "Beneli" Suit in D.N.J. BELLA MIA: "Rosario" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Six Class Suits in Conn. Super. Ct. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: Sued in D. Minn. Over Sexual Abuse BRIDGECARE INC: Able Home Seeks Certification of TCPA Class CARESOUTH HHA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Sowder" Suit Says CERNER CORPORATION: "Taylor" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA CHILDREN'S NATIONAL: Judge Remands Data Breach Class Action CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING: Faces "Chu" Suit in S.D.N.Y. CITY UNIVERSITY OF NY: Sued in N.Y. Over Racial Discrimination COMMUNITY EDUCATION: "Giles" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages CORNERSTONE ADMINISYSTEMS: Bid to Certify "Altman" Class Denied COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Appeals Reverses Class Action Ruling CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Certification of Class Sought in "Powers" Suit CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims CUSTOM AIR: Faces "King" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DBHV: Faces "Lofstock" Suit in D.N.J. DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Engineers Trust Fund Suit in Ill. DOLLAR TREE: "Stacy" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. DYNAMIC HOME: "Marez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code DYNAMIC SPORTS: Court Rules on Cable Subscriber Info Disclosure ENTERPRISE RECOVERY: Faces "Boykin" Suit in D. Ariz. ERIE ASSET: Faces "Derrick" Suit in D.N.J. EVERLASTING NAILS: "Nguyen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA FACEBOOK INC: BIPA Amendment May Help Win Class Action FACEBOOK INC: Judge Grewal Joins Legal Team FAIR HAVENS: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved from Jud. Cir. to S.D. Fla. FANDUEL INC: "Sobel" Class Suit Removed to Dist. of Massachusetts FIRST CLOVER: Faces Class Action Over First-Mid Illinois Deal FORD MOTOR: Baron & Budd Mulls Class Action Over ETB Problem FORD MOTOR: Court Strikes Class Action Claims in "Cassidy" Suit FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, PA: Not Liable for Day Care Contamination Suit GENERAL CABLE: Dismissal of "Livonia" Suit Affirmed GENERAL MOTORS: Exaggerated Miles Per Gallon in SUVs, Suit Says GERDAU SA: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action GERDAU SA: July 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set GLACIER WATER: Certification of Class Sought in "Magee" Suit GOOGLE INC: Status Hearing in "Weiss" Class Suit Set for June 23 GOPRO INC: Faces "Samra" Securities Class Action in Calif. Ct. HARBOR VILLAGE: "Medina" Suit Moved to S. D. Fla. HAT WORLD: Faces "Rando" Suit Over Unlawful Terms and Conditions ILLINOIS: "Richard" Suit Against Dept. of Corrections Tossed INDIANAPOLIS, IN: Sued Over Prisoner Civil Rights Violation JENNY CRAIG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wage Class Action JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Baby Power-Linked Ovarian Cancer JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Credit History KELLOGG COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Whole Grain Crackers, Suit Says KERNERSVILLE, NC: Faces Class Action Over Sewer Service Rates LAMETTRY'S COLLISSION: Faces Lawsuit Seeking Relief Under ERISA LANNETT CO: Faces Philly Teachers Fund Suit Over Digoxin Price M-QUBE INC: 9th Cir. Sends "Geier" Class Suit to Arbitration MAGELLAN: Sued for Denying Mental Health Coverage to Teens MARRONE BIO: Settles Securities Class Action for $12 Million MASSAGE ENVY: Members Sue Over Deceptive Practices MCGOVERN & COMPANY: Faces Alumaline Suit Over Contract Breach MDL 1869: Judge Excludes Kalt Expert Opinion in Antitrust Suit MDL 2467: Court Rules on Bid for Interlocutory Appeal MERCK: Law Firm Holds Conference to Rally Amicus Support MIDLAND FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Doubleday" Suit Says NAPLES, FL: Faces "Orstand" Suit Over Gender & Age Discrimination NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Janson" Suit Says NCB MANAGEMENT: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Kaleel" Suit NEW YORK, NY: "Powlette" Case v. Agency Closed NONG SHIM CO: Indirect-Purchasers Seek Certification of 3 Classes NRA GROUP: Must Respond to Class Certification Motion by June 7 OMNI HOTELS: Faces "Samaan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Toll Road Fines OZONE SOLUTIONS: Laundry Workers Sue for Illness PAM REAL: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PETITUSA LLC: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PIERRE DUPONT: Faces Class Action Over Use of Unsafe Implants RELIABLE TOWING: Faces "Bailey" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA RIVERSOURCE LIFE: Faces Class Suit Over Deferred Annuities ROYAL TRANSPORTATION: "Clark" FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified RUBY TUESDAY: "Sagastume" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages RYE PHYSICAL: Faces "Cypress" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime SAN DIEGO, CA: Cops' Tactics at Trump Rally Cause Outraged SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Suit Claims SETERUS INC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Zirogiannis" Suit SIMON & SCHUSTER: Sued in N.Y. Over Low E-Book Royalty Payments SN SERVICING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection SNAPCHAT INC: Collects Biometric Info, "Martinez" Suit Says SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Group of Policyholders Files Amended Claim SPECTRUM CENTER: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims SYSTEM INC: Bid for Class Certification in "Bryan" Suit Denied TARGET CORP: Judge Dismisses Background Check Class Action TEXAS CRICKET: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime THERANOS: Faces Second False Advertising Class Action TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: Faces Drivers' Suit Over Illegal Fines UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Bonke" Suit Claims Driver Misclassification UHAUL: Motion for Class Certification Sought in "Engle" Suit UK CLEANERS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims UNION CARBIDE: Dismissal of "Sahu" Suit Affirmed UNITED STATES: 2 Subclasses Certified in Government Workers' Suit VALSPAR CORP: Shareholder Launches Class Suit Over Merger WHIRLPOOL CORP: "Candelario" Suit Claims Unfair Terms of Use * Law Professors Support CFPB's Plan to Ban Class Action Waivers Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal on Aearo Indemnification Remains Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Had $39MM Insurance Receivables at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Faces Suits by 2,110 Claimants at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Continues to Face Claims at April 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Continues to Defend Suits at April 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $50.6MM Accrued Liability at April 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Faced 482 Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 13K Cases as of March 25 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xylem Still Indemnified by ITT at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Plaintiff Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Remands Asbestos Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tetney Man Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mystery Surrounds Asbestos Death of Pensioner ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at McLachlan Park ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Dockyard Workers at Center of Legal Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumpster Left in Detroit Neighborhood ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Westmont Hilltop High School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ruling Defines Suppliers Duty to Warn ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Suing Americon Says Exposure Led to Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Air Liquid Blames Death on Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Into Wife's Asbestos-related Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Refines Parameters of Mine Cleanup Area ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Sophisticated Intermediary" Defense Adopted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford's Jurisdiction Appeal Goes to 5th Dist. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Jury Sets Record with $8.75MM Award ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court Rules for Exposed Worker ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Cos. Remain Defendants in "Arbogast" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Default Judgment in "Barbarino" Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Strikes Expert Disclosures in "Begin" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak's Protectve Order Bid Partially Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment in "Botts" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Objection to Spoliation Instruction Sustained ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Daubert Motions Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser's Bid in Limine Partially Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Order Denying Sanctions Bid ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford USA Wins Bid for Summary Judgment ********* 1200 ARAPAHOE ST.: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Rent Charges ------------------------------------------------------------ Nora Aguayo; Maria Soto; Juana Raigosa; Nelly Nunez; Ricardo Galleano; Geral Marin Maria de Nunez; Noe Lemus; Nelly Lemus; Georgina Carranza; Sergio Valle Carranza; Fellx Valle, Sr.; Fellx Valle, Jr.; Angelica Valle; Maria Hernandez; Nancy Delgado; Kevin Delgado; Cristian Martinez; Christina Martinez; Nobelia Martinez; Luis Marquez; Telma Galvez; Kim Saravia; Jorge Valle; Lilian Martinez; Ruben Lima; Luis Ruiz; Kendra Lima; Irma Giron; and Emmely Colindres, and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. 1200 Arapahoe St., LLC, a California limited Liability Company; KMM Management, Inc.; Martha Sandoval, an individual, and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC620350 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover damages, including economic damages for emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendants reduced the housing services provided to Plaintiffs without any decrease in rent charged (an indeed, in most cases, an unlawfully high increase in rent charged). The housing services reduced were parking spaces which Plaintiffs had previously been granted and had been using for years. The Defendants are engaged in management consultancy business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Alan Sklar, Esq. Joe Ollinger, Esq. LAWOFFICES OF JEFFREYA.SKLAR 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 905 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone (310) 575-1529 Facsimile (310)478-7175 E-mail: sklarnjustice@msn.com ACADEMY BUS: Faces "Lapenna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Lou Lapenna, and others similarly situated v. Academy Bus L.L.C., Case No. 0:16-cv-61067-WJZ (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Academy Bus L.L.C. operates a bus company providing local bus services in northern New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Kleppin, Esq. Chelsea A. Lewis, Esq. GLASSER & KLEPPIN, P.A. 8751 West Broward Blvd, Suite 105 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 424-1933 Facsimile: (954) 474-7405 E-mail: ckleppin@gkemploymentlaw.com clewis@gkemploymentlaw.com ADIZ LLC: "Napier" Class Suit Moved to Dist. of S. Car. ------------------------------------------------------- Robin Napier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Adiz LLC; ATC Development Corp; ATC Development LLC, doing business as: ATC Development of Florida; ATC Apartment Management LLC, formerly known as: ATC Development Corp of Florida; ATC Construction LLC; Hallum LLC; TCA LLC; Jane Doe 1-10; Hobbs Heating and Air Conditioning Inc.; A-1 Hobbs Inc.; Edward F Dinkins, doing business as: Edward Dinkins Plumbing; Maddox Construction Inc.; Mabus Brothers Construction Co Inc.; Builders Services Group Inc., doing business as: Davis Insulation Inc.; Robert Renew, doing business as: Renew Siding; Bruce Dolford, doing business as: B&D Cement Finishing; MA Magdalena; Casiano Bibivano, doing business as: MA Roofing Aaron Ridgdill; Frank Johnson; Willie Rolland; Keith Newman, doing business as: Newman Company; and John Doe 9-50, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-CP-02-00263, was removed from Aiken County Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Aiken). The South Carolina District Court assigned Case No. 1:16- cv-01548-JMC to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. J Michelle Childs. Adiz is Croatian company which runs its business for over 20 years. The Company is engaged in business education, coaching, project management and teaching foreign languages, as well as translations. The Plaintiff is represented by: James L Floyd III, Esq. Justin O'Toole Lucey, Esq. JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY LAW FIRM PO Box 806 Mt Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (803) 849 8941 Facsimile: (843) 849 8406 E-mail: jfloyd@collinsandlacy.com jlucey@lucey-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert Trippett Boineau III, Esq. MCANGUS GOUDELOCK AND COURIE 1320 Main Street, 10th Floor Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 779 2300 Facsimile: (803) 479-2314 E-mail: trippett.boineau@mgclaw.com ADVOCATE HEALTH: Violated FLSA, "Vazquez" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Christy Vazquez, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Advocate Health Care Network, an Illinois Non-Profit Corporation, and EHS Home Health Care Service, Inc., d/b/a Advocate at Home and Advocate Home Health Services, an Illinois Nonprofit Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05200 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL). According to the complaint, this action arose out of Defendants' systematic, companywide wrongful classification of Plaintiff and other similarly situated home health infusion and pediatric nurses as exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA and IMWL. These persons worked as registered nurses for Defendants providing health care infusion and pediatric services to patients in their homes. The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Teresa Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N Michigan Ave, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233 1550 Facsimile: (312) 233 1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com AGENT PROVOCATEUR: "Yberri" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- Ana Sofia Yberri, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Agent Provocateur, Inc., a California Corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC620413 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks declaratory relief holding that the Defendant's policy and practices constitute unfair competition, along with declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and incidental equitable relief as may be necessary to prevent and remedy the conduct declared to constitute unfair competition and in violation of the California Labor Code and requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order. According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and systematically failed to compensate Plaintiff the correct rate of pay for all overtime worked. The Defendant retails lingerie, nightwear, and swimwear products. The company also provides accessories, such as whips and paddles, cuffs and chokers, hosiery options, stockings, hold ups, garters, eye masks, footwear options, gloves, travel accessories, luggage options, and fragrances. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nonnan B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK FILED 2255 Calle Clara IA La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com AMERICAN FLUX: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jamel Williams v. American Flux & Metal Company, Stuart Rudoler, and Joachim Rudoler, Case No. 1:16-cv-02833-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., May 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a metallurgical product manufacturing plant, including the manufacture and sale of aircraft parts in Winslow, Camden County, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com ANTHEM: Parties in Data Breach Suit Proceed to Discovery -------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a giant data breach case against Anthem and Blue Cross appears headed for trial after a federal judge in San Jose told attorneys at a case management conference to move on to discovery. "I am likely to deny the defense's motion, so please move forward with discovery," U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said May 26. Koh indicated that six of the seven claims are likely to survive the motion to dismiss phase, and asked attorneys for both sides to consider reducing the claims to four. She said narrowing the case is important, as its complexity, involving contract breaches in several states as well as federal claims and the enormous number of contracts the court will be forced to consider could make prompt adjudication impossible. "I don't want to prejudice either side, but I want you to make this humanly feasible," Koh said. Anthem attorney Craig Hoover said he was reluctant to agree to anything until the ruling is issued, and until the July 11 deadline for adding plaintiffs had passed. "We don't want to submit identical papers just to force you to read them, but we also don't want you looking at a tiny slice of the pie," Hoover said. Koh said the complexity and lack of precedents in data breach class actions made it a difficult case. "We are going to have to address a lot of novel issues," she said. The Anthem data breach, which the company disclosed in February 2015, involved more than 37 million records from the company's computer system, affecting an estimated 80 million people. The cyberattack is believed to have been carried out by China, though the country denies it. Consumers nationwide filed multiple lawsuits against Anthem, 28 Anthem affiliates, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and 17 non- Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield companies. Anthem, the nation's second-largest health insurer, serves members through various Blue Cross Blue Shield licensee affiliates and other non-Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates. It also works with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and several independent Blue Cross Blue Shield licensees via the BlueCard program. Anthem's computer database has personal and health information on about 80 million current and former clients, Koh said. It was not the first such attack on Anthem. In 2009, about 600,000 customers of Wellpoint, Anthem's former trade name, "had their personal information and protected healthcare information compromised due to a data breach," Koh said. The Department of Health and Human Services fined Anthem $1.7 million in 2013 for violations of data security. In 2014, the federal government warned Anthem and other health care-companies of the possibility of more cyberattacks and advised them to take appropriate measures, including data encryption and enhanced password protection. Consumers claim Anthem and its affiliates did not heed the warnings, and allowed hackers to extract massive amounts of data from its database from December 2014 to January 2015. Anthem said it stopped the cyberattacks by Jan. 31, 2015. Cybersecurity company Mandiant, which Anthem hired to assist its response to the data breach, released a report in July 2015 that said "Anthem and [its] affiliates [had] failed to take reasonable measures to secure the [personal and health information] in their possession." Though Anthem publicly disclosed the data breach in February 2015, many customers said that were not personally informed until March 2015, if at all. They also said Anthem failed to disclose whether it has made any changes to its security practices to prevent another cyberattack. Multiple lawsuits were transferred and consolidated in spring 2015. In June 2015, a multidistrict litigation judicial panel issued a transfer order and selected Koh. On Feb. 14, she removed three Anthem entities and partially removed seven more, with leave to amend. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee and Highmark West Virginia were dismissed. Plaintiffs' attorney Eve Cervantez declined to comment after the hearing, as did Hoover. ARCADIA UNIVERSITY: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn. ----------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Arcadia University. The case is captioned Jessica Slivak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly, the Plaintiff, v. Arcadia University, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02334-GEKP (E.D. Penn., May 13, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Gene E.K. Pratter. Arcadia is a coeducational, private university in suburban Philadelphia offering undergraduate and graduate studies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364 5030 Facsimile: (215) 364 5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com AVIS BUDGET: "Richardson" Sues Over Employment Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Whitney Richardson, on behalf of herself and all of those similarly situated v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, Bridget Whiteman, Deborah Pryor a/k/a Debbie, and John and Jane Does 1-5, Case No. 3:16-cv-00377-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., May 19, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful employment discrimination. The Defendants operate a car rental company headquartered in Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Macy D. Hanson, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC 102 First Choice Drive Madison, MS 39210 Telephone: (601) 853-9521 Facsimile: (601) 853-9327 E-mail: macy@macyhanson.com BANK OF AMERICA: Boston Retirement Asserts Sherman Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, NOMURA INTERNATIONAL PLC, HIREN GUDKA, AMANDEEP SINGH MANKU, SHAILEN PAU, and BHARDEEP SINGH HEER, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv- 03711, (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2016), alleges violations of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act for alleged collusive activities of Defendants to fix the prices of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bonds sold to and purchased from investors in the secondary market. Defendants are among the largest dealers, or among the most prominent traders, of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bonds denominated in various currencies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. Garrett J. Bradley, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Fax: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com gbradley@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. William P. Butterfield, Esq. Timothy S. Kearns, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202)-540-7201 Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com wbutterfield@hausfeld.com tkearns@hausfeld.com BAYLOR SCOTT: Faces "Sabatelli" Suit Over Age Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Frank Sabatelli, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baylor Scott & White Health and Scott & White Clinic, Case No. 1:16-cv-00596-RP (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful age discrimination. The Defendants operate a non-profit, multispecialty academic medical center in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Melton THE MELTON LAW FIRM, PLLC 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 330-0017 Facsimile: (512) 330-0067 E-mail: jmelton@meltonkumler.com BCA FINANCIAL: Faces "Beneli" Suit in D.N.J. -------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against BCA Financial Services, Inc. The case is captioned David Beneli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BCA Financial Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02737-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., May 13, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Freda L. Wolfson. BCA Financial is a family owned company with a focus on health care billing, insurance follow up, and retrieval of funds. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com yzelman@marcuszelman.com BELLA MIA: "Rosario" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- Wanda Rosario, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bella Mia Inc., a Florida Corporation d/b/a Pink Pony, John Steven Ennis, an individual, Teri Galardi, an individual, and Michael Porter, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01191-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., May 12, 2016), seeks to recover overtime pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant required and/or permitted Plaintiff to work at their adult entertainment club in excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to compensate them at the applicable wage and overtime rate. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam B. Kenner, Esq. KENNER, CUMMINGS & IMPARATO, PLLC 175 SW 67th Street, Suite 2410 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 384 7370 Facsimile: (305) 384 7371 E-mail: adam@kennercummings.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Six Class Suits in Conn. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- Six class action lawsuits have been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford Judicial District. The lawsuits seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use, and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless disregard for patient safety, in violation of the Connecticut Products Liability Act. According to the complaints, the Defendants negligently designed and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling, prescribing information and patient medication guide which rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective. The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM), throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood clot. The six lawsuits are: -- Rudolph Dluhy, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067963-S. May 3, 2016. The plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com -- Anthony Reis, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067962-S, May 3, 2016. The plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 521 4492 Facsimile: (214) 526 6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com -- Shirley Ronk, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067965-S, May 3, 2016. The plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 521 4492 Facsimile: (214) 526 6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com -- John Rusnack, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067968-S, May 3, 2016. The plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 521 4492 Facsimile: (214) 526 6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com -- James Stewart, Sr., and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067966-S, May 3, 2016. The plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 521 4492 Facsimile: (214) 526 6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com -- William Williams, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067967-S, May 3, 2016. The plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 521 4492 Facsimile: (214) 526 6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: Sued in D. Minn. Over Sexual Abuse --------------------------------------------------------- John Doe 167, the Plaintiff, v. The Boy Scouts of America, Northern Star Council, Boy Scouts of America, and Oak Knoll Lutheran Church, the Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-16-7298 (D. Minn., May 13, 2016), demands judgment against Defendants individually, jointly, and severally in an amount in excess of $50,000 plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney's fees, interest, and whatever other relief the Court deems just and equitable. According the complaint, the Defendants fraudulently misrepresented and failed to disclose, and/or actively concealed the dangers of sexual abuse of boy scouts by Scout Leaders. Defendants jointly own and operate Scouting programs which invite and seek out the participation of children. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Noaker, Esq. Noaker Law Firm LLC Union Plaza 333 Washington Avenue N., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 839 1080 BRIDGECARE INC: Able Home Seeks Certification of TCPA Class ----------------------------------------------------------- Able Home Health, LLC, asks the Court to enter an order determining that the action titled ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. BRIDGECARE, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05568 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against Bridgecare. Plaintiff defines the classes as: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Bridgecare, Inc. promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227. For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Bridgecare, Inc. promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227. For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV, alleging private nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Bridgecare, Inc. promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SToMFOvn The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Heather Kolbus, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com CARESOUTH HHA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Sowder" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Sowder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Caresouth HHA Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00906 (M.D. Ten., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours work over 40 per week. Caresouth HHA Holdings, LLC owns and operates a home health and hospice center in Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerry E. Martin, Esq. David W. Garrison, Esq. Scott P. Tift, Esq. Seth M. Hyatt, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com stift@barrettjohnston.com shyatt@barrettjohnston.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com CERNER CORPORATION: "Taylor" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- J. Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cerner Corporation c/o CT Corporation System 120 South Clayton Ave. Clayton, MO 63105, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00434-DW (W.D. Mo., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was classified as a salaried exempt associate and was not paid overtime wages for hours worked over 40 per week. Cerner is a supplier of health information technology (HIT) solutions, services, devices and hardware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876 2600 Facsimile: (816) 221 8763 Email: dirks@williamsdirks.com - and - William E. Parsons, Esq. David C. Zoeller, Esq. Caitlin M. Madden, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Post Office Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701-2155 Telephone: (608) 257 0040 Facsimile: (608) 256 0236 E-mail: wparsons@hq-law.com dzoeller@hq-law.com cmadden@hq-law.com - and - HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER, S.C. Daniel A. Rottier, Esq. Jason Knutson, Esq. Breanne L. Snapp, Esq. 150 East Gilman St., Suite 2000 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 255 6663 E-mail: rottier@habush.com jknutson@habush.com bsnapp@habush.com CHILDREN'S NATIONAL: Judge Remands Data Breach Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Sulina Gabale, Esq. -- sgabale@reedsmith.com -- Michael O'Neil, Esq. -- michael.oneil@reedsmith.com -- and Paul Bond, Esq., of Reed Smith LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that just days after the Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, the highly anticipated decision is already impacting data breach class actions across the country. The defendant in the Spokeo case contended that the plaintiff had suffered no concrete injury, and that a mere statutory violation is not enough of an injury to give plaintiffs constitutional standing to sue in federal court. The Supreme Court agreed that plaintiffs must show more than a technical violation of consumer protection law to establish standing, but also that, in certain circumstances, the violation of a "procedural right" amounts to a concrete injury. Recently, a federal judge in Maryland remanded a putative class action in Khan v. Children's National Health System, No. 8:15-cv- 02125, May 19, 2016 (U.S.D.C. of Maryland) [link to Maryland decision]. The action alleged that the company violated state privacy laws by allowing a data breach to occur in 2014, during which patient personal information was released. In his opinion, Judge Chuang decided that the plaintiff patient failed to show how the hackers' possession of her personal information "has diminished its value" or that she suffered a loss of privacy that is in itself an injury. Citing to Spokeo, Judge Chuang held that the plaintiff had not suffered a concrete injury (that is required even in the context of a statutory violation), and thus, lacked Article III standing in federal court. Notably, the opinion pointed out that the majority of district courts faced with the issue of Article III standing in data breach actions follow the same pattern of finding that, where there is no specific misuse of the data in question, the increased risk of identity theft does not confer standing. As the case had been removed from state court, Judge Chuang remanded it. Although lower courts have just started to apply Spokeo, there's no doubt that we will see an increasing number of data breach class action defendants wielding the high court's recent decision to their benefit. CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING: Faces "Chu" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc. The case is captioned Mei Kum Chu, Sau King Chung and Xiang Ling, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. No. 1:16-cv-03569 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016). Chinese-American Planning is a home care provider that services New York, NY 10013. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. CITY UNIVERSITY OF NY: Sued in N.Y. Over Racial Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Carmalita Taylor Thomas v. The City University of New York, Case No. 1:16-cv-03730-LTS (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful employment practices on the basis of race in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The City University of New York is a public university system of New York City, and the largest urban university in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: James D. Hartt, Esq. 70 Linden Oaks, Third Floor Rochester, NY 14625 Telephone: (585) 490-7100 Facsimile: (716) 299-2006 COMMUNITY EDUCATION: "Giles" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Giles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Community Education Centers, Inc. and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. BC621130 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and damages pursuant to the California Labor Code. Community Education Centers, Inc. provides counseling services to offenders in prisons and residential reentry facilities throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shadie L. Berenji, Esq. Tsolik Kazandjian, Esq, Kiran Preet Dhillon, Esq. 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 708 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 855-3270 Facsimile: (310) 855-3751 E-mail: berenji@employeejusticelaw.com kazandjian@employeejusticelaw.com dhillon@employeejusticelaw.com CORNERSTONE ADMINISYSTEMS: Bid to Certify "Altman" Class Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Paul S. Diamond entered an order in the lawsuit entitled SUSAN ALTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CORNERSTONE ADMINISYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv- 06774-PD (E.D. Pa.), denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, without prejudice to refiling after the completion of discovery respecting class certification. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kYlcqXL1 COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Appeals Reverses Class Action Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Keith Paul Bishop, Esq. -- kbishop@allenmatkins.com -- of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that in Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 789 (2011), the trial court ruled that state courts do not enjoy concurrent jurisdiction when a class action meeting the definition of a "covered class action" under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (aka "SLUSA") did not involve a "covered security" as also defined by SLUSA (the definitions of both these terms can be found in Section 16(f) of the '33 Act). The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that "an intent to prevent certain class actions does not tell us that this class action, or all securities class actions must be brought in federal court." At the time, Mr. Bishop observed: The holding in Luther opens the state courthouse door to class action plaintiffs with '33 Act claims when the securities involved do not meet the definition of "covered securities". It remains to be seen whether plaintiffs will rush in and whether other courts will agree that the door is open. Five years later, we have some answers. First, the plaintiffs bar did rush in. According to a recent petition for certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on May 25: In the 12 years between SLUSA and Countrywide, only 6 class actions alleging Section 11 claims were filed in California state courts -- an average of one case every two years. In the 5 years after Countrywide, at least 38 class actions alleging Section 11 claims were filed in California state courts -- an average of more than seven cases every year. Fourteen were filed in 2015 alone. Second, the courts are not in agreement. According to the same petition: Federal district courts in removal cases have divided bitterly over the question presented. Because of the procedural roadblocks to review of remand orders, federal appeals courts are unlikely to rule on, let alone resolve, the conflict. Absent this Court's guidance, the district courts will remain in disarray with no end in sight. The petition was filed by Boris Feldman and his team at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund et al. CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Certification of Class Sought in "Powers" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move for certification of a settlement class in the lawsuit captioned Laura Powers, Nichole Palmer, and Jason Palmer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Credit Management Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:11-cv-00436- JFB-TDT (D. Neb.). The Plaintiffs also ask for an order preliminarily approving the settlement of the class action as fair and reasonable, approving the form and method for providing class-wide notice, and scheduling a hearing at which these will be considered: request for final approval of the proposed settlement, any objections filed, incentive awards to the named plaintiffs, and entry of a Final Order. The Motion has been presented to the Defendants, who do not oppose, the Plaintiffs tell the Court. For the purpose of the settlement, the parties agree to the certification of this settlement class: All persons with addresses in Nebraska against whom Defendants filed a county court collection complaint in the form of Exhibit C after January 1, 2008, for purposes of the NCPA, and after December 18, 2010, for purposes of the FDCPA (ii) which sought to recover attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and costs, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 25-1801 (iii) where CMS did not personally provide the ninety-day presentation of the claim (iv) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. (The Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 25-1801 Class) AND (i) All persons with addresses in Nebraska upon whom Defendants served a county court collection complaint in the form of Exhibit A after January 1, 2008, for purposes of the NCPA, and after December 18, 2010, for purposes of the FDCPA (ii) which sought to recover prejudgment interest pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 45-104 (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. (The Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 45-104 Class) A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kcOGjEFo The Plaintiffs are represented by: Pamela A. Car, Esq. William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO 8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105 Omaha, NE 68124 Telephone: (402) 391-8484 E-mail: pacar@cox.net - and - O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ& ASSOCIATES 25 East Washington Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-8822 CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Seri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crosscountry Mortgage, Inc., c/o its Statutory Agent David L. Firestine and Michael Crawford d/b/a Direct Source, Case No. 1:16-cv-01214-DAP (N.D. Ohio., May 19, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to the phones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. The Defendants operate a full service mortgage lending company that offers a variety of home purchase, refinance, and home equity products, and is licensed as a mortgage lender in 49 states. The Plaintiff is represented by: Basil W. Mangano, Esq. 2245 Warrensville Center Road, Suite 213 Cleveland, OH 44118 Telephone: (216) 397-5844 Facsimile: (216) 397-5845 E-mail: bmangano@bmanganolaw.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com CUSTOM AIR: Faces "King" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony King, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Custom Air Trucking, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC620732 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Custom Air Trucking, Inc. operates a trucking company located at 5330 W 102nd St, Los Angeles, CA 90045. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@selarehlaw.com thomas@selarehlaw.com DBHV: Faces "Lofstock" Suit in D.N.J. ------------------------------------- John Lofstock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DBHV also known as: Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc., the Defendant, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-02715-CCC-MF (D.N.J., May 13, 2016). The assigned Judge is Claire C. Cecchi. DBHV offers pre-collection, third-party bad debt collections services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Efraim Zvi Kieffer, Esq. 131 Pennington Avenue Passaic, NJ 07055 Telephone: (973) 614 9245 E-mail: kiefferlawoffice@aol.com DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Engineers Trust Fund Suit in Ill. -------------------------------------------------------- Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DeVry Education Group, Inc., Daniel Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins, the Defendants, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-05198 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover losses and damages as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. According to the complaint, the Defendants boasted about the employment prospects of DeVry University graduates to investors and students alike, emphasizing that 90% of DVU graduates obtained employment in their field of study within six months of graduation and that DVU graduates' salaries one year after graduation were 15% higher than the average or median salaries of graduates with bachelor's degrees from all other colleges and universities. However, on January 27, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit against DeVry and DeVry University accusing them of deceptively advertising the benefits of obtaining a bachelor's degree at DeVry University. Specifically, the FTC complaint charges that Defendants' claim that 90% of DeVry University graduates actively seeking employment landed jobs in their field of study within six months of graduating was deceptive. DeVry provides educational services worldwide through a number of subsidiaries, including DeVry University ("DVU" or "DeVry University"), one of the largest degree-granting higher education systems in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Telephone: (561) 206 6708 Facsimile: (866) 290 1291 E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com DOLLAR TREE: "Stacy" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- Sherika Stacy, on behalf of herself and similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 16-64328-CA-20, was removed from 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-61032-WJZ to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is William J. Zloch. Dollar Tree operates discount variety stores offering general merchandise at one-dollar price points. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J Hill, Esq. Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337 7992 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com - and - Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 lcabassa@wfclaw.com - and - Marc Reed Edelman MARC R. EDELMAN PA 1925 E.2nd Avenue Tampa, FL 33605 Telephone: (813) 982 4326 E-mail: marc@edelmanfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Barry Rodney Davidson, Esq. Douglas C Dreier, Esq. HUNTON & WILLIAMS 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 810 2539 Facsimile: (305) 810-2462 E-mail: bdavidson@hunton.com ddreier@hunton.com DYNAMIC HOME: "Marez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- Marta Marez, an individual; for herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Home Care Service, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and, Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC620417 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid hourly wages, unpaid overtime wages, reimbursement of business expenses incurred, waiting time penalties, liquidated damages in the amount equal to wages unlawfully unpaid and interest, and penalties, restitution, and liquidated damages under the Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay for all hours worked, failed to pay for hours worked at the appropriate rates, which resulted in failure to pay all hourly and overtime wages owed, failure to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay all wages to separated employees, and failure to reimburse for all business-related expenses. Dynamic Home provides hospital quality care in the comfort of your own home throughout the great Houston, Texas, area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Singer, Esq. Janine R. Menhennet, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595 3001 Facsimile: (619) 595 3000 - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609 0807 Facsimile: (818) 609 0892 DYNAMIC SPORTS: Court Rules on Cable Subscriber Info Disclosure --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MATTHEW TIGER, Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC SPORTS NUTRITION, LLC and PBB TRADEMARK HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-1701-Orl-41TBS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Thomas B. Smith granted in part and denied, in part, Dynamic Sports Nutrition, LLC's (DSN) Motion for Order Directing Release of Cable Subscriber Information. Matthew Tiger brought the lawsuit on behalf of himself and two putative classes of similarly situated persons who purchased dietary supplements manufactured by the defendants DSN and PBB Trademark Holdings, LLC (PBB). Tiger alleged that the defendants use false and misleading marketing and packaging to deceive customers into believing their products are steroids. Count I of the complaint is an action for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Count II is an action for unjust enrichment. During discovery, DSN filed a motion for order directing release of cable subscriber information. Judge Smith ordered as follows: (1) DSN shall serve a copy of the order on Bright House Networks, LLC (BHN). (2) BHN shall have five business days from the date that the order is served on it to notify the subscriber of IP address 71.43.72.10 of the subpoena and the order. (3) The subscriber shall have 21 days from the date of service to file any motions in this Court contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the subpoena). (4) The parties may only use the subpoenaed information to litigate the claims and defenses in this lawsuit, and for no other purpose. A full-text copy of Judge Smith's May 24, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/UdJk4j from Leagle.com. Matthew Tiger, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Leslie Vessel, Dixit Law Firm, PA & Shyam N.S. Dixit, Jr, Dixit Law Firm, PA. Dynamic Sports Nutrition, LLC, PBB Trademark Holdings, LLC, Defendants, represented by Frank Mari -- fmari@bellroperlaw.com -- Bell & Roper, PA, Michael J. Roper -- mroper@bellroperlaw.com -- Bell & Roper, PA, Greg Koush -- gkoush@hicks-thomas.com -- Hicks Thomas, LLP & Stewart Hoffer -- shoffer@hicks-thomas.com -- Hicks Thomas, LLP. ENTERPRISE RECOVERY: Faces "Boykin" Suit in D. Ariz. ---------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Enterprise Recovery Systems Incorporated. The case is captioned Je'Anna Boykin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Enterprise Recovery Systems Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. #: 2:16-cv-01487-DKD (D. Ariz., May 13, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. David K Duncan. Enterprise Recovery is a specialist in the recovery of educational loans and institutional accounts for colleges, universities and state guarantee programs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq. Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC 5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388 8898 Facsimile: (866) 565 1327 E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com ERIE ASSET: Faces "Derrick" Suit in D.N.J. ------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Erie Asset Management. The case is captioned Angelique Derrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Erie Asset Management, Inc. Hylan Asset Management, Inc., and John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02736-PGS-DEA (D.N.J. May 13, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Peter G. Sheridan. Hylan Asset is a distressed receivables management firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com yzelman@marcuszelman.com EVERLASTING NAILS: "Nguyen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Tifanny Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v, Everlasting Nails, Inc., d/b/a New Everlasting Nails, and Pek Chau, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03582 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, Defendants paid Plaintiff between $221.64 and $242.42 per week which is far below the minimum wage and overtime rate. Defendants operate a nail/beauty salon in Bronx New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC 2747 Coney Island Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808 2224 E-mail: naydensiylaw@gmail.com FACEBOOK INC: BIPA Amendment May Help Win Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Cale Guthrie Weissman, writing for Fast Company, reports that at least, that might be what is about to happen in Illinois. One of the strongest state digital privacy statutes may soon be gutted. Known as the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), this Illinois state law expressly forbids companies from collecting personal identifiers from people without informed consent. A new amendment is being pushed through that could dramatically change the meaning of the law. When it was first enacted in 2008, BIPA was meant to prevent people's personal biological information from being collected by technology companies. This meant that if an online service was collecting your physical data, it had to explicitly let you know. Over the last year, Facebook has been fighting a class action lawsuit that alleges that its photo tagging program -- which scans digital photos, and uses facial recognition to automatically identify people -- is in direct violation of the Illinois law. Facebook has been vigorously fighting this suit, claiming on multiple occasions that it is without merit. Earlier in May, a judge ruled against Facebook's motion to dismiss the case, meaning it would be brought to trial. This latest amendment might change all that. Chris Dore, a partner at the law firm Edelson PC (which represents the class action suit being brought against Facebook) explained to Fast Company that this change would essentially "carve out a huge chunk of it." In his estimation, the change would make it possible for companies to collect digital biometric data -- like facial templates -- without any consent at all. As Mr. Dore put it, this amendment would take the teeth out of the privacy act. It's a little complicated. The existing law didn't count photographs as biometric identifiers, but it was disputed whether "photographs" included digital photographs or not. Additionally, the law said that analyzing "facial geometry" needed consent. The new change specifies that both digital and physical photographs are not subject to BIPA protections. Perhaps more significantly, the amendment specifically identifies biometric scanning as something that happens in person, IRL -- which means scanning a digital photograph of someone's face online would no longer be illegal in Illinois without that person's consent. It seems the amendment's backers are trying to pass it through quietly; Notice how this is all happening on the eve of a holiday weekend -- the amendment was introduced on May 27 and the vote could happen as early as May 28. What's more, the Illinois legislature was about to go on a break on May 30. The amendment is tacked on a law that focuses on unclaimed property, not biometric data -- which means legislators might not even realize that they are voting for the BIPA amendment, too. It should be noted that the author of this change, Senator Terry Link, was one of the original lawmakers behind BIPA. If the amendment doesn't pass and Facebook loses the trial, the social network may have to change its facial recognition services for everyone in Illinois. FACEBOOK INC: Judge Grewal Joins Legal Team ------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that after juggling a dense docket of technology patent cases for six years, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal is trading his black robe for a high-profile post on Facebook's legal team. The Silicon Valley judge will retire from the bench on June 3 to become Facebook's vice president and deputy general counsel for worldwide litigation. Grewal has presided over class actions involving Google and other tech giants, hashed out discovery disputes for Apple v. Samsung and other patent cases, and handled hundreds of criminal and civil rights cases. "He's had to deal with basically everything Facebook will probably see," Grewal's former colleague Mansi Shah with the Valorem Law Group said. "They've gotten lucky. He's going to be an asset to them in ways they probably don't even know yet." Grewal graduated from MIT with a Bachelor of Science before earning his law degree at the University of Chicago. He worked on commercial litigation at Pillsbury Madison and focused on intellectual property, patent trials and appeals as an attorney with Day Casebeer Batchelder & Madrid. Grewal's background in science and engineering and his firm grasp on intellectual property law led many Silicon Valley attorneys to agree to have him hear their patent cases. "I think he's established himself as one of the leading patent judges in Northern California," said Neel Chaterjee, with Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, who worked with Grewal at the South Asian Bar Association of North America. "He's gotten a very high number of consent cases. I think that's a real testament to people's confidence in his ability to arrive at fair and thoughtful conclusions." Grewal's fellow U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins said Grewal has wide-ranging expertise. "He has great strengths beyond intellectual property," Cousins said. "He has many hundreds of cases that are not involving intellectual property. Many of my interactions with him are outside of that, as magistrate judges handling criminal cases." And Grewal has kept his fellow judges up to date through his work on the National Magistrate Judges Committee, Cousins said. Grewal is one of the few federal judges with a Twitter account, where he regularly tweets about his hometown's sports teams, the Cleveland Browns and Cavaliers. "His absence will be felt deeply, not just by the litigants but by his colleagues, because he's a joy to be around," Cousins said. "I know we'll find no one with as much knowledge on the Cleveland Browns." Grewal also made sure young attorneys get the chance to strengthen their skills at oral arguments. In March, he issued a ruling in a patent case involving microchips, ordering both parties to let younger attorneys argue at least two of their six post-trial motions. "Who will try the technology cases of the future, when so few opportunities to develop courtroom skills appear?" Grewal wrote in his March 9 ruling. Shah, who was mentored by Grewal when her law firm, Howrey, merged with Grewal's firm Day Casebeer in 2009, said Grewal understands the importance of giving young attorneys the chance to polish their courtroom skills. "He wants to make sure our profession has a pipeline of great attorneys in it," Shah said. Aside from losing a judge with a great grasp of technology and patent law, Shah said, Grewal's departure comes as somewhat of a blow to the South Asian community. Grewal previously served as president of the South Asian Bar Association -- North America and the South Asian Bar Association - Northern California. South Asians are one of the least-represented minority groups on the federal judiciary, according to the Center for American Progress. "For the South Asian Bar, it's a judge loss," Shah said. "We don't have too many, but we're growing in numbers." When Grewal clerked for retired Federal Circuit Appeals Court Judge Arthur Gajarsa about 15 years ago, Gajarsa said he knew Grewal was destined for great things. "I always knew he would go on to do bigger and better things," Gajarsa said. "As a judge, you always hired people you knew were smarter than you, and they made you look good." Gajarsa said Grewal has a calling for public service and he may return to the courts as a higher-ranking judge some day. He said the pay scale for a district court judge, around $200,000 per year, doesn't compare with the earning potential for a private sector attorney, especially in Silicon Valley. "I think Paul stepping down from the court is a big loss to the federal system," Gajarsa said. "He was essentially one of the best that they had. Attracting people of Paul's character to the bench is very important." FAIR HAVENS: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved from Jud. Cir. to S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- Flor Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Fair Havens Center, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 16-004468-CA-01, was removed from 11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-21707-RNS to the proceeding. The Assigned Judge is Robert N. Scola, Jr. Fair Havens is a nursing home located in Miami Springs, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas S Andrews, Esq. Jonathan Alan Beckerman, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400 7500 Facsimile: (305) 603 2552 E-mail: nandrews@littler.com jabeckerman@littler.com FANDUEL INC: "Sobel" Class Suit Removed to Dist. of Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Lee Sobel, as an individual and all others similarly situated v. FanDuel, Inc. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC616436, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10907-GAO to the proceeding. FanDuel, Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Tai Wootton, Esq. Christopher J. Hamner, Esq. HAMNER LAW OFFICES APC 555 West 5th Street 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 533-4160 Facsimile: (213) 533-4167 E-mail: awootton@hamnerlaw.com chamner@hamnerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David McDowell, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com - and - Rebekah Elisabeth Kaufman, Esq. MORRISON AND FOERSTER 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: rkaufman@mofo.com - and - Benjamin D. Williams, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-5237 E-mail: bwilliams@mofo.com FIRST CLOVER: Faces Class Action Over First-Mid Illinois Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Maher, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that stockholders of Edwardsville-based First Clover Leaf Bank have filed a proposed class action against the company's board of directors over their recent decision to be acquired by Mattoon- based First Mid-Illinois. Lead plaintiff Jonathan Raul brought the suit May 20 in Madison County Circuit Court; Wood River attorney Tom Maag and Granite City attorney Joshua Lifshitz represent plaintiffs. Board members allegedly breached their fiduciary duties because the deal to sell to First Mid-Illinois, announced April 26, resulted in an "inadequate" price and a "grossly unfair" merger process. The cash and stock transaction is valued at approximately $90 million, the suit claims. Defendants include First Clover Leaf president and CEO Dave Kuhl, as well as board chairman Gerard Schuetzenhofer and board members Kenneth Highlander, Gary Niebur, Dennis Terry, Mary Westerhold, Joseph Gugger, Mona Best Haberer and Joseph Stevens. The banks are also named in the suit. The suit claims the deal provides that shareholders may elect to receive either a .495 share of First Mid-Illinois common stock per share of First Clover Leaf common stock or $12.87 in cash per share of First Clover common stock -- "subject to proration such that 25 percent of First Clover shares will be exchanged for cash and 75 percent for First Mid-Illinois stock." "The agreed upon consideration is inadequate in light of First Clover's intrinsic value and stand-alone alternatives going forward," the suit claims. It further states that First Clover Leaf had been performing well and "was poised for success." The suit cites an April 28 article in Capital Cube that states the bank is "undervalued," and has done better than its overall peer group. Plaintiffs claim that board members compounded their alleged breaches by agreeing to deal protections that unreasonably favor First Mid-Illinois, and which preclude other bidders from making successful competing offers. Defendants allegedly agreed to: -- a strict no-solicitation provision that prevents First Clover Leaf from providing confidential information to or even communicating with potential competing bidders except under extremely limited circumstances; -- a provision that provides First Mid-Illinois with three business days to match any competing proposal in the event one is made; -- information rights that require First Clover Leaf to share highly sensitive information about potential competing proposals with First Mid-Illinois; and -- a provision that requires First Clover Leaf to pay First Mid- Illinois a termination fee of $3.6 million in order to enter into a transaction with a superior bidder. "These provisions substantially and improperly limit the Board's ability to act with respect to investigating and pursuing superior proposals and alternatives including a sale of all or part of First Clover," the suit states. "The preclusive effect of these deal protection provisions thus exacerbates and aggravates the Board's utter failure to value-maximizing pre-agreement market check or auction process." Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the vote on the proposed transaction, or in the event the deal is consummated, recover damages resulting from the defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-703. FORD MOTOR: Baron & Budd Mulls Class Action Over ETB Problem ------------------------------------------------------------ The national law firm of Baron & Budd is investigating a potential class action lawsuit on behalf of owners of certain Ford vehicles affected by an electronic throttle body (ETB) problem that can result in sudden stalls, risking the safety of the driver, passengers and other motorists and/or pedestrians on the road. Owners of the following vehicles that have an ETB problem may be able to participate in a class action lawsuit against the automaker: 2011 to 2013 Ford Mustang 2011 to 2013 Ford Edge 2011 to 2013 Lincoln MKX A defective ETB can put a vehicle into what is known as "limp home" mode, where the vehicle can continue to move but at a significantly lowered speed. Some consumers have reported that their vehicles not only stalled while in motion, but also surged suddenly during acceleration from a stop. Ford agreed to repair many models that could have defective ETBs under a special extended warranty program. However, the program does not include the models mentioned above. "Auto defects can put many people at risk of serious injury or even death," said Roland Tellis, head of the Consumer Class Action group at the national law firm of Baron & Budd. "We will work to make sure that Ford repairs all models that have a defective ETB - - not just a select few." If you own one of the models of Ford vehicles listed above, please call the national law firm of Baron & Budd at 1 (866) 700-8994 for more information on how we may be able to help. About Baron & Budd, P.C. The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Dallas, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally recognized law firm with a nearly 40-year history of "Protecting What's Right" for people, communities and businesses harmed by negligence. Baron & Budd's size and resources enable the firm to take on large and complex cases. The firm represents individuals and government and business entities in areas as diverse as dangerous pharmaceuticals and medical devices, environmental contamination, the Gulf oil spill, financial fraud, overtime violations, deceptive advertising, automotive defects, trucking accidents, nursing home abuse, and asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. FORD MOTOR: Court Strikes Class Action Claims in "Cassidy" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Kurt D. Engelhardt granted Ford Motor Company's "Motion to Dismiss or Strike Plaintiffs' Class Action Allegations," and struck the class allegations from the complaint in the lawsuit titled JAMES T. CASSIDY AND FAITH H. CASSIDY, individually and as representatives of others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:15-cv-02483-KDE-KWR (E.D. La.). The Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint on July 7, 2015. The Court noted that in the ensuing 91 days, the Plaintiffs neither moved for class certification nor requested additional time from the Court. As a result, the time for moving for class certification under Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expired on October 6, 2015. Hence, Judge Engelhardt denied as untimely the Plaintiffs' "Motion to Certify Class," which was filed on May 20, 2016, more than seven months after the deadline. He opined that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause to excuse their untimeliness. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WrsJCshO FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, PA: Not Liable for Day Care Contamination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jan Hefler, writing for Philly.com, reports that a New Jersey appellate court ruled on May 26 that a state agency and Franklin Township are not liable for damages or claims due to their failure to prevent a children's day-care center from opening in a contaminated mercury thermometer factory a decade ago. About 100 infants and children were exposed to toxic vapors linked to brain and kidney ailments after they were enrolled in the Kiddie Kollege day-care and nursery in Gloucester County between 2004 and 2006. The appeals panel reversed a 2010 lower-court ruling that the government entities were negligent partly because they had issued permits to allow the center to open without a cleanup. The lower court had ordered the state Department of Environmental Protection and the township to pay $675,000 into a $1.5 million medical monitoring fund for the Kiddie Kollege children after their parents filed a class-action lawsuit. The town also was ordered to pay $1.6 million in legal fees to the parents' five attorneys. GENERAL CABLE: Dismissal of "Livonia" Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Livonia Employees' Retirement System's ("Livonia") complaint against General Cable Corporation and its officers, as well as the district court's denial of Livonia's motion to amend the judgment. The case is captioned Satish Doshi, Plaintiff, CITY OF LIVONIA EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others Similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION; GREGORY B. KENNY; BRIAN J. ROBINSON, Defendants- Appellees, No. 15-5621 (6th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's May 24, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/R5gUu9 from Leagle.com. In October 2012, and again a year later, General Cable Corporation announced that it would reissue several public financial statements because they included material accounting errors. Soon after, Livonia initiated the class-action suit against General Cable, its CEO Gregory Kenny, and its CFO Brian Robinson for violating sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. Livonia asserted that each defendant acted at least recklessly in issuing or approving General Cable's materially false public financial statements. The defendants countered that General Cable's misstatements resulted from accounting errors and a theft scheme in its Brazilian operations of which the defendants were unaware and that they promptly sought to remediate upon discovering them. Agreeing with the defendants, the district court dismissed Livonia's complaint with prejudice because it failed to plead scienter adequately. The district court then denied Livonia's Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment, which included a request to file an amended complaint. Livonia appeals both decisions. Joseph D. Daley -- joed@rgrdlaw.com -- James A. Caputo, Steven F. Hubachek -- shubachek@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP, San Diego, California, for Appellant. Marc J. Sonnenfeld -- marc.sonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Karen Pieslak Pohlmann -- karen.pohlmann@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, David F. Fessler -- dfessler@fsgattorneys.com -- FESSLER, SCHNEIDER & GRIMME, LLP, Fort Thomas, Kentucky, for Appellees. GENERAL MOTORS: Exaggerated Miles Per Gallon in SUVs, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in Los Angeles claims General Motors exaggerated the miles per gallon on its 2016 Chevrolet Traverses, GMC Acadias and Buick Enclaves. GERDAU SA: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Reese Ewing and Jeb Blount, writing for Reuters, report that New York investor rights law firm Pomerantz LLP filed a class action suit against Brazil's Gerdau SA, Latin America's largest steelmaker, alleging the company issued materially misleading business information filed to investors over tax liabilities. Porto Alegre, Brazil-based Gerdau is the latest Brazilian company with shares traded in the United States to face actual or potential lawsuits over securities fraud as a result of Brazilian corruption investigations. The Pomerantz lawsuit alleges Gerdau failed to disclose it and its executives bribed tax authorities, defrauded Brazil's tax revenue service of $429 million, laundered illegal funds and carried out influence peddling, according to the filing. Federal police in Brazil raided Gerdau offices in March 2015 and February 2016 as part of Operation Zelot, a probe into tax fraud through which companies are alleged to have bribed tax revenue agents to issue favorable rulings. Earlier in May, Brazilian police filed charges alleging Gerdau evaded $429 million in taxes and against Chief Executive Officer Andr‚ Gerdau Johannpeter for corruption. Pomerantz is seeking investors in Gerdau ADRs from June 2, 2011 and May 15, 2016 to participate in its suit. For it to proceed as a class action, a court must accept it as meeting a minimum criteria. Earlier in May, another New York firm, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, launched an investigation into whether investors in the company's ADRs suffered losses due to similar allegations related to Gerdau's ongoing tax corruption case in Brazil. The growing docket of securities fraud lawsuits follow probes that uncovered a giant price-fixing, bribery and political kick-back scandal at state-led oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA in early 2014. GERDAU SA: July 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 26 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Gerdau S.A. securities from June 2, 2011 through May 15, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Gerdau investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Gerdau class action, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-898.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 more information on the class action. 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 false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that (1) the Company was engaged in a bribery scheme in collusion with Brazil's Board of Tax Appeals ("CARF"); (2) Gerdau had defrauded Brazilian tax authorities of roughly $429 million in taxes; (3) Gerdau's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Defendant Andr‚ Bier Gerdau Johannpeter ("Johannpeter") and other directors and employees of the Company had engaged in bribery, money laundering, and influence peddling; and (4) as a result, Gerdau'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 July 25, 2016. 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-898.htmlfor more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email 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. GLACIER WATER: Certification of Class Sought in "Magee" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned SCOTT MAGEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLACIER WATER SERVICES, INC. and WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv- 04364-SSV-KWR (E.D. La.), file with the Court a preliminary motion for class certification. Mr. Magee reserves his right to supplement the Motion upon the conclusion of discovery. He also asks that the Court suspend the hearing date on the Motion until discovery has been completed. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3YLnbFmD The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 Facsimile: (504) 272-2956 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com - and - William H. Beaumont, Esq. WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 483-8008 E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com GOOGLE INC: Status Hearing in "Weiss" Class Suit Set for June 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Edmond E. Chang entered an order in the purported class action lawsuit titled Joseph Weiss v. Google, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02870 (N.D. Ill.). The Order noted that a status hearing was held in both Rivera v. Google, Case No. 16-cv-2714, and Weiss v. Google, Case No. 16-cv- 2870. Judge Chang said that the Court and counsel discussed various topics during the status hearing. First, the Court noted the need to notify the Illinois Attorney General of the potential constitutional challenge to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Google presents an alternative argument to the effect that if the Act is interpreted in the way that the Plaintiffs allegedly propose, then the Act violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. Second, as discussed during the status hearing, the Plaintiffs will not object to the defense later raising a California choice- of-law argument as to Plaintiff Weiss later in the litigation. Third, the Plaintiffs' response to the dismissal motion is due by June 1, 2016. The defense reply is due by June 17. Fourth, in order to avoid duplicative filings, and because the Rivera proposed class is a subset of the Weiss proposed class, the Clerk's Office will terminate 16-cv-2870 and place the complaint in that case on the docket in 16-cv-2714 as another Complaint in 16-cv-2714. The Plaintiffs' response will be in one filing on just the one docket (16-cv-2714), and the same goes for the defense reply and all future filings. A status hearing is set for June 23, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hs3Uj3pT GOPRO INC: Faces "Samra" Securities Class Action in Calif. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- Jagdip Samra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nicholas Woodman, Anthony J. Bates, Edward Gilhuly, Kenneth Goldman, Peter Gotcher, Michael Marks, Jack Lazar, John Ball, Gopro, Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, Barclays Capital, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Allen & Company, LLC, Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, MCS Capital Markets, LLC, Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. CV538653 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. The lawsuit is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired GoPro common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and misleading registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with its June 26, 2014 initial public offering (IPO). On June 11, 2014, GoPro filed an amended registration statement on Form S - 1/A for the Company's IPO, which the SEC deemed effective on June 25, 2014, when the Company filed its Registration Statement on Form S- 8 (Registration Statement). On June 26, 2014, GoPro filed its Prospectus on Form 424134, which forms part of the Registration Statement (Prospectus). GoPro sells cameras that are designed for uses ranging from extreme sports to professional photography and creating and editing videos. GoPro also sells software and has a mobile App that pairs with the cameras in which users can edit, manage, and share their pictures and videos. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc G. Reich, Esq. Adam T. Hoover, Esq. REICH RADCLIFFE & KUTTLER LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 975 0512 Facsimile: (949) 975 0514 E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com adhoover@reichradcliffe.com - and - Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER 821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493 9780 Facsimile: (516) 280 7376 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com HARBOR VILLAGE: "Medina" Suit Moved to S. D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------- Yesika Medina, and others similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Harbor Village Inc., a Florida for Profit Corporation and Robert G. Niznik, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 16-004481-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-21710-UU to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Ursula Ungaro. Harbor Village provides medical detox and treatment of alcohol and drug addictions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael Richard Tricarico, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374 0506 Facsimile: (305) 374 0456 E-mail: michael.tricarico@ogletreedeakins.com HAT WORLD: Faces "Rando" Suit Over Unlawful Terms and Conditions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Rando, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hat World, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02814-JHR-JS (D.N.J., May 19, 2016), seeks redress for the unlawful commercial practices employed by the Defendant regarding unlawful terms and conditions that purport to govern products purchased from the website www.lids.com Hat World, Inc. markets hats and related products throughout the State of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald H. Clarks, Esq. Mark W. Morris, Esq. Lazaro Berenguer, Esq. CLARK LAW FIRM, PC 811 Sixteenth Avenue Belmar, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 443-0333 Facsimile: (732) 894-9647 - and - Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (946) 706-6464 Facsimile: (946) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com ILLINOIS: "Richard" Suit Against Dept. of Corrections Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the Southern District of Illinois dismisses the case against the Illinois Department of Corrections, captioned PRINCE RICHARD, # R-17418, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, C. GLADYSE TAYLOR, PAYNE, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., TROST, JOHN DOE, and KIMBERLY BUTLER, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00069-NJR (S.D. Ill.). Prince Richard, an inmate currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brought a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for the deprivation of his constitutional rights at Menard. He sues the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), Gladyse Taylor, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Kimberly Butler, Doctor Trost, Nurse John Doe, and Counselor Payne for violating his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks monetary damages, a CT scan, and class action injunctive relief in the form of a court order requiring all IDOC facilities to install ladders on bunk beds. Richard alleges that defendants subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Menard in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they assigned him to a top bunk that lacked a ladder and steps (Count I). That defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they failed to treat the injuries he sustained after falling from the top bunk on January 18, 2015 (Count II). That defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they refused to issue him a low bunk or low gallery permit after he fell from the top bunk on January 18, 2015 Count (III), and that defendants denied him access to the courts by ignoring his grievances and thereby preventing him from exhausting his administrative remedies before bringing this action (Count IV). Judge Rosenstengel dismissed plaintiff's counts I and IV without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Count III is dismissed without prejudice against defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. for the same reason. The Illinois Department of Corrections is dismissed with prejudice from the action. Count II is subject to further review against defendants Taylor, Payne, Wexford Health Resources, Trost, Nurse Practitioner John Doe and Butler. Count III is subject for further review against Taylor, Payne, Trost, Nurse Practitioner John Doe and Butler. As to Counts II and III, the Court said plaintiff has neither sought nor been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the action, and the court will not automatically appoint the United States Marshal to effect service of process upon defendants Taylor, Payne, Wexford Health Resources, Trost, and Butler. However, if plaintiff desires to request the appointment of the United States Marshal to serve process on these defendants, plaintiff shall file a motion for service of process at government expense, within 35 days of the date of entry of the order. 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 and shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Defendants are ordered to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the complaint. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), the action is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson for further pre-trial proceedings, including a decision on plaintiff's motion for recruitment of counsel and a plan for discovery aimed at identifying defendant Nurse Practitioner John Doe. Further, the entire matter is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Wilkerson for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), should all the parties consent to such a referral. A copy of Judge Rosenstengel's memorandum and order dated May 20, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/VyujFOfrom Leagle.com. Prince Richard, Plaintiff, Pro Se INDIANAPOLIS, IN: Sued Over Prisoner Civil Rights Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- MAURICE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Indianapolis, in its official capacity, Case No. 1:16-cv-01238-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for Prisoner Civil Rights violation. City of Indianapolis is the capital of Indiana and the seat of Marion County. Maurice Young is a pro se plaintiff. JENNY CRAIG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel L. Messeloff, Esq. -- Daniel.Messeloff@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reports that in a case that could be of significant benefit to employers in California and elsewhere around the country, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a ruling that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the "commonality" requirement essential to a collective action on their wage-hour claim where they had the authority to edit the time entries that served as the basis for their claim. Coleman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7164 (April 6, 2016). Plaintiff Hashonna Coleman brought suit against Jenny Craig, Inc. on behalf of herself and other current and former employees for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and various California Labor Code sections providing for overtime payments and premiums for failure to provide or pay for meal and rest periods. With respect to the proposed Meal and Rest Break Class, Coleman alleged that Jenny Craig had a common practice of forcing hourly employees to miss meal breaks or take short or late meal breaks, and that the payroll system only paid the (California) required premium when employees' timecards showed an entirely-missed meal break. The evidence showed that Jenny Craig's uniform compensation system was not programmed to automatically pay employees the premiums for short or late lunches, because employees were able to submit time edit requests for premiums whenever their meal breaks were short or late. The district court concluded that this feature of the Company's payroll system did not amount to a policy or practice of non-payment of premiums for short of late lunches, because employees themselves could edit and correct any time entries they believed did not accurately reflect their hours worked. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the "commonality" requirement for class certification and therefore it denied Plaintiff's motion to certify a class. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that, for Coleman to show commonality on her claims, she must show a common practice of Jenny Craig to force employees to take short or late meal breaks, but that a common practice of simply not paying wage premiums, standing alone, is insufficient to show commonality under the FLSA and California statutes. Since the lower court found that Jenny Craig did not have a common practice of forcing employees to take short or late meal breaks, the Ninth Circuit held that the court was correct in finding that Coleman had not proven the existence of a common practice necessary to maintain a class claim. The pivotal fact upon which the class certification question turned for the Ninth Circuit was that employees had the opportunity to edit their own time entries to ensure that they were paid for time worked if they had short or late meal breaks. Any employer with a time keeping system which provides employees the opportunity to review, edit and certify their time entries will arguably be in a position to assert that fact as a defense to any collective action wage claims they may face. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Baby Power-Linked Ovarian Cancer ------------------------------------------------------------- 680 News reports that a Toronto lawyer is launching a class-action lawsuit on behalf of women who have ovarian cancer linked to the use of baby powder. The lawsuit, filed by Paul Miller of Will Davidson LLP, comes in the wake of several jury awards in the United States against Johnson & Johnson. A woman was recently awarded $55 million after being diagnosed with cancer in 2011. She claimed to have used talc-based feminine hygiene products for the better part of 40 years. A separate jury awarded the family of another woman who died of ovarian cancer in 2013 $72million. Mr. Miller says experts have confirmed a casual connection between the baby powder and cancer when talc is found on biopsy slides. "It's a terrible situation," Mr. Miller says in a release. "Johnson & Johnson -- could there be a more trusted name?" "There are two things you think of: baby power and baby shampoo. Those should be trusted products." A handful of Canadian women, ranging in age from 40 to 60, have joined the lawsuit, claiming to have used baby powder with talc for the better part of 40 years. JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Credit History ----------------------------------------------------------- Naveed Dezfoli, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank and Does 1-100, Case No. BC621018 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's practice of providing derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's credit history to various credit reporting agencies. JPMorgan Chase Bank is a multinational banking and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com KELLOGG COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Whole Grain Crackers, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Mantikas, Kristin Burns, and Linda Castle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kellogg Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-02552-SJF-AYS (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged false and misleading representation of its Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers as "whole grain" crackers, when in fact the primary ingredient of the product is enriched white flour. Kellogg Company operates a food company, producing and marketing products under the "Cheez-It" brand name throughout New York, California, and the rest of the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Maia Kats, Esq. William Thanhauser, Esq. CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 1220 L Street, Northwest, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 777-8381 Facsimile: (202) 265-4954 E-mail: mkats@cspinet.org wthanhauser@cspinet.org - and - Steven A. Skalet, Esq. Craig L. Briskin, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 Facsimile: (202) 822-4997 E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com cbriskin@findjustice.com KERNERSVILLE, NC: Faces Class Action Over Sewer Service Rates ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hewlett, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that the town of Kernersville and the City-County Utilities Commission overcharged town residents for sewer service for two and a half years, resulting in loss of $5 million, a class-action lawsuit filed earlier in May alleges. Edward R. Fasano and Debra L. Fasano filed the lawsuit May 13 in Forsyth Superior Court. The town contracts with the City-County Utilities Commission to provide sewer service to more than 8,000 people who either live within the town limits or just outside the town, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit said that town officials entered into an agreement in 2011 that would lower sewer rates from 2.487 times the rate for Winston-Salem customers to 1.2 times the rate for town residents. It would be 1.5 times the rate for people outside the town limits. The commission agreed to transfer money from what is known as the Rate Differential Fund to Kernersville. Town officials and the utility commission had been working on a new agreement, but by Jan. 1, 2013, nothing had been settled, the lawsuit said. The agreement meant that on Jan. 1, the rate would go to 1.2 times the rate Winston-Salem customers pay. But according to the lawsuit, that did not happen. "Upon information and belief, during 2013, 2014, and most of 2015, millions of dollars were improperly charged to and paid by Kernersville sanitary sewer users," the lawsuit said. And, the lawsuit said, money from the Rate Differential Fund was never transferred to Kernersville. In September 2015, the town's board of commissioners voted to reduce the rate to 1.6 times what Winston-Salem customers pay. Plaintiffs said that rate still does not comply with the 2011 agreement. Ron Hargrove, director of the City-County Utilities Commission, said the commission is just the administrator of the fund and has no control over how that money is spent. "All of that decision-making is by the town," he said. "The dispute is between the town and the customers of that town." Town Manager Curtis Swisher and Town Attorney John Wolfe III did not immediately return messages seeking comment. LAMETTRY'S COLLISSION: Faces Lawsuit Seeking Relief Under ERISA --------------------------------------------------------------- Debbie Damberg and Tony Severson, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the LaMettry's 401K Profit Sharing Plan, Plaintiffs, v. LaMettry's Collission, Inc., Steven P. Daniel, and Joanne M. LaMettry, Defendants, CASE 0:16- cv-01335-JNE-SER (D. Minn., May 18, 2016), was filed on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the LaMettry's 401K Profit Sharing Plan ("Plan") to recover financial losses suffered by the Plan and obtain injunctive and other equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. LaMettry's Collission, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation that owns and operates auto body repair shops throughout the Twin Cities. Its employees are auto-body technicians, support staff, and administrators. The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Ashwin Madia, Esq. Joshua Newville, Esq. Cody Blades, Esq. MADIA LAW LLC 345 Union Plaza 333 Washington Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612.349.2723 Fax: 612.235.3357 E-mail: jamadia@madialaw.com LANNETT CO: Faces Philly Teachers Fund Suit Over Digoxin Price -------------------------------------------------------------- Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Lannett Company, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Allergan pie; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02468-CMR (E.D. Penn., May 19, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline products. Digoxin is s prescription drug that is used to treat mild to moderate heart failure in adults, increase the heart contracting functions for pediatric patients with heart failure, and control the resting heart rate in adult patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. Doxycycline monohydrate is a prescription antibiotic used in treating humans and animals. The Defendants own and operate pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and distribute generic digoxin and generic doxycycline. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Goldman, Esq. Paul Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC 161 Washington St., Suite 1025 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com scalato@lawgsp.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Jay L. Hines, Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Matthew J. Perex, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com dminerva@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. Adam J. Pessin, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC One South Broad, Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: rliebennerg@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com M-QUBE INC: 9th Cir. Sends "Geier" Class Suit to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that the Ninth Circuit agreed May 26, to let M-Qube and Mobile Messenger arbitrate a class action in Seattle premium text subscriptions allegedly made without consent. Pow! Mobile, not a party here, is a mobile content provider that marketed a "reverse auction" game called "Bid and Win." In this type of game, players bid on prizes, and whoever makes the lowest unique bid wins. Users could subscribe to Pow! Mobile's cell phone content service, and play by submitting bids via text message. Bid and Win's $9.99 monthly subscription charge was billed directly to the subscriber's cell phone bill. Defendant m-Qube, Inc. is a "connection aggregator." It markets mobile games and other subscription-based content to the public. Defendant Mobile Messenger Americas, Inc. "built a computer 'gateway' to each of the major wireless carriers (e.g., AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile), allowing charities and businesses to send and receive text messages with customers." Both Mobile Messenger and m-Qube are "billing aggregators" who serve as financial intermediaries between customers and content providers. Defendants' parent company is Messenger Global, Inc. Margaret Wells, Richard Geier's wife, allegedly subscribed to the mobile version of Bid and Win. According to defendants, Wells accepted Pow! Mobile's Terms and Conditions (the "Terms") upon subscribing. Geier, however, counters that his wife never subscribed to the service and thus didn't assent to the Terms. The Terms include a clause compelling arbitration for "any controversy . . . arising out of or relating to a service agreement between" Pow! Mobile and its subscriber. Geier's class action complaint alleges defendants have engaged in a scheme "that causes Washington consumers to become unknowingly and unwittingly subscribed to premium text message services." Geier filed his complaint in state court, but defendants removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. After Geier filed an amended complaint, defendants moved to compel arbitration. Without determining whether Wells agreed to the Terms, the district court held that "defendants are not intended third-party beneficiaries entitled to enforce the arbitration clause" and thus denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration. According to the Ninth Circuit, the signatory to the Terms agrees to waive all claims against the Company's suppliers. Therefore, the Company's suppliers are intended third-party beneficiaries of the Terms. Thus, if defendants are suppliers of the Company, they may enforce the arbitration clause. "Whether defendants may enforce the arbitration clause against Geier requires two findings not made by the district court: Did Wells assent to the Terms? And, are defendants Pow! Mobile's suppliers? We remand so that the district court can make these determinations in the first instance," the Ninth Circuit says. The case captioned, RICHARD A. GEIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. M-QUBE INC.; MOBILE MESSENGER AMERICAS INC., DBA Mobile Messenger, Defendants-Appellants., No. 13-36080 (9th Cir.). A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision is available at http://goo.gl/wF8703from Leagle.com. MAGELLAN: Sued for Denying Mental Health Coverage to Teens ---------------------------------------------------------- Psych-Appeal, Inc., Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Zuckerman Spaeder LLP have filed a class-action lawsuit against Magellan and Blue Shield of California on behalf of adolescents suffering from mental health and substance use disorders. The suit alleges that the health insurers limit and deny coverage for outpatient and residential treatment using strict guidelines that are created internally by Magellan. "These guidelines are far more restrictive than the standards of care that are generally accepted within the mental health community," said Meiram Bendat, president of Psych-Appeal, Inc. "When insurers develop criteria that distort or disregard generally accepted treatment standards, profitability trumps patient safety." The plaintiffs in the case include a father whose teenage son was denied residential treatment for substance abuse and major depression, and a mother whose son was denied intensive outpatient treatment for the same conditions. About Psych-Appeal, Inc. Los Angeles-based Psych-Appeal, Inc. -- http://www.psych-appeal.com-- is a law firm exclusively dedicated to mental health insurance claims, advocating on behalf of patients, clinicians and treatment facilities to overcome insurer denials of treatment. MARRONE BIO: Settles Securities Class Action for $12 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (the "Company"), a leading provider of bio-based pest management and plant health products for the agriculture, turf and ornamental and water treatment markets, on May 26 disclosed that the Company and other defendants, including certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, have reached an agreement to settle the private securities class action litigation consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on February 13, 2015 as Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. et al, Case No 2:14-cv-02571-MCE- KJN. The agreement is subject to review and approval by the court after notice and an opportunity to object are provided to the plaintiff class. The settlement agreement contains no admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or any other defendant and includes a full release of claims. The agreement provides for a settlement payment to the class of $12,000,000, which will be paid by insurance carriers. Accordingly, the settlement of these lawsuits will have no adverse impact on the Company's financial position or operations. About Marrone Bio Innovations Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (MBII) -- http://www.marronebio.com -- aims to lead the movement to a more sustainable world through the discovery, development and promotion of biological products for pest management and plant health. MASSAGE ENVY: Members Sue Over Deceptive Practices -------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Massage Envy makes members buy additional monthly massages to receive the massages to which they were entitled upon signing up, a class action claims in San Diego Federal Court. MCGOVERN & COMPANY: Faces Alumaline Suit Over Contract Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Alumaline, Inc., on behalf of itself and all other persons similarly situate as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts of which McGovern & Company, LLC is a trustee v. McGovern & Company, LLC, 10E53 Owner, LLC, New York Commercial Bank, Quimby Equipment Co. Inc., S&E Bridge & Scaffold LLC, Gotham Drywall Inc., Knight Electrical Services Corp., Air Stream Air Conditioning Corp., H&L Ironworks Corp., Cirocco & Ozzimo Inc., Daniel G. McGovern, Salvatore D. Caiola, John Doe 1-10 and ABC Corp. 1-10, Case No. 652682/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiff for the labor, services, equipment and material provided to the Property located at 10 East 53rd Street, New York, New York, 10022. The Defendants are engaged in the construction business with offices located at 286 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10017. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Bernstein Jr., Esq. BAKER, GREENSPAN & BERNSTEIN, ESQS. 2099 Bellmore Avenue Bellmore, NY 11710 Telephone: (516) 783-3300 Facsimile: (516) 783-3310 MDL 1869: Judge Excludes Kalt Expert Opinion in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul L. Friedman of the District of Columbia denied plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert opinions in the case entitled In re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION This document relates to: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER CASES, MDL Docket No. 1869, Misc. No. 07-0489 (PLF) (D.D.C.) At the class certification hearing, Dr. Joseph Kalt offered an expert opinion. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to exclude opinions offered by Dr. Kalt, arguing that the court must do an analysis of Dr. Kalt's report and proffered testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and make a Daubert determination prior to the class certification hearing. They maintain that the court should refuse to consider Dr. Kalt's opinions on class certification under the standards of Rule 702 and Daubert. Defendants respond that under the case law, no Daubert hearing is required prior to class certification, that plaintiffs' motion is a blatant misuse of the Daubert inquiry, and that none of plaintiffs' arguments can fairly be described as focusing solely on principles and methodology, rather than on the conclusions that they generate. Defendants maintain that the proper forum for considering the reliability of Dr. Kalt's methodology and the validity of his opinions is at the class certification hearing itself. Judge Friedman denied plaintiffs' motion to exclude opinions offered by Dr. Kalt. A copy of Judge Friedman's memorandum opinion and order dated May 20, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/1VqRYnfrom Leagle.com. RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION - MDL NO. 1869, represented by Roger M. Adelman at LAW OFFICES OF ROGER M. ADELMAN; Richard P. Rouco at WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, pro hac vice DAKOTA GRANITE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Bailey, Jr. -- abailey@hausfeld.com -- James Joseph Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- Michael David Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- Brent W. Landau -- blandau@hausfeld.com -- William P. Butterfield -- wbutterfield@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD LLP; Richard M. Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- at HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC; Scott W. Carlson -- Vincent J. Esades -- vesades@heinsmills.com -- at HEINS, MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.; Allen D. Black -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- at FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK; Benjamin D. Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- at COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC; Douglas A. Millen -- dmillen@fklmlaw.com -- at FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC; Steig D. Olson -- steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- at QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP; Steven A. Kanner at MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C. MCINTYRE GROUP, LTD., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- at COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC; Allen D. Black -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- at FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK; James Shedden, SCHAD DIAMOND & SHEDDEN P.C., Lawrence W. Schad -- Matthew S. Burns -- Tony Kim atSCHAD DIAMOND & SHEDDEN P.C. GVL PIPE & DEMOLITION, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- at COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC; Allen D. Black -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- at FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK; Simon B. Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- at SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.; Daniel E. Gunstafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Jason S. Kilene -- jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- at GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC; Donald L. Perelman -- dperelman@finekaplan.com -- at FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK; Patrick Howard -- phoward@smbb.com -- at SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.; Thomas A. Muzilla -- tom@muzillalaw.com -- at THE MUZILLA LAW FIRM, LLC FERRARO FOODS OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- at COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC; Allen D. Black -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- at FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK; Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Mark A. Griffin -- mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- Raymond J. Farrow -- rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com -- T. David Copley -- dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- at KELLER ROHRBACK LLP SUBLETTE COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- at COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC; Allen D. Black -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- at FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK; Krishna B. Narine at LAW OFFICE OF KRISHNA B. NARINE, P.C. STRATES SHOWS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., HAUSFELD LLP, Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Brent W. Landau, HAUSFELD LLP, James Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP, Joanne Zack, BONI & ZACK LLC,Joshua D. Snyder, BONI & ZACK LLC, Michael J. Boni, BONI & ZACK LLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice, Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C. & William P. Butterfield, HAUSFELD LLP. WEST ALABAMA SAND & GRAVEL, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Joe R. Whatley, JR., WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, Richard P. Rouco, WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, pro hac vice, Roger M. Adelman, LAW OFFICES OF ROGER M. ADELMAN & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. CEDAR FARMS CO., INC., Plaintiff, represented byDaniel Paul Dietrich, WILLIAMS SCHIFINO MANGIONE & STEADY, PA, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Jeffrey B. Gittleman, BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE & William J. Schifino, Jr., WILLIAMS SCHIFINO MANGIONE & STEADY, P.A.. DAD'S PRODUCTS CO., INC., Plaintiff, represented byJames Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP, Michael David Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP, Steig D. Olson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. ZINIFEX TAYLOR CHEMICALS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Mary Jane Fait, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.. DUST PRO, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Greenwald, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael P. Lehmann, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, Paul M. Donovan, LAROE WINN, MOERMAN & DONOVAN, Steig D. Olson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Stephen R. Neuwirth, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, pro hac vice, William P. Butterfield, HAUSFELD LLP, Alicia Cobb, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Christopher L. Lebsock, HAUSFELD LLP, Daniel Brockett, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice, John Potter, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Joseph D. Hammond, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Kyle R. Taylor, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Michael David Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP, Sami H. Rashid, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Sathya S. Gosselin, HAUSFELD LLP, pro hac vice, Seth R. Gassman, HAUSFELD, LLP & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.. QUALITY REFRACTORIES INSTALLATION, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Eugene A. Spector, SPECTOR, ROSEMAN AND KODROFF PC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Jay S. Cohen, SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. &William G. Caldes, SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.. NIZHNEKAMSKNEFTEKHIM USA, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. DONNELLY COMMODITIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, represented by Barry J. Nace, PAULSON & NACE, Steig D. Olson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.. US MAGNESIUM LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. Donovan, LAROE WINN, MOERMAN & DONOVAN, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.. RB RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Michelle Adrien Parfitt, ASHCRAFT & GEREL, Richard P. Rouco, WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, pro hac vice, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Matthew H. Armstrong, Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Susan Carole Minkin, ASHCRAFT & GEREL. M.C. DIXON LUMBER COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Craig L. Briskin, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Steven A. Skalet, MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. STERLING STEEL CO., LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Peterson, PETERSON & ASSOCIATES, PC,Joseph A. Kronawitter, HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLP, R. Keith Johnston, WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, PC & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. CEDAR CREEK WHOLESALE, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Barton, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, Paul F. Bennett, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, pro hac vice, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice, Gwendolyn R. Giblin, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, pro hac vice, Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C., Steven O. Sidener, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas C. Bright, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, pro hac vice. ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC,James Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP, Michael David Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP, Paul M. Weiss, FREED & WEISS LLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Daniel M. Cohen, CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP, Matthew H. Armstrong, Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.. FAYUS ENTERPRISES, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP,Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Reginald Terrell, THE TERRELL LAW GROUP, pro hac vice & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. AGWAY LIQUIDATING TRUST, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. STATELINE BEAN PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Adam C. Belsky, GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP, pro hac vice, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, James Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP & Terry Gross, GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP, pro hac vice. LANCASTER FOUNDRY SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. SOMERSET INDUSTRIES, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Ronald J. Aranoff, BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. MAROON INCORPORATED, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. COMPLETE TRANSPORATION SYSTEMS, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Adel A. Nadji, AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP, William M. Audet, AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. BLUE GRASS TOBACCO COMPANY, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James E. Cecchi, CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN,Lindsey H. Taylor, CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN, Stephen A. Weiss, SEEGER WEISS LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. CARTER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Theodore J. Leopold, Leopold~Kuvin, P.A., Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, pro hac vice & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.. UNITED CO-OPERATIVE FARMERS, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by H. Laddie Montague, BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice & Eric L. Cramer, BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.. BAR-ALE, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. ISSAC INDUSTRIES, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert N. Kaplan, KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, pro hac vice. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Andrew Santo Tulumello -- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Randy M. Mastro -- rmastro@gibsondunn.com -- Robert C. Walters -- rwalters@gibsondunn.com -- Veronica S. Lewis -- vlewis@gibsondunn.com -- at GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P.; David G. Meyer -- dmeyer@jonesday.com -- at JONES DAY; Richard Joseph Favretto -- rfavretto@mayerbrown.com -- Michael E. Lackey, Jr. -- mlackey@mayerbrown.com -- at MAYER BROWN LLP; Shari Ross Lahlou -- slahlou@crowell.com -- at CROWELL & MORING LLP; David Daniel Cross -- dcross@mofo.com -- at MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP; Linda Sue Stein -- lstein@steptoe.com -- Samuel M. Sipe -- ssipe@steptoe.com -- at STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, represented by David Daniel Cross -- dcross@mofo.com -- at MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP; David G. Meyer -- dmeyer@jonesday.com -- at JONES DAY; Shari Ross Lahlou -- slahlou@crowell.com -- Kent Alan Gardiner -- kgardiner@crowell.com -- George D. Ruttinger -- gruttinger@crowell.com -- Michael Wyld Lieberman -- mlieberman@crowell.com -- Richard McMillan, Jr. -- rmcmillan@crowellretiredpartners.com -- at CROWELL & MORING, L.L.P. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by David G. Meyer -- dmeyer@jonesday.com -- at JONES DAY; Jennifer B. Patterson -- jennifer.patterson@kayescholer.com -- Claudia R. Higgins -- claudia.higgins@kayescholer.com -- Saul P. Morgenstern -- saul.morgenstern@kayescholer.com -- at KAYE SCHOLER, LLP; David Daniel Cross -- dcross@mofo.com -- at MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP; John Murray Nannes -- john.nannes@skadden.com -- Sean Michael Tepe -- sean.tepe@skadden.com -- at SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Alan Mitchell Wiseman -- awiseman@cov.com -- Thomas Adam Isaacson -- tisaacson@cov.com -- at COVINGTON & BURLING LLP; David Daniel Cross -- dcross@mofo.com -- at MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP; David G. Meyer -- dmeyer@jonesday.com -- Tyrone R. Childress -- tchildress@jonesday.com -- at JONES DAY; James Scott Ballenger -- scott.ballenger@lw.com -- Alfred C Pfeiffer -- al.pfeiffer@lw.com -- Daniel M Wall -- dan.wall@lw.com -- Gregory P Lindstrom -- Timothy L. O'Mara -- tim.o'mara@lw.com -- at LATHAM & WATKINS LLP SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD, Interested Party, represented by Virginia Strasser, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD. OXBOW CARBON & MINERALS LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP. OXBOW MINING, LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP &Roman M. Silberfeld, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, pro hac vice OXBOW CALCINING INTERNATIONAL LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP & Roman M. Silberfeld, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, pro hac vice OXBOW MIDWEST CALCINING LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP OXBOW CALCINING LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP &Roman M. Silberfeld, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, pro hac vice TERROR CREEK LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP &Roman M. Silberfeld, ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, pro hac vice JONATHAN LEE RICHES, doing business as ROTHENBERG POLITICAL REPORT, Movant, Pro Se DINESH PALIWAL, Movant, Pro Se HUNTER PARRISH, Movant, Pro Se PETER H. DIAMANDIS, Movant, Pro Se SOUTHERN COMPANY, Intervenor, represented by Gabriela Richeimer, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Barry J. Brett, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, pro hac vice & Daniel N. Anziska, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, pro hac vice. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Intervenor, represented by Nathan P. Eimer, EIMER STAHL LLP, Scott C. Solberg, EIMER STAHL LLP & Stephen H. Weil, EIMER STAHL LLP RAYONIER INC., Intervenor, represented by William J. Blechman, KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. & Richard Alan Arnold, KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. MDL 2467: Court Rules on Bid for Interlocutory Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- Direct and indirect purchasers of drywall sue drywall manufacturers, alleging that they entered into a conspiracy to fix prices and eliminate job quotes. Defendants in the present antitrust claim are American Gypsum Company LLC, Eagle Materials Inc., New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North American Inc., PABCO Building Products, LLC, and CertainTeed. On February 18, 2016, the court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment as to all except CertainTeed. Defendants American, Eagle, New NGC, and PABCO, jointly ask the court to certify its February 18, 2016 summary judgment order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). District Judge Michael M. Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted, in part, and denied, in part defendants,' request. Judge Baylson said, "Whatever this Court's decision on the class action may be, Defendants have satisfied the three preconditions for interlocutory appeal for the conduit issue. At this juncture, this Court is considering postponing a final decision on certification. Delaying the final decision until promptly after the class certification decision would allow the parties to consolidate their requests (or oppositions) to the Third Circuit for interlocutory appeal (assuming the Court grants the instant Motion). This consolidation may increase the likelihood that the Third Circuit would grant both motions." "Also, the Third Circuit may render a decision in Valspar prior to this Court's class-action certification decision. This would obviate the need for clarification on the conduit theory issue. And, if the Third Circuit affirms Valspar in in a precedential opinion, this Court may reconsider its summary judgement decision." The court gives counsel the opportunity to submit a brief, expressing a preference for either an immediate decision or a delayed one. A copy of Judge Baylson's memorandum dated May 20, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/E7YtBLfrom Leagle.com. The case is entitled IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Direct Purchaser Actions All Indirect Purchaser Actions, MDL No. 2437 13-MD-2437 (E.D. Pa.) IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, represented by H. LADDIE MONTAGUE, JR. -- hlmontague@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC. MERCK: Law Firm Holds Conference to Rally Amicus Support -------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on May 26, the securities class action firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann hosted a teleconference for members of the Council of Institutional Investors, a coalition of public and private pension and benefits funds. The purpose of the call was to explain the stakes in North Sound Capital v. Merck, a case at the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that will inevitably deepen the circuit split on whether the filing of a securities class action tolls the statute of repose for individual shareholders. It's an admittedly arcane issue, but procedurally significant for investors who want to opt out of securities class actions and bring their own claims. As Bernstein Litowitz noted in its email invitation to Council members, the four federal circuits to have opined on this issue are divided 2-2. The 3rd Circuit's decision "will break the tie among the federal circuits and will likely be reviewed by the Supreme Court," the email said. (The justices actually agreed to hear a case presenting the statute of repose question in 2014 but dropped it when shareholders settled the underlying class action against banks that underwrote mortgage-backed securities originated by IndyMac.) Bernstein Litowitz is encouraging Council members to sign onto a draft amicus brief in the Merck case that, according to its email, has already garnered support from more than two dozen public pension funds. (The brief supports North Sound's position that individual shareholders have the right to pursue opt-out cases because a parallel securities class action against Merck tolled the statute of repose.) "It is essential," Bernstein Litowitz wrote, "to ensure the 3rd Circuit is aware of the institutional investor community's perspective." There is nothing wrong, of course, with rallying amicus support. Businesses do it all the time, through joint briefs from companies whose interests are aligned or through litigation-savvy lobbying groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. (SIFMA, in fact, has already filed an amicus brief at the 3rd Circuit in the Merck appeal, backing Merck's arguments that the trial judge blew it when she held individual investors could sue over alleged misstatements issued more than five years before they filed complaints.) Bernstein Litowitz has previously organized pension funds to band together in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in important securities class action cases, including Halliburton's assault on essential fraud-on-the-market theory and last year's Omnicare debate over what constitutes an unactionable opinion. When the justices were considering the statute of repose issue in the IndyMac case, the shareholder firm filed amicus briefs for institutional investors at both the certiorari and merits stages. As long ago as 2007, when the Supreme Court heard arguments over the standard for intent to defraud in Tellabs v. Makor, Bernstein Litowitz represented a coalition of pension funds in an amicus brief. But the Merck case marks the first time the firm has spearheaded a joint pension fund filing in a federal circuit court, according to partner Blair Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- who said Bernstein Litowitz has taken it upon itself to unify shareholders. "We are coordinating the voice of institutional investors," he said. Mr. Nicholas told Ms. Reuters' Ms. Frankel his firm isn't paid for drafting amicus briefs for shareholder coalitions, nor for organizing pension fund groups and spurring other sympathetic amici, like law professors, to weigh in. D on't worry -- Bernstein Litowitz, which was lead counsel in securities class actions that settled for $1 billion in 2015, can afford the unpaid hours. Holding teleconferences to discuss pressing securities class action issues with institutional investors is also a nice marketing opportunity. But don't underestimate the emerging shareholder amicus movement. The business lobby has mastered the art of the swarm on litigation issues it cares about. Institutional investors are finally learning what their opponents already know. Ms. Frankel left phone messages for Merck counsel Daniel Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison and Daniel Hume -- dhume@kmllp.com -- of Kirby McInerney but didn't hear back. MIDLAND FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Doubleday" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Doubleday, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00528-W (W.D. Ok., May 20, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants are in the business of purchasing unpaid debts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Minal Gahlot, Esq. RAWLS LAW OFFICE PLC 2404 S Broadway Moore, OK 73160 Telephone: (405) 912-3225 E-mail: minal@rawlslawoffice.com NAPLES, FL: Faces "Orstand" Suit Over Gender & Age Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Orstand, Susan Fabbrini, and Karen Kateley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Naples, Florida, Case No. 2:16-cv-00382-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., May 19, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful gender and age discrimination. City of Naples, Florida is a political subdivision of the state of Florida located in Naples, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq. YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW 9990 Coconut Road Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Telephone: (239) 985-9691 Facsimile: (239) 288-2534 E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Janson" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Theresa Janson, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:16- cv-02870-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., May 21, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Nationwide Credit, Inc. operates a debt collection agency in new Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com NCB MANAGEMENT: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Kaleel" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ELIZABETH J. KALEEL, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members described herein v. NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-05566 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to enter an order determining that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action may proceed as a class action against NCB. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of (a) all individuals in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, (b) who were sent a letter in the proposed form, (c) on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action. Ms. Kaleel further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AyfZbn0q The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com NEW YORK, NY: "Powlette" Case v. Agency Closed ---------------------------------------------- Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the case captioned JASON POWLETTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHERYL MORRIS, Director of Ministerial, Family and Volunteer Services, Defendant, No. 13 Civ. 7378 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.). Jason Powlette and Karvia Hamilton, practicing Rastafarians, filed a civil rights action claiming, among other things, that alterations to the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision's (DOCCS) annual Religious Calendar for the year 2013 (i) impaired their constitutional right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs; (ii) violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; and (iii) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant, Cheryl Morris, conceded the alterations, but claimed that they were undertaken as a result of valid penological concerns, and only after consultation with experts in the Rastafari religion. Morris moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Judge Failla found that Morris has demonstrated that it was objectively reasonable for her to believe, based on all of the information that she had sought and obtained, that it was lawful for her to address legitimate penological interests by removing Negus Day and adding the Battle of Adwa Victory to the 2013 Religious Calendar. As a result, Judge Failla held that Morris is entitled to qualified immunity, and the plaintiffs' Free Exercise, Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection claims must fail. A full-text copy of Judge Failla's May 23, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/D6cYZE from Leagle.com. Jason Powlette, Karvia Hamilton, Errol Prince, Jose DeLeon, Roberto Pascal, Yamani Ravenell, Felix Tapia, Lavonte Thomas, Devon Denton, Carlos Hall, Horace Thomas, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian S. Sokoloff -- bsokoloff@sokoloffstern.com -- Sokoloff Stern LLP, David Abraham Gold -- dgold@sokoloffstern.com -- Sokoloff Stern LLP & Susan Hull Odessky -- sodessky@sokoloffstern.com -- Sokoloff Stern LLP. Cheryl Morris, Paul Guenette, Defendants, represented by Daniel A. Schulze, Attorney General of the State of New York, Michael J. Keane, Office of The Attorney General, Abigail Everett Rosner, Attorney General of the State of New York, Anna Hehenberger, New York State Office of the Attorney General & John Michael Schwartz, State of New York Office of the Attorney General. NONG SHIM CO: Indirect-Purchasers Seek Certification of 3 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:13- cv-04115-WHO (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court for an order (i) certifying the action as a class action; (ii) appointing IPPs (Stephen Fenerjian, Joyce Beamer, Kendal Martin, Anthony An, Eleanor Pelobello, Jill Bonnington, Kenny Kang, Christina Nguyen, Thu-Thuy Nguyen, Yim Ha Noble, Ji Choi, and Charles Chung) as class representatives; and (iii) appointing Izard Nobel LLP and Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP as Class Counsel. The Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs seek certification of a damages class and an injunction class, each comprised of these persons and entities: All persons and entities that purchased "Korean Ramen Noodles" anywhere in the United States [or such subset of the United States market as the Court may elect to certify] for their own use and not for resale, from March 1, 2003 through January 31, 2010. For purposes of this definition, "Korean Ramen Noodles" means Nongshim, Ottogi and Samyang branded bag, cup or bowl ramen, including fried, dried, fresh and frozen noodle products. Specifically excluded from this class are any Defendant; the officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of any Defendant. Also excluded are the judicial officers to whom this case is assigned and any member of such judicial officers' immediate family. IPPs, purchasers of Korean ramen products manufactured or distributed by the Defendants, brought the class action against (i) Nong Shim Company, Ltd., (ii) its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Nongshim America, Inc., (iii) Ottogi Company, Ltd., (iv) its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Ottogi America, Inc.; and (v) Samyang Foods Company, Ltd., alleging violations of state and federal antitrust laws and state unfair competition laws. The IPPs seek to certify these damages and injunctive classes: -- Damages class. IPPs seek to certify a damages class comprising all persons who purchased Ramen Products in the United States. IPPs contend that the California Cartwright Act should apply to the claims of all members of the damages class, or, at least to states that have repealed the Illinois Brick rule; -- Alternative damages classes. If the Court determines that it should not apply the law of one state to the claims of members of a single multi-state class, IPPs alternatively seek to certify a damages class comprising all persons who purchased Ramen Products in six states (the states in which the proposed class representatives made their purchases); and -- Injunctive class. Additionally, for the purposes of seeking injunctive relief pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act, IPPs seeks to certify an injunctive class comprising all persons who purchased Ramen Products in the United States. The Court will commence a hearing on November 16, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9XeHqW4D The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. Daniel E. Birkhaeuser, Esq. BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER LLP 2125 Oak Grove Road Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Telephone: (925) 945-0200 Facsimile: (925) 945-8792 E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com dbirkhaeuser@bramsonplutzik.com - and - Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Robert A. Izard, Esq. IZARD NOBEL LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: mkindall@izardnobel.com rizard@izardnobel.com - and - Steven M. Sherman, Esq. SHERMAN BUSINESS LAW 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94104 E-mail: steven@shermanbusinesslaw.com - and - Gerald S. Ohn, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GERALD S OHN 1875 Century Park East Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 E-mail: gerald@ohnlaw.com - and - Marc Gene Reich, Esq. REICH RADCLIFFE AND KUTTLER LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com - and - Thomas Henry Bienert, Jr., Esq. BIENERT, MILLER AND KATZMAN, PLC 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente, CA 92673 E-mail: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com - and - Young W. Ryu, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG W RYU 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 E-mail: young.ryu@youngryulaw.com - and - Sydney J. Hall, Esq. SYDNEY J. HALL LAW OFFICE 1308 Old Bayshore Hwy., #220 Burlingame, CA 94010 E-mail: sjhlaw@mail.com NRA GROUP: Must Respond to Class Certification Motion by June 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 24, 2016, in the case styled Joseph Bernal v. NRA Group, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01904 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Gary Feinerman. The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification is entered and continued. The Defendant must respond by June 7, 2016, and reply is due by June 28. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hR4csTTm OMNI HOTELS: Faces "Samaan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Magued M. Samaan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, Omni La Costa Resort, KSL Capital Partners, KSL La Costa Resort Corporation, and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv- 01206-JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate La Costa Resort and Spa located in Carlsbad, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew A. Rosenberry, Esq. Amelia A. McDermott, Esq. Donald R. Holben, Esq. DONALD R. HOLBEN & ASSOCIATES, APC 5030 Camino De La Siesta, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 220-5555 Facsimile: (619) 220-0033 E-mail: aam@sandiegotrialattorneys.com lct@sandiegotrialattorneys.com ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Toll Road Fines ---------------------------------------------------------- TheNewspaper.com reports that a motorist is suing a local government agency in California for intentionally luring unsuspecting motorists onto toll roads so that they could be billed hundreds of dollars in fines. In a class action lawsuit filed on May 23, Ebrahim H. Mahda says he found himself on the Route 73 toll road on November 26, 2015, and, since he did not have a FasTrak transponder, he received a demand that he pay $232 weeks later in the mail. Toll booths were eliminated on Orange County's toll roads in 2014. "Defendants operate the toll roads in a way that constitutes an unfair business practice," Mr. Mahda's attorney, Michael J. Flannery, wrote to the court. "For example, there is virtually no signage visible to drivers that clearly indicates that the driver is about to enter a stretch of road that will require an electronic toll paying transponder (i.e., a FasTrak device). Drivers have a reasonable expectation that there will be a cash or credit card payment option absent sufficient warning to the contrary. Defendants' operate the toll roads in a manner that misleads and deceives drivers, unfairly leading them to incur toll charges and penalties." State Route 73, along with the 133, 241 and 261 toll roads, are run by the Transportation Corridor Agency, which is a government entity jointly operated by Orange County and the eighteen cities near the roads. The agency collected $241,672,000 in tolls last year, plus $32,067,000 in penalties. Those fines accounted for 13 percent of revenue -- not counting the additional $17,798,000 collected in monthly "account maintenance fees" charged to motorists who failed to use the road often enough. The lawsuit only focuses on the penalties, asking that they be refunded to motorists. The toll road agency's fiscal year 2016 budget admits there is a problem that will be addressed. "The agency also has additional initiatives planned for FY16 to attempt to address violations, such as signage enhancements, education to the rental car and tourism industries and working with rental car agencies so their customer's transactions will be paid by the rental car agencies and not be characterized as violations," the budget document states. In Virginia, a similar lawsuit was filed after Transurban, an Australian toll road operator, imposed $31,000 in penalties on a motorist who missed $50 in tolls. A federal judge called the system "grossly disproportionate." Earlier in May the judge certified the class action settlement in the case. The California toll roads could face a much broader legal attack that could deliver a crippling financial blow to the enterprise already struggling under a massive debt load. OZONE SOLUTIONS: Laundry Workers Sue for Illness ------------------------------------------------ Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that six laundry workers at a Las Vegas casino-hotel say in a federal class action in Las Vegas that Ozone Solutions, which makes industrial washing machines that mix ozone with water, made them ill with ozone poisoning. Eunice Dominguez et al. did not sue their employer, the Luxor Hotel; they sued Iowa-based Ozone Solutions, which makes the big machines. All six women say they "have repeatedly sought medical help [and] have missed considerable amounts of work due to the symptoms of ozone exposure." They claim the company "knew that there were notable problems with the Ozone generators," but did not disclose them. "In short, the ozone generators are poisoning plaintiffs," they say. Ozone Solutions also maintains the Luxor's five ozone generators, but Dominguez says the generators often are broken, defectively designed, do not work properly, and that the company has not been able to fix the problem. Because ozone -- the oxygen molecule O3, rather than O2 -- is an unstable form of the element, it is a powerful oxidant, which makes it a good cleaner. Unlike O2, ozone smells like chlorine and can damage mucous tissues, such as lung linings. It is a primary ingredient of smog, and can exacerbate and cause respiratory illnesses. Dominguez claims that Ozone Solutions worked with officials at the Luxor and its medical provider, Concentra to cover up the ozone poisoning. "Plaintiffs were repeatedly told that their conditions were merely allergies," the complaint state. "Upon information and belief, Ozone Solutions was in communication with Luxor and Luxor's contracted medical services provider Concentra to blame any possible cause of the plaintiffs' consistent and similar medical conditions on causes other than the Ozone generators. Upon information and belief, Ozone Solutions worked with Luxor in other proceedings to defend and aggressively suppress any allegation that the Ozone generators were the source of the plaintiffs' multitude of related illnesses. "However, after so many of the plaintiffs and those similarly situation showed the same effects of ozone overexposure, there began to be concessions by Concentra's medical care providers that it was in fact ozone causing the plaintiffs' conditions." Neither Concentra nor the Luxor are defendants. The only defendants are Ozone Solutions and Does 1-10. Dominguez et al. say Ozone Solutions "concealed the known defects" and the "unreasonable risks" of its cleaning system and they would not have agreed to use or even be near the ozone generators had they known of the dangers. The lawsuit cites promotional material from the Ozone Solutions Web page: "Ozone washing increases textile life, reduces energy costs, allows faster fill rates, shorter wash cycles, and even shorter drying times. Whiter, softer, sanitized, fresh smelling, and longer lasting linens and clothes results in huge savings. . . . Ozone allows users to achieve high quality standards without the use of hot water and chemicals, due to it being a highly effective oxidizer using only cold water." However, the laundrywomen say: "When inhaled, ozone can damage the lungs. Relatively low amounts can cause chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath and throat irritation. Ozone may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and compromise the ability of the body to fight respiratory infections." The result is increased work absences, and higher medical and hospitalization costs for workers exposed to high concentrations of ozone, Dominguez says. (Graph 19) The workers cite 22 medical problems they have suffered from ozone, including chest pain, bronchospasm, laryngitis, conjunctivitis, headaches, hoarseness, loss of senses of smell and taste, nausea and vomiting. They seek medical expenses and punitive damages for product liability, failure to warn, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, negligence and breach of warranty. They are represented by Ryan Alexander, who could not be contacted for comment after business hours May 24. Nor could Ozone Solutions. PAM REAL: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Isael Mendoza, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Pam Real Thai Food Inc., Ronnasit Panyasiri, and Pam Panyasiri, Case No. 1:16-cv-03743 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com PETITUSA LLC: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Arenas Sanchez and other similarly situated individuals v. Petitusa LLC d/b/a Petit and Gianluca Guelfi, Case No. 41719022 (Fla. 11th Ct., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a women's apparel retail store in Miami Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com PIERRE DUPONT: Faces Class Action Over Use of Unsafe Implants ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Pagliaro and Vanessa Lu, writing for Toronto Star, report that an 11-year-old boy from Richmond Hill is the key case in a potential class-action lawsuit against an Ottawa chiropodist who allegedly profited from his patients' foot problems by recommending unapproved and "unsafe" implants he developed. Pierre Dupont, a registered chiropodist in Ontario with a history of professional misconduct as a dentist in Quebec, is being accused of manufacturing a foot stent -- an implant used for flat- footedness and other ailments -- that was never approved by Health Canada. According to the statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court, Mr. Dupont then recommended the treatment and performed the surgeries. Mr. Dupont told the Star on May 26 that people should wait to pass judgment, "because all the facts are not on the table yet." "Everything is not known in this affair at this point," he said. "There's a lot of things that will be put to the knowledge of the appropriate person along the road. It's not my role to expose everything at this point. So this is why I prefer not to comment." The plaintiff named in the class action is Yuexiao (Patrick) Zhang, whose mother, Jing Liu, is making the claim on his behalf. Toronto-based law firm Thomson, Rogers, representing Ms. Liu, is seeking other patients of Dupont to possibly join the class-action suit. Speaking to the Star in Mandarin, Ms. Liu explained her son could run and play before surgery on his right foot in July 2015, but his feet were weak, and she and her husband wanted him to have better opportunities. After researching procedures, the couple -- who came to Canada in 2012 -- settled on Dupont's Ottawa Foot Practice, whose website promises "simple surgery with excellent results." Ms. Liu claimed that, after the procedure, her son's foot is like a fake foot. She alleged he can't really run or jump anymore. In the statement of claim, which contains allegations that have not been proven in court, Ms. Liu alleges that her son "developed pain and discomfort in his right foot which caused irritation, irregular gait and loss of balance." The procedure was not done on the boy's left foot. The family is now trying to have the stent removed as soon as possible and is waiting for referral to a surgeon who can perform the procedure. The suit claims Mr. Dupont lacked the surgical and clinical skills required to insert the implant and that he misrepresented the stent and the procedure to his clients. "He showed a total, reckless, wanton and willful disregard for the health, safety and wellbeing of the plaintiff," the suit alleges. The claim also names the College of Chiropodists of Ontario and the Ottawa Foot Practice, run by Mr. Dupont. In an email, the College's registrar and chief administrative officer, Felecia Smith, said the college had "retained counsel and will be responding to the allegations in due course." Mr. Dupont was previously a dentist for 10 years in Quebec, where several patients made complaints against him. His license was revoked in 2004 by the provincial body that regulates dentists, following a disciplinary hearing that found he had failed to meet the standards of care. Among other things, he failed to diagnose a patient's broken jaw and prescribed medication that was not required or in inappropriate doses, tribunal documents show. After graduating from the podiatry program at the University of Quebec in Trois-Rivieres and making attempts to legally practice podiatry in Quebec -- a move challenged by that province's College of Podatrists -- Mr. Dupont later moved to Ottawa and was given a certificate of registration to practice by the College of Chiropodists, according to the statement of claim. Provincial regulations prevent the registration of a chiropodist who has been found guilty of professional misconduct in another jurisdiction or in another health profession. The suit alleges the college failed to follow those rules, to monitor Mr. Dupont, or to properly respond to complaints. Mr. Dupont told the Star that when he applied to the college he disclosed his previous misconduct in an interview. "They interview me. They do their due diligence," he said. "Everything has been disclosed and presented to a committee, the admission committee, and they made a decision accordingly." Mr. Dupont declined to answer any more specifics about his career and the finding of misconduct in Quebec. The suit, launched in Newmarket court, seeks $15 million and claims the plaintiffs are entitled to special damages, including medical and rehabilitation expenses. RELIABLE TOWING: Faces "Bailey" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN BAILEY, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. RELIABLE TOWING & STORAGE, INC., Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-14168-RLR (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2016), alleges that Reliable's policy of paying its Driver on a commission basis violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. RELIABLE TOWING & STORAGE, INC., using at least 18 towing and transport trucks, provides towing and roadside assistance services in Port St. Lucie, Fort Pierce, Stuart, and the surrounding areas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley W. Butcher, Esq. BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, P.L. 6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2 Fort Myers, FL 33912 Phone: (239) 332-1650 Fax: (239) 322-1663 E-mail: ecf@b-a-law.com bwb@b-a-law.com - and - David H. Grounds, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 436-1800 Fax: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com jthompson@sommerspc.com RIVERSOURCE LIFE: Faces Class Suit Over Deferred Annuities ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Riversource Life Insurance and Ameriprise Financial Services use illegal methods to target senior citizens for deferred annuities without properly disclosing surrender penalties, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court. ROYAL TRANSPORTATION: "Clark" FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sean F. Cox granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the employment case captioned Debra Clark, Brooksey Irvine, Reginald Morrissette, Melba Pearson, and Ezell Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Royal Transportation Co., et. al., Defendants, Case No. 15-13243 (E.D. Mich.). Debra Clark, Brooksey Irvine, Reginald Morrissette, Melba Pearson, and Ezell Williams are all former employees of the defendants, Royal Transportation Company, Donald Fitzsimmons, Debra Fitzsimmons, and Shannon Fitzsimmons. The plaintiffs filed the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), seeking to pursue a collective action on behalf of similarly situated drivers employed by the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants have violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime pay for actual overtime hours worked. The defendants maintained that the plaintiffs, and members of the putative class, are exempt from overtime coverage. The plaintiffs' filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of an FLSA Collective Action and for an Order for Notice to the Class. Judge Cox concluded that the plaintiffs have met the required standard at this stage in the proceedings, and ordered that the plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is granted to the extent that the court conditionally certifies the action as a collective action so that notice can be issued. A full-text copy of Judge Cox's May 24, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/dImHc4 from Leagle.com. Debra Clark, Brooksey Irvine, Reginald Morrissette, Melba Pearson, Ezell Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Maia E. Johnson, Gold Star Law. Royal Transportation Company, Donald Fitzsimmons, Debra Fitzsimmons, Shannon Fitzsimmons, Defendants, represented by Kenneth M. Gonko, Danielson Group. RUBY TUESDAY: "Sagastume" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Sagastume and Kevin Gibson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv- 00776 (D. Conn., May 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ruby Tuesday, Inc. operates a casual dining restaurant chain in Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph D. Garrison, Esq. Joshua R. Goodbaum, Esq. GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN, FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI, P.C. 405 Orange Street New Haven, CO 06511 Telephone: (203) 777-4425 - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo Meireles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Hwy Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Elmer Robert Keach III, Esq. Maria K. Dyson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH III, P.C. 1040 Riverfront Center P. O. Box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 Telephone: (518) 434-1718 RYE PHYSICAL: Faces "Cypress" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Simone Cypress, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rye Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation, P.C., Case No. 7:16-cv-03726-NSR (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rye Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation, P.C. offers a full range of physical therapy services for pediatric, adult and geriatric patients with a wide variety of physical disorders and rehabilitation needs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Moser, Esq. STEVEN J. MOSER, P.C. 3 School Street, Suite 207 B Glen Cove, NY 11542 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 Facsimile: (516) 882-5420 E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com SAN DIEGO, CA: Cops' Tactics at Trump Rally Cause Outraged ---------------------------------------------------------- Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that dozens of San Diego activists gathered May 31, to denounce use-of- force tactics employed by San Diego police officers to disperse protestors after Donald Trump's downtown rally. Members from Alliance San Diego, a social justice organization, joined representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties and other organizations and activists who were angered over police tactics at last May 27 campaign stump by Trump. Thousands of protesters gathered outside the San Diego Convention Center where Trump spoke. About 1,000 of those protestors gathered May 27 morning in the Barrio Logan neighborhood, about a mile away from the convention center. They later marched downtown to shown their disdain for the Republican presidential candidate who has called Mexican Americans "rapists" and called the Latino judge in one of two San Diego class actions against his now-defunct Trump University "a hater of Donald Trump." Things did not get ugly until hours after Trump left the stage, when San Diego police clad in riot gear declared the designated "Free Speech Zone" outside the convention center an unlawful assembly, started making arrests, and moved the last remaining protesters toward the Barrio Logan neighborhood. Police said the crowd behavior became unlawful when several protestors tried to breach a secured area and other protestors became violent and physically confrontational. Mayor Kevin Faulconer directed Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman to deploy small tanks and police officers to drive the last straggling protestors from downtown into Barrio Logan, the activists claimed. Christian Ramirez, human rights director for Alliance, called the police conduct "outrageous" and said it "violated" the tradition of San Diego activists and police working together to ensure the safety of residents. "I brought my child with me and to have riot police and small tanks in my neighborhood shows the huge disconnect between Mayor Faulconer and Police Chief Zimmerman and the impact of the militarization of police in America's finest city," Ramirez told the crowd. Ramirez said the arrests and use of force was "an act of provocation" and could have been potentially "devastating" had the police clashed with residents in the neighborhood. Organizer Kiki Ochoa said leaders of the protest told participants beforehand to be careful about their behavior so children, disabled people and elderly "abuelitas" could participate in the march safely. The marchers made their way over to the convention center at about 1:30 p.m. Friday, Ochoa said, and peacefully protested outside the venue until police declared an unlawful assembly. The activist groups hired their own security guards to keep people safe, but that still didn't stop the police from using excessive force on minors and other residents of the heavily Latino-populated neighborhood, Ochoa said. "What kind of training does the police have and what do they not have and desperately need?" Ochoa said. "Why is it so easy to bring militarized police into the Latino community, but not go into the Gaslamp?" None of the protest organizers were arrested. At least 20 people in Barrio Logan were detained but not arrested, while three others were arrested in the neighborhood, Ramirez said. Minors under 18 were among those detained and arrested, according to Ramirez. According to the SDPD's Twitter page, 35 arrests were made during the Trump protest, with no property damage or injuries reported. ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties Director Norma Chavez- Peterson said many San Diego residents are "completely shocked and outraged" at the police presence at Trump's rally. Chavez-Peterson pointed out that, when she helped organize the biggest protest ever held in San Diego in 2006, which drew more than 100,000 people, there was no "para-military" force by SDPD officers. She also speculated that based on first-hand accounts of police officers moving pro-Trump supporters closer to protestors, it may have caused tension and "didn't seem like an effective tactic." "Organizing peaceful protests has been part of our DNA for a long time, but something went wrong May 27. We can do better. We have done better," Chavez-Peterson said. The ACLU is working to document first-hand accounts of what happened and will help guide protestors who want to file complaints with the SDPD or file court complaints, according to Chavez-Peterson. SDPD Public Information Officer Scott Wahl said the department is "proud of the professionalism, restraint and patience" displayed by officers he said "provided a safe environment to allow for the freedom of speech." "Our decision to declare an unlawful assembly came as a result of violent behavior and unlawful acts within the crowd of protestors. We are very pleased with the outcome of May 27 event," he said. Wahl did not return phone and email requests to confirm the number of people arrested in the Barrio Logan neighborhood or other details of what instructions officers were given. The mayor's office did not return an email request for comment. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Lindsey, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Case No. 5:16-cv- 00458 (W.D. Tex., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Schlumberger Technology Corporation is a provider of technology for reservoir characterization, drilling, production, and processing to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-204 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SETERUS INC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Zirogiannis" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Sandra J. Feuerstein entered an order in the lawsuit styled NICHOLAS ZIROGIANNIS, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. SETERUS, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-05884-SJF-ARL (E.D.N.Y.): -- denying, without prejudice to renewal at the close of discovery, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to "enter and continue plaintiffs motion for class certification." The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The amended complaint alleges that in attempting to collect a debt allegedly incurred by the Plaintiff, the Defendant sent a letter that violates the FDCPA by failing to state the amount of the debt. The amended complaint further asserts class action allegations on behalf of persons with New York addresses, who were sent a letter in the form of the one sent to the Plaintiff. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cnOJcU3N SIMON & SCHUSTER: Sued in N.Y. Over Low E-Book Royalty Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- Sheldon Blau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., and any related companies, Case No. 154249/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 19, 2016), alleges that the Defendants is engaged in a pattern and practice of paying the Plaintiff and others similarly situated royalty payments for the distribution of licenses for electronic books, or "e-books," at a rate for book "sales," or some other rate lower than that required for "license" transactions. Simon & Schuster, Inc. is a New York domestic corporation, engaged in the publishing business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael Tompkins, Esq. Brett Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com SN SERVICING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Ledon, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SN Servicing Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv- 21789-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. SN Servicing Corporation engages in the management and sale of real estate owned properties in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott David Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com SNAPCHAT INC: Collects Biometric Info, "Martinez" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that echoing a federal class action, consumers say Snapchat violates Illinois law by collecting and using biometric information. The case is, Jose Luis Martinez and Malcolm Neal v. Snapchat Inc., in Los Angeles Superior Court Central District. SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Group of Policyholders Files Amended Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- Stuff.co.nz reports that a group of about 50 Canterbury homeowners hope to return to the High Court to state their case again insurer Southern Response. The group of 46 Southern Response policyholders launched legal action last year saying the Government-owned insurer had misrepresented policies, imposed delays in processing and settling claims and understated the true costs of rebuilds and repairs. The case was rejected by the High Court in February, but the group filed an amended claim to the court on May 27. Class action lawyer Grant Cameron said the new application met concerns raised about the case in the High Court by Justice Mander in February. "Justice Mander felt there was insufficient clarity about the commonality of interests between members of the class to enable him to grant the application, however we are confident the fresh application meets that concern," he said. "Over the past two months there has been an immense amount of work completed . . . we are confident that the court will see the high degree of commonality on the majority of issues and that periphery differences can be easily case-managed by the court". He said the claims in the case had also been amended. "It now alleges that all policyholders in this action are a victim of an overarching strategy being maintained by Southern Response which is designed to minimize its fiscal exposure. It does this through a number of tactics and it is only through the means of a class action that the pattern of misconduct can be easily identified." In February, Mark O'Brien, QC, representing Southern Response, said the firm was committed to resolving claims and emphasized that Southern Response had received 7000 over cap claims. "But there's only 46 in this class action." SPECTRUM CENTER: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Bilaliyah Sabir, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Spectrum Center, Inc., Educational Services of America, Inc., Chancelight, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG16816404 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay. The Defendants operate 25 schools and programs in California, Florida and Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Caroline Tahmassian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 303 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 499-4730 Facsimile: (310) 499-4739 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com caroline@spivaklaw.com SYSTEM INC: Bid for Class Certification in "Bryan" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Sandra J. Feuerstein denied without prejudice to renewal at the close of discovery the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled ELIZABETH BRYAN, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv- 06984-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y.). On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff, individually and on a behalf of a class, commenced the action against I.C. System, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The complaint alleges that in attempting to collect a debt allegedly incurred by the Plaintiff, the Defendant sent a letter that falsely published that it had an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau. The complaint further asserts class action allegations on behalf of persons with New York addresses, who were sent a letter by the Defendant that contained the allegedly false statements. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=148WNkWv TARGET CORP: Judge Dismisses Background Check Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Minnesota federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against Target alleging the popular retail chain included "impermissible" and "extraneous" information in a background check disclosure. Judge Donovan Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota sided with Target in granting the retailer's motion to dismiss earlier in May. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA, if an employer intends to obtain a report about a job applicant, the employer must notify the applicant. Such notification must be in a separate document without any unrelated information. The named plaintiff in the action, Minnesota resident Thomas J. Just, alleged Target included extraneous terms and conditions in its Consent & Disclosure document and in so doing, willfully violated the FCRA. "Two non-binding advisory opinions by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) suggest that limited information beyond the disclosure and authorization may be included in the disclosure document, including, for example, a brief description of the nature of the reports covered by the disclosure and authorization and a statement of the job applicant's right to request information about the nature and scope of the reports," Judge Frank wrote in his May 12 opinion. "Here, Target's Consent & Disclosure plainly includes more than a statement that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes and an authorization permitting procurement of that report. It does not, however, contain a liability waiver or release. And, Target argues, the information challenged by Just is 'part and parcel of providing a full disclosure and securing a meaningful authorization'; it is not extraneous information intended to benefit Target at the expense of job applicants." The judge said he need not decide whether Just plausibly states a claim that Target violated the stand-alone disclosure requirement under the FCRA because Just must also plausibly allege that any violation by Target was committed willfully. Under the FCRA, statutory damages -- rather than actual damages -- are only available when a defendant's conduct is willful. Any person who willfully fails to comply with "any requirement imposed" is liable for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000. Because Just does not claim actual damages, he must allege willfulness in order to maintain his lawsuit, Judge Frank said. "Because the federal courts of appeal, the FTC and the statutory text provide insufficient guidance about the meaning of the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement, Target's reading of the requirement is not objectively unreasonable," the judge wrote in the 13-page opinion. "Accordingly, if Target violated the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement, such violation was not willful." Because the court concluded that Target did not act willfully, any proposed amendment of the complaint would be "futile," Judge Frank said, dismissing the case with prejudice, meaning the plaintiff is barred from filing another case on the same claim. Just, who had applied for full-time work with Target multiple times, most recently in 2014 and 2015, filed his class action complaint against the Minneapolis-based retailer in the Minnesota federal court in November 2015. He argued that Target's Consent & Disclosure document -- which gives a company permission to procure a background report -- is not a stand-alone document that consists solely of the disclosure and authorization. Just argued in his 10-page complaint that the document contains language that is "completely irrelevant" to the disclosure, and could confuse an applicant about the purpose of the document. The plaintiff's background check had revealed that he had convictions from 1993 and 1994. Based on the information, Target withdrew a job offer it had extended to Just. Minneapolis law firm Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP represented Just. Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, also in Minneapolis, represented Target. TEXAS CRICKET: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Esmeralda Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly v. Texas Cricket Academy LLC f/k/a Bombay Street Food LLC a/k/a Bombay Chopstix and Thirunavukkaras Kumaran, Case No. 3:16-cv- 01375-N (N.D. Tex., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate multiple restaurants and a food truck operation under the Bombay Chopstix brand as well as at least one restaurant under the Biryani Pot brand. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq. Joshua A. Petersen, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.C. 6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net josh.a.petersen@gmail.com THERANOS: Faces Second False Advertising Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Arielle Duhaime-Ross, writing for The Verge, reports that Theranos was hit with a second class action lawsuit on May 26 -- one day after an angry customer filed the first. The suit alleges that Theranos breached its contract with customers by "providing tests that were not of the promised high level of accuracy and quality." The lawsuit also goes after Theranos for false advertising, not performing proper quality control, and for failing to use the fingerprick technologies that it advertised to customers when drawing their blood, according to the complaint. The Verge contacted Theranos for comment. In response, spokesperson Brooke Buchanan sent The Verge the same statement she sent on May 25. "The lawsuit filed against Theranos is without merit," she wrote in an email. "The company will vigorously defend itself against these claims." Like the May 25 lawsuit, a single customer filed against Theranos on May 26 in the district of Northern California. The lawsuit seeks damages payments for customers, and payments for attorney's fees. The suit also requests a court order to tell Theranos to stop using "unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices." It's not yet clear if the lawsuit will move ahead; it has not yet been certified, and may be combined with other cases as it proceeds. This has been a particularly difficult 24 hours for the blood- testing startup. In addition to getting hit with the first lawsuit, The Wall Street Journal reported on May 25 that the drugstore chain Walgreens failed to verify that Theranos' technology worked before it partnered with the company in 2013. Theranos currently operates 40 clinics inside Walgreens locations. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: Faces Drivers' Suit Over Illegal Fines --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that toll roads, which make up 20 percent of the highways in Orange County, Calif., collect millions of dollars in illegal fines by failing to warn when a transponder is needed, a frustrated driver says in Santa Ana, Calif. class action. Ebrahim E. Mahda sued the Transportation Corridor Agencies dba The Toll Roads on May 24 in Federal Court. The agency is a joint powers authority legislatively created to build and operate Orange County's toll roads. Mahda claims that "these toll roads are operated in a manner that misleads the public, in violation of California law. In particular, the roads themselves are poorly marked, and unsuspecting consumers are subject to improper and unlawful fines because their cars are not equipped with an electronic toll paying transponder known as FasTrak." The offending highway include State Routes 73, 133, 241, and 261, Mahda says. He was nailed on Route 73 last November, without a FasTrak transponder, and says he did not know he needed one. Two weeks later he received notice in the mail of a $6 for each violation, with recurring penalties of $57.50 if he did not pay by Jan. 9. By the time he could pay the fine, Mahda says, he owed $232. FasTrak devices are mounted on windshields and communicate with toll-charging and ticketing machines as they pass. Mahda claims that drivers like him are fined for evading tolls though they had no idea, or fair warning, that they were doing so. The Toll Roads did not respond to emailed requests for comment. Mahda seeks class certification, an injunction, restitution and disgorgement of at least $5 million in improperly collected fines. He is represented by Michael Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- with Cuneo, Gilbert & Laduca of St. Louis, who did not respond to emailed requests for comment. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Bonke" Suit Claims Driver Misclassification --------------------------------------------------------------- JAY BONKE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly- situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RAISER, LLC; JOHN DOES I-V and JANE DOES I-V; BLACK CORPORATIONS I-V; WHITE LIMITED LIABLITY COMPANIES I-V; and GREEN PARTNERSHIPS I-V, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-01534-SPL (D. Ariz., May 18, 2016), seeks damages and equitable relief arising from Defendants' misclassification of Uber Drivers as independent contractors. Defendant Uber owns and operates the Uber transportation service and is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business throughout the State of Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Lunn, Esq. DKL Law, PLLC 14555 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 240 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Phone: (480) 500-1360 - and - Marie Napoli, Esq. NAPOLI LAW PLLC 1301 Avenue of the Americas 10th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 397-1000 - and - Brittany Weiner, Esq. IMBESI LAW P.C. 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Phone: (212) 736-0007 UHAUL: Motion for Class Certification Sought in "Engle" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Raymond Engle moves the Court to allow him to pursue the lawsuit captioned Raymond Engle v. Uhaul, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00027- WHR-MJN (S.D. Ohio), as a class action. Mr. Engle alleges that Eskenazi Health Center has erroneously subjected him to incurred cost that should have been covered via the Veterans' Affairs. For this reason, the Plaintiff contends, he cannot surmise that he is the only victim in this cause of action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vkM0qU7q UK CLEANERS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Feliciano Sanchez and Eulalio Mares, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. U.K. Cleaners, Inc., d/b/a Turtle Bay Cleaners, Sook Hyun Kim and In Ja Gwon, Case No. 1:16-cv-03729 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a full service dry cleaner/laundromat owned located at 911 Second Avenue New York, NY 10017. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com UNION CARBIDE: Dismissal of "Sahu" Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment entered on July 30, 2014, dismissing a lawsuit filed against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's May 24, 2016 summary order is available at https://is.gd/BzufNm from Leagle.com. Owners and occupants of land near a pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, in several iterations of lawsuits, have sought relief against UCC for injuries resulting from hazardous contaminants attributed to the plant's inadequate waste management system. The factory was owned and operated by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), a corporation incorporated in India in 1934. A majority of UCIL's stock, during the Bhopal plant's operations, from 1969 to 1984, was owned by UCC, a U.S. corporation. The plaintiffs, Jagarnath Sahu and several other similarly situated property-owners (collectively, "Sahu"), have brought an action to recover for property damage, alleging claims sounding in nuisance, trespass, strict liability, and negligence. Building on the record established in a separate suit filed in 2004 to recover for personal injuries, Sahu claimed new evidence established UCC's responsibility, and sought leave to take a deposition of a former UCC employee, Lucas John Couvaras, to provide additional evidence to oppose summary judgment, and to preserve his testimony in light of his advanced age. The district court ruled that the evidence was not sufficient to establish UCC's participation in the creation of the injury on any theory of liability, denied the request for a deposition, and dismissed the lawsuit. The case is JAGARNATH SAHU, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, OHMWATI BAI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, MOHAN LAL SEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, QAMAR SULTAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, MEENU RAWAT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, MAKSOOD AHMED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, KRISHNA BAI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, KANTI DEVI CHAUHAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, RAGHUNATH VISHWAKERMA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, HARCHARAN CHAURASIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, MOHAMMAD BAHADUR SHAH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, SHASHI BHAGEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, KAMALA BAI SHRIVASTAV, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, HARISHANKAR TOMAR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, SHANTI AIHRWAR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, ASGARI BEE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, ZAMIL KHAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, MADHYA PRADESH STATE, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14- 3087-cv (2nd Cir.). RICHARD L. HERZ -- rick@earthrights.org -- Earthrights International, Washington, DC (Reena Gambhir -- rgambhir@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Washington, DC, H. Rajan Sharma, Sharma & DeYoung LLP, New York, NY, and Curtis V. Trinko -- ctrinko@trinko.com -- LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), Appearing for Appellant. WILLIAM A. KROHLEY -- wrohley@kelleydrye.com -- (William Charles Heck -- wheck@kelleydrye.com -- on the brief) Kelley, Drye & Warren, LLP, New York, NY, appearing for Appellee. UNITED STATES: 2 Subclasses Certified in Government Workers' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan G. Braden of the United States Court of Federal Claims certified two subclasses in the case, CILICIA A. DeMONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 13-779 C (Fed. Cl.). Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the United States of America in the United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., and are asking for money damages as back pay plus interest for the amount of premium pay that they claim was not paid to all eligible Hybrid employees or specialized health care employees who file a timely claim form as class members. On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for approval of notices to the class, approval of amendments to the class certifications to reflect consolidation of the cases, and to appoint the class action administrator. On May 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for leave to withdraw the April 29, 2016 motion and substituted a new joint motion to approve notices to the class, approval of amendments to the class certifications to reflect consolidation of the cases, and to appoint the class action administrator. Judge Braden grants plaintiffs' May 4, 2016 unopposed motion to withdraw the April 29, 2016 motion but denied the parties' May 4, 2016 joint motion. Judge Braden certified 2 subclasses in the case. DeMONS Subclass One: All General Schedule employees, as defined by 5 U.S.C. Section 2105, who were employed between July 1, 2012 and February 28, 2016 by the Department of Veterans Affairs in one of the following occupations: 1. Certified or Registered Respiratory Therapist, Licensed Physical Therapist, Licensed Practical Nurse, Licensed Vocational Nurse, Pharmacist, Occupational Therapist, Graduate Nurse or Nurse Pending Graduation by the Veterans Health Administration, Audiologist, Audiologist-Speech Pathologist, Speech Pathologist, Biomedical Engineer, Corrective Therapist or Kinesiotherapist, Dental Assistant, Dental Hygienist, Dietitian, Marriage and/or Family Therapist, Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor, Medical Instrument Technician, Medical Records Technician, Medical Support Assistant, Medical Technologist, Nuclear Medicine Technologist, Occupational Therapy Assistant, Orthotist or Orthotist-Prosthetist, Pharmacy Aid or Pharmacy Technician, Physical Therapy Assistant, Prosthetic Representative, Psychologist, Diagnostic Radiologic Technician or Technologist, Therapeutic Radiologic Technician or Technologist, Social Worker, Blind Rehabilitation Specialist or Blind Rehabilitation Outpatient Specialist, Medical Support Assistant, Nursing Assistant, Therapeutic Medical Physicist or Medical Physicist, and a. who regularly and customarily worked on a tour of duty any part of which was within the period beginning 6 p.m. and ending 6 a.m., and/or on a tour of duty any part of which was within 12:00 midnight Friday and ending 12:00 midnight Saturday (not including any Sunday hours); and b. who received night differential pay of 10% and/or Saturday premium pay of 25% or more, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sections 7454(b)(1), (b)(2), for each such hour of service between 6 p.m. and ending 6 a.m., and/or for each such hour of service between 12:00 midnight Friday and 12:00 midnight Saturday (not including any Sunday hours); and c. who received pay during periods of authorized paid leave, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sections 6301-6391, for any part of a tour of duty between 12:00 midnight Friday to 12:00 midnight Saturday (not including any Sunday hours) that was reduced in an amount equal to the Saturday premium pay to which such employees would have been entitled, if they performed regular and customary work on Saturdays instead of using authorized paid leave; and/ord. hybrid employees who were designated to receive premium pay on the same basis as nurses, who received pay during periods of authorized paid leave, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sections 6301-6391, for any part of such tours of duty between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., that was reduced in an amount equal to the night differential pay that VA employees would have been entitled, if they performed regular and customary work at night, instead of using authorized paid leave. DeMONS Subclass Two: All General Schedule employees, as defined by 5 U.S.C Sec. 2105, who were employed between July 1, 2012 and February 28, 2016 by the VA in one of the following occupations: 1. Series 0060 Chaplain; Series 0101 Social Science; Series 0102 Social Science Aid and Technician; Series 0181 Psychology Aid and Technician; Series 0184 Sociology; 0186 Social Services Aid and Assistant; Series 0187 Social Services; Series 0188, Recreation Specialist; Series 0189, Recreation Aid and Assistant; Series 0401, General Biological Science; Series 0403, Microbiology; Series 0404, Biological Science Technician; Series 0405, Pharmacology; Series 0413, Physiology; Series 0415, Toxicology; Series 0601, General Health Science; Series 0625, Autopsy Assistant; Series 0636, Rehabilitation Therapy Assistant (Except for Occupational Therapy Assistant and Physical Therapy Assistant); Series 0637, Manual Arts Therapist; Series 0638, Recreation/Creative Arts Therapist; Series 0639, Education Therapist; Series 0640, Health Aid and Technician (Except for Certified Respiratory Therapist); Series 0645, Medical Technician; Series 0646, Pathology Technician; Series 0651, Respiratory Therapist; Series 0664, Restoration Technician; Series 0670, Health System Administration; Series 0671, Health System Specialist; Series 0673, Hospital Housekeeping Management; Series 0683, Dental Laboratory Aid and Technician; Series 0690, Industrial Hygienist; Series 0698, Environmental Health Aid and Technician; Series 0699, Student Nurse Technician (Title code 63 only); Series 0701, Veterinary Medical Science; Series 0704, Animal Health Technician; Series 1020, Medical Illustrator; Series 1060, Photographer (Medical); Series 1301, General Physical Science; Series 1306, Health Physics; Series 1310, Physics; Series 1311, Physical Science Technician; Series 1320, Chemistry; Series 1601, Biomedical Equipment Support Specialist; Series 1725, Public Health Educator; Series 1910, Quality Assurance; and a. who regularly and customarily worked on a tour of duty any part of which was within the period beginning 12:00 midnight Friday and ending 12:00 Saturday; and b. who received premium pay of 25% or more, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 7454(b)(3), for each such hour of service between 12:00 midnight Friday and 12:00 midnight Saturday; and c. who received pay during periods of authorized paid leave, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sections 6301-6391, for any part of a tour of duty from 12:00 midnight Friday to 12:00 midnight Saturday that was reduced in an amount equal to the Saturday premium pay, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 7454(b)(3), to which such employees would have been entitled, if they performed their regular and customary work on Saturdays, instead of using authorized paid leave. The Epiq Systems Inc. is certified as class action administrator. On or before July 1, 2016, the administrator will provide a summary notice of the certification to each member of a subclass, designated herein, by postcard, to last known addresses. The cost of the postcard and mailing will be paid by class counsel. The summary notice will refer to www.myleavepay.com, a website operated and maintained by the administrator. The website will post the court's official notice, and a copy of the claim that a putative class member may file by internet or mail to DeMons P.O. Box 4349, Portland, Oregon 97208-4349, no later than August 15, 2016. A copy of Judge Braden's memorandum opinion and order dated May 20, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/gjeLIRfrom Leagle.com Plaintiffs, represented by: Ira M. Lechner, Esq. Katz & Ranzman, P.C. 4530 Wisconsin Ave NW #250 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: 202-659-4656 USA, Defendant, represented by Hillary Adrienne Stern, U. S. Department of Justice - Civil Division VALSPAR CORP: Shareholder Launches Class Suit Over Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Sean Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a Valspar shareholder claims in a class action that the company didn't disclose crucial material information about the fairness of its proposed merger with Sherwin-Williams. Tom Mitsopoulos brought a class-action lawsuit against Valspar's board of directors for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties by allowing Sherwin-Williams to acquire the company "without providing stockholders with material information necessary for an informed vote" on the merger. That information is missing from the company's proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last month, according to the May 24 lawsuit. "Intended to solicit stockholder approval of the proposed transaction, the proxy fails to disclose material financial projections prepared by Valspar management and used in the financial analyses of the proposed transaction performed by Valspar's advisors, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co.," the 18-page complaint states. In a press release dated March 21, Valspar announced that the company was entering into a definitive agreement to merge with Sherwin-Williams, and Valspar stockholders will get $113 per share. But that price could be adjusted, Mitsopoulos claims, because regulators may require Sherwin-Williams to divest assets to satisfy antitrust concerns. The merger agreement downplays this scenario. "In what both companies believe to be the unlikely event that divestitures are required of businesses totaling more than $650 million of Valspar's 2015 revenues, the transaction price would be adjusted to $105 in cash per Valspar share," a joint press release states. "Sherwin-Williams would have the right to terminate the transaction in the event that required divestures exceed $1.5 billion in 2015 revenues." Ever since the announcement of the merger, Valspar's share price has leveled out at about $107 per share. Based in Minnesota, paint maker Valspar has been in business since 1806. Both Valspar and Sherwin-Williams are big players in the U.S. house paint market, selling their paints through big-box retailers like Lowe's and Home Depot. According to a Bloomberg report, this may be cause for antitrust scrutiny. Not only does Sherwin-Williams gain market share in the U.S. do- it-yourself paint market through the merger, but it also boosts the company's presence in the international markets and industrial coatings markets, according to Bloomberg. he Valspar board considered a merger deal with two other unnamed companies, but by late January the board concluded that "no other company could 'offer greater value and closing certainty' than Sherwin-Williams, [and so] the board determined that it would not contact any additional parties for a potential strategic transaction," Mitsopoulos' lawsuit alleges. And so on March 19, the Valspar board unanimously approved the merger agreement after reviewing "financial projections as well as the fairness opinions prepared and provided by Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs," according to the complaint. Although Valspar "describes the fairness opinions provided by Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs and the various valuation analyses performed in support of these opinions," both financial advisors "relied on certain internal projections for fiscal years 2016-2020 in rendering their fairness opinions," the complaint states. Mitsopoulos claims the proxy discloses revenue, adjusted earnings before interest and taxes, and adjusted earning per share, but omits some of the internal projections used by Valspar's financial advisors to recommend the merger. According to the class-action complaint, the omissions include: "future stock prices and dividends per share, 'as reflected in Valspar forecasts,' used in the present value of future stock price and dividends analysis . . . unlevered free cash flow, 'as reflected in the Valspar Forecasts,' used in the discounted cash flow analysis . . . terminal year normalized free cash flow for Valspar, 'as reelected in the Valspar forecasts,' used in the discounted cash flow analysis . . . and the definitions of free cash flow and unlevered free cash flow used by Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch." "Without this information, Valspar's public stockholders are unable to fully understand the analyses and, thus, are unable to determine what weight, if any, to place of the fairness opinion rendered in support of the proposed transaction," the lawsuit states. As such, Mitsopoulos and the class seek injunctive and other equitable relief for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Mitsopoulos is represented by Brian Long of Rigrodsky & Long PA in Wilmington, Del., and by Donald Enright of Levi & Korsinsky in Washington, D.C. The case captioned, TOM MITSOPOULOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. THE VALSPAR CORPORATION, JACK J. ALLEN, JOHN M. BALLBACH, JOHN S. BODE, WILLIAM M. COOK, JEFFREY H. CURLER, SHANE D. FLEMING, IAN R. FRIENDLY, JANEL S. HAUGARTH, GARY E. HENDRICKSON, MAE C. JEMISON, and DAVID D. LUMLEY, Defendants (Del. Ch.). WHIRLPOOL CORP: "Candelario" Suit Claims Unfair Terms of Use ------------------------------------------------------------ LUCIA CANDELARIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF, V. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT, Case 3:16-cv-02810-PGS-TJB, (D. N.J., May 18, 2016), alleges that the Defendant imposed unfair, one-sided provisions on its Terms of Use in violation of certain statutory and common law standards and New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION markets a variety of kitchen appliances and products throughout the State of New Jersey, via its website, www.kitchenaid.com The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald H. Clark, Esq. Mark W. Morris, Esq. Lazaro Berenguer, Esq. CLARK LAW FIRM, PC 811 Sixteenth Ave. Belmar, NJ 07719 Phone: (732)443-0333 Fax: (504) 524-5763 - and - Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 * Law Professors Support CFPB's Plan to Ban Class Action Waivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- C. Ryan Barber, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that more than 200 law professors and other scholars rushed out of the gate to back the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's plan to prohibit arbitration clauses preventing class actions, as the formal comment period on the proposal recently opened. Calling the proposal "critically important to protect consumers," the group of 210 professors submitted a letter on May 24 arguing that class actions complement resource-strained state and federal agencies in enforcing the law. The professors wrote that, by allowing financial-services companies to "eradicate consumer class actions, we are allowing these companies to insulate themselves from enforcement of our laws. This harms not only individual consumers but also the public at large." The roster of signatories includes a nationwide selection of experts in consumer law, including Georgetown University Law Center professor David Vladeck, a former director of the Federal Trade Commission's bureau of consumer protection. The letter heavily cited the CFPB's arbitration study, which Congress mandated in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Drawing from that study, the professors said class actions provided meaningful relief to consumers. The mere prospect of facing a class action can also deter companies from misconduct, the professors said. "Companies engage in risk management calculations and are less likely to risk violating consumer laws if they know they may be sued in class actions for such violations," the professors wrote. In testimony before Congress and the CFPB, critics of the proposal have argued that arbitration provides consumers an efficient alternative to lengthy class actions. Those critics, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, contend that a ban on class action waivers would have the effect of eliminating arbitration in the financial sector. Testifying on the chamber's, Mayer Brown partner Andy Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- told a House subcommittee that many companies subsidize arbitration programs, lowering the costs for consumers who bring claims. If the CFPB banned class action waivers, he said, rational companies would not "finance two dispute resolution systems" and continue paying for arbitration programs. But, citing the CFPB study, the professors wrote that consumers are rarely aware that they are subject to arbitration agreements, though millions are covered by such clauses. The CFPB study found that only a few hundred file individual arbitration claims each year, mostly for claims exceeding $1,000. "In other words, a minuscule number of consumers bring individual arbitrations to recover low-dollar claims," the professors wrote. The CFPB study also found that consumers rarely bring lawsuits in court, and in the letter, the professors wrote that "it is easy to see why." For a consumer and a lawyer, they wrote, a small claim in not worth the trouble. The professors also quoted this passage from a 2004 decision by Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: "The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30." Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal on Aearo Indemnification Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a court ruling on the dispute relating to the indemnification of Aearo Holding Corp. remains pending, according to 3M Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies. Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products. "As of March 31, 2016, Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. "As of March 31, 2016, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had accruals of $21 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters. "In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement, including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers' pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract. In 2014, the court granted Aearo's motion for summary judgment on two claims, but declined to rule on two issues: the specific liability for certain known coal mine dust lawsuits; and Cabot's claim for allocation of liability between injuries allegedly caused by exposure to coal mine dust and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to silica dust. Following additional discovery, the parties filed new motions for summary judgment. In February 2016, the court ruled in favor of Aearo on these two remaining issues, and ordered that Cabot, and not Aearo, is solely responsible for all liability for the coal mine dust lawsuits under the 1995 agreement. Cabot has appealed. "Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims, (iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants, (viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group including exhaustion of available insurance coverage limits, and/or (ix) a determination that the interpretation of the contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the developments described above were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than the amount accrued. "Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group, and the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established." ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Had $39MM Insurance Receivables at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $39 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii) apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g., whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend against current and future claims. "Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii) the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv) changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers. "As a result of the Company's cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, the Company increased its accruals in the first quarter of 2016 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $11 million. In the first quarter of 2016, the Company made payments for legal fees and settlements of $14 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. As of March 31, 2016, the Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of $141 million (excluding Aearo accruals). This accrual represents the low end in a range of loss. The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors described above that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments described above that may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of liabilities. "As of March 31, 2016, the Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was $39 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on an analysis of its policies, including their exclusions, pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with similar claims, and an assessment of the nature of each claim and remaining coverage. The Company then records an amount it has concluded is likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect the timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including (i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii) the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings with respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance coverage. "The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for respirator mask claims. The Company is also seeking coverage under the policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once those claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims." ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Faces Suits by 2,110 Claimants at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,110 individual claimants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "As of March 31, 2016, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,110 individual claimants, compared to approximately 2,130 individual claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2015. "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. "The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company has prevailed in all ten cases taken to trial, including eight of the nine cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2015), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The remaining case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the court at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. The plaintiff in the 2015 trial has filed an appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals. Briefing is complete and a decision from the court is pending. "The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products. Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants. "As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended its complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. The case was inactive from the fourth quarter of 2007 until late 2013, other than a case management conference in March 2011. In November 2013, the State filed a motion to bifurcate the lawsuit into separate liability and damages proceedings. At the hearing on the motion, the court declined to bifurcate the lawsuit. No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the lack of any meaningful discovery responses by the State of West Virginia, the otherwise minimal activity in this case and the fact that the complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a jury might allocate to each defendant if the case is ultimately tried." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Continues to Face Claims at April 1 --------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc., continues to face asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016. The Company states, "There are a number of product liability, asbestos and workers' compensation claims pending against the Company and its subsidiaries. Many of these claims are proceeding through the litigation process and the final outcome will not be known until a settlement is reached with the claimant or the case is adjudicated. The Company estimates that it can take up to ten years from the date of the injury to reach a final outcome on certain claims. With respect to the product liability, asbestos and workers' compensation claims, the Company has provided for its share of expected losses beyond the applicable insurance coverage, including those incurred but not reported to the Company or its insurance providers, which are developed using actuarial techniques. Such accruals are developed using currently available claim information, and represent management's best estimates, including estimated legal fees, on an undiscounted basis. The ultimate cost of any individual claim can vary based upon, among other factors, the nature of the injury, the duration of the disability period, the length of the claim period, the jurisdiction of the claim and the nature of the final outcome." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Continues to Defend Suits at April 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- Kaman Corporation continues to defend itself 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 April 1, 2016. The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, the Company and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into certain products sold or distributed by the Company and/or the named subsidiary. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The rest have been resolved for amounts that are not material to the Company, either individually or in the aggregate. Based on information currently available, we do not believe that the resolution of any currently pending asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $50.6MM Accrued Liability at April 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation had $50,623,000 accrued asbestos-related liability as of April 1, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/i8Z0rH ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Faced 482 Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------ MRC Global Inc. was named a defendant in approximately 482 lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third- party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc. subsidiary purportedly distributed. As of March 31, 2016, we are named a defendant in approximately 482 lawsuits involving approximately 1,106 claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements is remote." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 13K Cases as of March 25 ---------------------------------------------------------- There were 13,000 asbestos-related cases against Mallinckrodt public limited company as of March 25, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 25, 2016. The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is also named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of March 25, 2016, there were approximately 13,000 asbestos-related cases pending against the Company. "The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its liability for pending and future claims is based on claims experience over the past five years and covers claims either currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years. The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos- related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolutions of all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xylem Still Indemnified by ITT at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Xylem Inc. said its former parent, ITT Corporation, continues to indemnify the company from 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 March 31, 2016. The Company states, "From time to time claims may be asserted against Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our products resulting from asbestos exposure. We believe there are numerous legal defenses available for such claims and would defend ourselves vigorously. Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement among ITT, Exelis and Xylem, ITT has an obligation to indemnify, defend and hold Xylem harmless for asbestos product liability matters, including settlements, judgments, and legal defense costs associated with all pending and future claims that may arise from past sales of ITT's legacy products. We believe ITT remains a substantial entity with sufficient financial resources to honor its obligations to us. "As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT, Exelis Inc. and Xylem will indemnify, defend and hold harmless each of the other parties with respect to such parties' assumed or retained liabilities under the Distribution Agreement and breaches of the Distribution Agreement or related spin agreements. The former parent's indemnification obligations include asserted and unasserted asbestos and silica liability claims that relate to the presence or alleged presence of asbestos or silica in products manufactured, repaired or sold prior to October 31, 2011, the Distribution Date, subject to limited exceptions with respect to certain employee claims, or in the structure or material of any building or facility, subject to exceptions with respect to employee claims relating to Xylem buildings or facilities. The indemnification associated with pending and future asbestos claims does not expire. Xylem has not recorded a liability for material matters for which we expect to be indemnified by the former parent or Exelis Inc. through the Distribution Agreement and we are not aware of any claims or other circumstances that would give rise to material payments from us under such indemnifications. On May 29, 2015, Harris Inc. acquired Exelis. As the parent of Exelis, Harris Inc. is responsible for Exelis's indemnification obligations under the Distribution Agreement." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Plaintiff Verdict ---------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Ohio appellate court has affirmed a compensatory verdict entered in favor of an asbestos plaintiff, but reversed a trial court order that granted Honeywell's directed verdict on punitive damages, opining that enough evidence had been presented to support a finding that Bendix "manifested a flagrant disregard of the safety of persons who might be harmed by the product in question." In the Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th District, Cuyahoga County, remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a new trial on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Remands Asbestos Suit ----------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing Reported that a Missouri federal court has remanded an asbestos action, noting that none of the remaining defendants in the lawsuit have opposed the plaintiff efforts. In the May 19 order, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri said that the defendants that had joined in the removal efforts had since been dismissed from the case. Plaintiff Sheree Murray filed the complaint, contending that her husband, Leroy Murray, was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the defendants. As a result of the exposure, Murray developed lung cancer, the plaintiff said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tetney Man Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer ----------------------------------------------------------- Louth Ledger reported that a coroner has recorded that a Tetney man died as a result of 'industrial disease', after developing cancer caused by historic exposure to asbestos in the workplace. Last May 25, an inquest at Spilsby Coroner's Court heard that Raymond Pickering Moffatt died at his home on September 8 last year. Mr Moffatt, 90, who lived in Tetney Lock, had suffered from malignant mesothelioma (a form of cancer associated with exposure to asbestos) in the later years of his life, and had undergone biopsies and cancer treatment in the months before his death. Mr Moffatt's daughter, Wendy Fulcher, attended the inquest. She explained that, following her father's diagnosis, he mentioned to her that he had been exposed to asbestos in the workplace while employed by the Bahrain Petroleum Company as a maintenance engineer between 1946 and 1966. This information about Mr Moffatt's employment history had not previously been formally recorded, and Ms Fulcher repeated the statement under oath at the request of the assistant Coroner for Central Lincolnshire, Richard Marshall. The Coroner noted that Mr Moffatt had received a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions in July 2015, in which they had accepted an industrial injuries claim that had been submitted by Mr Moffatt in relation to his illness. Recording a verdict of industrial disease, the coroner noted that Mr Moffatt had lived a long life despite his illness, and offered his condolences to the family. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mystery Surrounds Asbestos Death of Pensioner -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathie Griffiths, writing for Telegraph & Argus, reported that mystery surrounds the death of a 71-year-old retired cleaner who had never knowingly come into contact with asbestos, but died from a cancer usually caused by the deadly mineral. Pauline Verity of Bradford Road, Keighley, worked at a butcher's making sausages, then at Bingley's Andertons Engineering making fastening clips before spending more than 20 years at Morton Close Nursing Home in Crossflatts. The final two years of her working life were as a cleaner at Trinity All Saints in Bingley. Assistant Bradford coroner Mary Burke recorded an open conclusion into Mrs Verity's death because there was no proof the divorcee had ever been exposed to levels of asbestos which could have caused her mesothelioma. The inquest heard how, after Mrs Verity's diagnosis in 2012, she told her lifetime partner, Margaret Randall, and medical experts she could not recall coming into contact with asbestos. "It's correct to say an individual may not have known there had been exposure to asbestos but they may have previously not been aware of all the circumstances. It's a condition which can be triggered decades after such exposure," said Ms Burke. "When she [Mrs Verity] was diagnosed she was asked if she was aware of any exposure but couldn't recall any. It doesn't mean she had not been exposed to asbestos. There is recognised in medical literature a view that there is a small percentage of cases that may be naturally occurring. That may be the case for Mrs Verity but I can't be sure so I'm recording an open conclusion into her death." Mrs Verity, whose son and granddaughter were with her when she died at home on May 23, had seen her GP about shortness of breath. Until falling ill she had been fit enough to walk her dogs for hours, the inquest was told, but doctors had told her after the diagnosis that it was unlikely she would reach her 70th birthday. Ms Burke said in the vast majority of mesothelioma cases, asbestos exposure was the only known cause of the terminal condition and it usually affected people who worked with the substance many years before its dangers were known. Mrs Verity had three bouts of chemotherapy but had got to the stage when she did not want more treatment, the inquest was also told. Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops mainly in the lining of the lungs. More than 2,600 people are diagnosed with the condition each year in the UK, with most cases diagnosed in people aged 60 to 80. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at McLachlan Park ------------------------------------------------------ Jarrard Potter, writing for The Daily Examiner, reported that work has resumed at McLachlan Park after it was halted when asbestos was found in soil being excavated at the site. Clarence Valley Council works and civil director Troy Anderson said contractors using excavators uncovered a section of broken water pipe, which contained asbestos, in existing soil last Wednesday. "We stopped work and put measures in place to make sure none of the asbestos could become airborne," he said. "This included wetting the site and covering the stockpile." Mr Anderson said the Environmental Protection Authority has been notified and an asbestos control plan has been approved by the EPA. "We will follow that control plan and the removal of the asbestos- containing material should be routine," he said. Mr Anderson said asbestos-contaminated spoil from the site would be taken to a designated asbestos control point at the regional landfill. "I commend the contractors and everyone involved for the measured and responsible way this has been handled," he said. "Our number one priority has been public safety, and that has been achieved." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Dockyard Workers at Center of Legal Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joanne McCarthy, writing for Newcastle Herald, reported that Newcastle Dockyard and asbestos manufacturer James Hardie knew from 1962 that thousands of dockyard workers risked early death from asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer. Now the State of NSW, on behalf of the Dockyard, and Amaca Pty Ltd, on behalf of James Hardie, are arguing their share of responsibility for compensation, in a NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal case involving eight former Newcastle Dockyard workers. Judge William Kearns slammed James Hardie for "decades of silence" that left thousands of Newcastle Dockyard workers "the most vulnerable" and "most uninformed of all people dealing with" asbestos products needed for ship building. He found Newcastle Dockyard and its owner, the State of NSW, knew the dangers of asbestos in 1962 because of a Dockyard asbestos case in the Industrial Relations Commission. History: The State Dockyard at Newcastle where thousands of workers were exposed to the risks of asbestos-related conditions until asbestos was phased out by 1977. In a decision on May 20 Judge Kearns found the State responsible for the lion's share of compensation that has already been paid to the eight workers, at an average of $400,000 to each worker, with Amaca responsible for up to 40 per cent of compensation in the case of one worker. A number of the eight workers have already died. But any court case is too late for Mariea Foxford, of Merewether, whose husband John died of mesothelioma in 2007 after making a statement tendered in the case of the eight Dockyard workers, but before he could seek compensation following his years as a Newcastle Dockyard purchasing officer. "He was too sick, too quickly, to claim, and it was too much for me at the time to even think about a solicitor," Mrs Foxford said. "It was terrible. It's a terrible way to die. He would have been here for probably another 20 years if he didn't get mesothelioma, because he was always fit as a fiddle. The doctor told him he had it and he sort of fell to pieces." For Ken Searle, of Tighes Hill, who gave evidence in the case, the legacy of years at the Dockyard from 1973 is pleural plaque -- a marker of past asbestos exposure -- and the on-going threat of a more serious asbestos-related condition. "I remember being told by a foreman that 'Asbestos won't hurt you. There's nothing wrong with it'," Mr Searle said. "He was diagnosed with mesothelioma and bang, he was dead. "There was no concern about the asbestos when I started. The dust would fly up in the air and they'd use a broom to just push it about." A doctor's confirmation that he had pleural plaque was a shock, but "I figure if I don't die from that I'll go from something else, won't I?" He knew a lot of former Dockyard workers who "don't go to the doctor because they don't want to know they've got it". Mr Searle, 69, was a friend of the late Kevin Allars, the lead plaintiff in the case of the eight workers. "He was about eight years younger than me. He was a fit bloke and a surfer. He came out of the surf one day saying he couldn't breathe. A doctor told him to go home and get his affairs in order because he only had two months to live. We buried him a few months later," Mr Searle said. In a speech in 2013 Judge Kearns said more than 200 people who sought compensation under a NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal process from 2005 were dead before their matters were completed. Newcastle lawyer Gerard McMahon, from Turner Freeman, has handled up to 30 asbestos cases a year for the past 16 years, including many former Dockyard cases. He represented Mr Allars and two of the other eight Dockyard workers in the case before Judge Kearns, that returns to the tribunal next week. Two of the three men are dead. He said the case was "a positive thing" because it might give some guidance in future cases where the State of NSW, companies like Amaca and other defendants argue their share of responsibility in compensation cases. While there had been hundreds of Newcastle Dockyard cases, the numbers were declining because of the time since asbestos was phased out, between 1975 and 1977. The number of "third wave" cases -- where people including the children of workers developed asbestos-related conditions -- had increased over the past 15 years, he said. The general building industry was "probably the biggest killer" when it came to asbestos deaths, Mr McMahon said. Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australian president Barry Robson said James Hardie "demonstrates a corporate mindset that continues to see victims as a liability, rather than people". "I still get calls from workers that they've just been diagnosed," he said. About 700 Australians each year die of mesothelioma. They die, on average, about 155 days after they're diagnosed, Mr Robson said. "Asbestos-related conditions are a bigger killer than the road toll but you don't hear enough about it, because it's not a sexy disease." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumpster Left in Detroit Neighborhood --------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Spencer, writing for Fox2Detroit.com, reported that a neighborhood on Detroit's east side is concerned after a dumpster marked with asbestos warnings was left in the middle of their street. "It actually says danger, tight on the front," Negus Vu says in a video he took when New Era Detroit discovered the dumpster. You can watch parts of that video in the report in the video player above from FOX 2's Dave Spencer. In homes built prior to 1970, asbestos was a common fire retardant but it was banned in 1977 for its link to lung cancer -- which is why this warning label was taken seriously. "When we had to read it and look we said, 'Wow, it's kind of too late now. We don't have any protective gear. We are just walking down the street,'" Vu says. Photo Asbestos dumpster left in Detroit neighborhood for weeks FOX 2 learned the dumpster was put there by a city contractor weeks ago.That's when this neighbor was put on notice. "They put little things on the door; it didn't say anything about asbestos, though. It just says close your windows, your doors and keep your pets in. Stuff like that," one homeowner in the area told Spencer. The house that was there at 5151 Burns is nothing more than a vacant lot now. It was knocked down, according to the city, on May 12. But before they did any demolition, they moved that dumpster into place as a way to keep people safe. Brian Farkas, the director of special projects for the Detroit Building Authority, issued this statement on the dumpster: "In instances where the presence of asbestos is determined, highly trained workers go into the house prior to it being knocked down to remove the asbestos and place it into a specialized and sealed container to protect neighbors from any exposure." But if the house was removed on May 12, why was this contaminated container still in place weeks later? In fact, if the New Era Detroit march seen in video hadn't happened, would it still be there? "Fortunately we were there to see this and film it and put it out there on social media, which brought light to the situation," says Vu. FOX 2 to call the city, and the following day the dumpster was taken away, according to the city. "The sealed dumpster should have been removed by the contractor more quickly than it was. Once we became aware of the issue, the dumpster was removed the next day," Farkas said. "That's not the only time that we seen something like that. But it's the first time that the video has got out," Vu says. The city says this is an effort to keep the public safe and they encourage people to make sure that's exactly whats happening. "Anytime a neighbor has any questions or concerns about one of our demolition projects, we encourage them to call 844-DET-DEMO right away," Farkas says. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Westmont Hilltop High School --------------------------------------------------------------- Fox8TV.com reported that construction workers for the Westmont Hilltop High School say they found asbestos in the basement of the building. The Johnstown Tribune Democrat reports plumbing contractors spotted what they are calling suspect material on the ground while installing sanitary sewer lines. A follow up report confirmed the material is asbestos containing insulation. This despite two hazardous material studies done before renovations began earlier this year. Contractors say taking care of the asbestos will mean about a 40 thousand dollar cost to the District. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ruling Defines Suppliers Duty to Warn ------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Sellers, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that a raw asbestos supplier breached its duty to warn a distributor about the dangers of its product under a "sophisticated intermediary" doctrine adopted by the California Supreme Court May 23 ( Webb v. Special Elec. Co., Inc., 2016 BL 163642, Cal., No. S209927, 5/23/16 ). Special Electric Co. failed to warn Johns-Manville Corp. about the highly toxic nature of the raw crocidolite asbestos it sold in the 1970s, and couldn't reasonably expect that company to warn downstream users of the dangers, the court said. The ruling upheld a court of appeals decision that Special Electric was wrongly granted a judgment in its favor for the exposures of William Webb, who handled asbestos-containing pipe in the 1970s and developed mesothelioma in 2011. Under the doctrine announced by the court, a supplier of toxic raw materials may discharge its duty to warn if it knows a sophisticated user is aware or should be aware of the product's dangers, and it "reasonably relies on the purchaser to convey appropriate warnings to downstream users who will encounter the product." Here, that standard wasn't met because evidence showed Johns- Manville was generally aware of asbestos dangers, but "no evidence established it knew about the particularly acute risks posed by the crocidolite asbestos Special Electric supplied," the court said. Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, concurred in the judgment but said rule adopted by the majority was too broad. A supplier should, at the least, know a buyer is actually aware of a product's dangers to establish reasonable reliance on the purchaser to warn users, Cantil-Sakauye argued. Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote the opinion, joined by Associate Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Goodwin Liu, Mariano- Florentino Cu‚llar and Leondra R. Kruger. Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye concurred in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Ming W. Chin. The law offices of Ted W. Pelletier, as well as Paul & Hanley represented William W. Webb and Jacqueline Webb. Hugo & Parker, as well as Horvitz Levy represented Special Electric Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Suing Americon Says Exposure Led to Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that a widow is suing Ameron International Corp., Armstrong International, Inc., Aurora Pump Co. and multiple other companies, alleging negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and other counts in connection with asbestos exposure. Jody Shaffer, individually and as special administrator of the estate of Charles Shaffer, deceased, filed a complaint on May 3 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against the defendants, alleging that they failed to exercise ordinary care and caution for the safety of decedent. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that decedent Charles Shaffer was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers, causing him to develop lung cancer, which ultimately led to his death on June 8, 2014. The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they allegedly included asbestos fibers in their products when defendants knew or should have known that said asbestos fibers are toxic and poisonous, failed to provide adequate instructions and warnings, and failed to conduct tests on the asbestos containing products manufactured. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in her favor in a sum in excess of $50,000, punitive damages and such other relief that the court may deem appropriate. She is represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16L244 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Air Liquid Blames Death on Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that an estate special administrator is suing Air Liquid Systems Corporation, Aldrich Company, Arvinmeritor, Inc., Aurora Pump Company, and many other companies, citing alleged failure to warn, negligence and insufficient measures taken to prevent injuries, in connection with asbestos exposure. Jo Michele Grondy, individually and as special administrator of the estate of Thomas H. Wyllie, deceased ,filed a complaint on May 10 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against the defendants, alleging that they allegedly failed to exercise ordinary care and caution for safety. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on June 27, 2014, the plaintiff and decedent first became aware that decedent had developed mesothelioma, which was wrongfully caused by exposure to and inhalation of asbestos fibers. The decedent died of mesothelioma on Oct. 15, 2014, the suit says. The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they allegedly included asbestos fibers in their products when they knew or should have known that said asbestos fibers are toxic and poisonous, failed to provide adequate instructions and warnings, and other allegations. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against the defendants in an amount to exceed $50,000, punitive damages and for such other and further relief as the court may deem appropriate. She is represented by Ethan A. Flint of Flint Law Firm LLC in Glen Carbon. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16L254 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Into Wife's Asbestos-related Death --------------------------------------------------------- Christine Sexton, writing for Basildon Canvey Southend Echo, reported that a grieving husband has appointed lawyers to find out how his wife died of cancer caused by exposure to deadly asbestos. Paul Anthony, from Benfleet, has instructed expert asbestos- related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to find out how his beloved 58-year-old wife Tracey came in contact with deadly asbestos which caused her terminal cancer, mesothelioma. Mrs Anthony died just weeks after her diagnosis is appealing for her former colleagues to come forward to help with an investigation into her exposure to the deadly substance years ago. Mrs Anthony was diagnosed with mesothelioma on July 2, 2015 and died just seven weeks later on August 22. The disease only develops decades after exposure to asbestos, usually through working in close proximity to the substance when it is disturbed. Mr Anthony, 54, said: "Tracey's death was all so sudden. One month she had her diagnosis and the next she was gone. "I know nothing can bring her back to me, but I just need to know how she came in to contact with asbestos." Mrs Anthony -- then Tracey McLaughlin -- left school in 1973 and went on to work for many firms in and around south Essex. Specialist asbestos lawyers at Irwin Mitchell are keen to hear from anyone who worked with her at any point during her career. Ian Bailey, an expert asbestos-related disease lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, representing Paul, said: "We see first-hand the terrible consequences that asbestos exposure can have on so many lives, not just victims affected by mesothelioma but also their loved ones. "Paul has been left devastated by Tracey's sudden death and is understandably desperate for answers. "We would be keen to hear from anyone who worked with her across her roles in Purfleet, London, Southend and Benfleet. "Any information could prove vital in helping Paul get the answers he deserves." ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Refines Parameters of Mine Cleanup Area ------------------------------------------------------------ Justin Franz, writing for Flathead Beacon, reported that the EPA recently expanded the boundaries of OU3, an area that includes the former W.R. Grace and Co. mine site and the surrounding forest. The entrance station to the former mine, pictured on June 1, 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has expanded the parameters of the cleanup area around the former asbestos mine near Libby that was the epicenter of one of the biggest Superfund projects in American history. Project Manager Christina Progress said the EPA has expanded the boundaries of Operable Unit 3 -- the administrative area that includes the shuttered W.R. Grace & Co. mine north of Libby -- from 35,000 acres to 47,000 acres. Progress said the change came after the EPA conducted additional dust and bark sampling last year in the Rainy Creek Drainage. While the Superfund cleanup in Libby and Troy is winding down, cleanup efforts are just beginning around the shuttered vermiculate mine just north of Libby. Since it closed, thousands of people have been sickened and hundreds of died because of prolonged exposure to the asbestos laden vermiculate produced in Lincoln County until 1990. Last year, the EPA and other local agencies tested dirt and bark around the mine to see how much asbestos it contained. They also conducted a small controlled burn to see what type of toxins would be released into the air in the event of a wildfire near the old mine. The testing showed that there is more hazardous material than previously believed northeast of the mine site. Progress said more testing is planned for this summer. "That boundary could move as additional data comes in this summer," she said. W.R. Grace is currently working with the EPA on preparing two separate feasibility studies that will look at how OU3 should be cleaned up. One study will focus on the forested area around the mine and the other will include the mine site and nearby rivers. Progress said officials wanted to do a feasibility study on the forested area sooner because of the concern about wildfires. Officials hope to finish both studies in late-2016 or 2017. Once those studies are completed, the EPA will put together a proposed cleanup plan and then issue a record of decision. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Sophisticated Intermediary" Defense Adopted ------------------------------------------------------------- Don Willenburg, Esq. -- dwillenburg@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, in an article for Lexology.com, wrote that on May 24 the California Supreme Court formally adopted the "sophisticated intermediary" defense for product suppliers. The court significantly restricted applicability of the defense, however, and ruled that there was insufficient evidence in this case that Johns-Manville qualified as such an intermediary. Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. articulated the defense as follows: "a [product] supplier may discharge its duty to warn end users about known or knowable risks in the use of its product if it: (1) provides adequate warnings to the product's immediate purchaser, or sells to a sophisticated purchaser that it knows is aware or should be aware of the specific danger, and (2) reasonably relies on the purchaser to convey appropriate warnings to downstream users who will encounter the product." Perhaps the most significant hurdle to use of the defense in the future is the requirement that "a product supplier must show not only that it warned or sold to a knowledgeable intermediary, but also that it actually and reasonably relied on the intermediary to convey warnings to end users." The challenge posed by that requirement was exemplified here, where the Supreme Court ruled that Special Electric, a 2-person broker of raw crocidolite asbestos, had a duty to warn asbestos behemoth Johns-Manville and the downstream users of Johns-Manville products that incorporated Special Electric-brokered raw material. In part, this reflected a welcome understanding about the divergent toxicities of the different minerals classified together as asbestos. "Although the record clearly shows Johns-Manville was aware of the risks of asbestos in general, no evidence established it knew about the particularly acute risks posed by the crocidolite asbestos Special Electric supplied." Webb identified four other reasons why the evidence did not justify the trial court's decision to grant a defense JNOV in the face of a jury verdict finding negligence. 1. "The evidence is disputed about whether Special Electric consistently provided warnings to Johns-Manville during the relevant time frame." Note that it is not just "warnings," but "consistent warnings." 2. "[P]laintiffs presented evidence that at least one Special Electric salesperson told customers crocidolite was safer than other types of asbestos fiber, when the opposite was true. If the jury credited this evidence, it may have found it unreasonable for Special Electric to believe Johns-Manville was so sophisticated that a warning about the particular dangers of crocidolite asbestos was not called for." 3. Further, "the record does not establish as a matter of law that Special Electric actually and reasonably relied on Johns- Manville to warn end users like William Webb about the dangers of asbestos. We recognize that direct proof of actual reliance may be difficult to obtain when, as in the case of latent disease, the material was supplied to an intermediary long ago. However, actual reliance is an inference the factfinder should be able to draw from circumstantial evidence about the parties' dealings." 4. "[T]he jury could have reasonably determined that any reliance on Johns-Manville would have been unjustified. Plaintiffs presented testimony from a former Johns-Manville employee criticizing the company's handling of asbestos warnings and asserting it had failed to warn its own workers about the hazards of asbestos before the mid-1970s." While this evidence may be slim, it was enough to support the jury's finding of negligence and thus to overrule the trial court's grant of JNOV to the defense. The evidence in the case may also have been sufficient to support a jury finding that Special Electric was entitled to rely on the sophisticated intermediary defense, but the issue was presented only to the court and not to the jury. Webb overruled an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had rejected the sophisticated intermediary defense on the rationale that "that doctrine, where it applies at all, applies only if a manufacturer provided adequate warnings to the intermediary." Webb ruled that "[t]his assertion cannot be reconciled with our analysis in Johnson [v. American Standard, the key California "sophisticated user" decision]. . . .Insofar as it expresses a different view,Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. . . . is disapproved." So in at least some cases a defendant that provides no warnings can rely on the sophisticated intermediary defense. A footnote that is off the main point is nevertheless a troubling sign for product liability defendants, because it appears to allow very speculative evidence about whether a plaintiff ever encountered a defendant's product. "Plaintiffs introduced evidence that Webb was exposed to dust from Johns-Manville products containing trace amounts of crocidolite at roughly the same time Special Electric was supplying crocidolite asbestos to Johns- Manville. While evidence of the link could be stronger, it is nonetheless sufficient for the jury to have found that Special Electric's asbestos was a substantial factor in causing Webb's mesothelioma." "[E]vidence of the link could be stronger" is an understatement. This footnote portends both an easier path for plaintiffs to "prove" exposure, and a court not willing to put much "substantial" in "substantial factor." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford's Jurisdiction Appeal Goes to 5th Dist. ------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Maher, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that the Fifth District Appellate Court has been ordered to hear Ford Motor Co.'s appeal on whether Madison County has personal jurisdiction over the Michigan-based auto maker in an asbestos case brought by Florida plaintiffs. The Illinois Supreme Court issued a supervisory order directing the lower court to hear the appeal in the case of Dale and Irene Jeffs who sued last year on mesothelioma claims. Dale Jeffs, now deceased, had worked as an insulator for various contractors at various sites from 1968-1995, including time at Ford's plant in Michigan. The plaintiffs are represented by the Maune firm in St. Louis. Ford, represented by attorneys at the Greensfelder firm in Belleville, moved to dismiss last June, arguing that there is no alleged Illinois exposure occurring during Jeffs' time working for Ford. Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs denied Ford's motion last November, relying on a statement made by the company to the Illinois Supreme Court expressing its substantial contacts with the state. Ford sought leave to appeal Stobbs' decision, but a three member panel of Justices -- Melissa Chapman, Bruce Stewart and Judy Cates -- denied Ford's petition on Feb. 10. The case will now return to the Fifth District for arguments. Background In Stobbs' order denying Ford's personal jurisdiction motion to dismiss, he noted a Supreme Court brief filed in Folta v. Ferro Engineering, which stated: "Ford is one of the world's leading automotive manufacturers. Ford manufactures and assembles automobiles across six continents and provides related products and services. Ford conducts substantial business in Illinois and operates as assembly plant in Chicago that manufactures several vehicles, including the Taurus, MKS, Police Interceptor, and Explorer. Ford employs over 4,000 people at the Chicago Assembly Plant. In the past five years, Ford has invested over half a billion dollars in its business operations in Illinois." Stobbs concluded that Ford "has availed itself of the protection of the Illinois Courts and the benefits of Illinois law and by its own admission conducts substantial, not de minimus, business in Illinois. "Ford's contacts with the State of Illinois are substantial, therefore significantly more than the minimum contacts required by federal due process standards." Ford cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Daimler case, arguing that there is no basis to exercise general personal jurisdiction in Illinois for the case at hand. In Daimler, the court held that "'a court may assert jurisdiction over a foreign corporation to hear any and all claims against [it] only when the corporation's affiliations with the State in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive as to render [it] essentially 'at home' in that forum State.'" Ford's principal place of business is in Michigan and its state of incorporation is Delaware. Ford also argued that the plaintiff's reliance on personal jurisdiction by consent, pursuant to the Illinois Business Corporation Act, is misplaced. Stobbs was unconvinced. He held that while Ford's corporate offices are in Michigan, it has a certificate of authority to conduct business in Illinois, owns property in Illinois, has authorized dealers in Illinois, employs people in Illinois and maintains a registered agent to accept service of process in Illinois. He wrote that Ford voluntarily conducts regular business in Illinois and has done so since 1922. The defendant has also litigated numerous cases in this state, including other asbestos cases in Madison County, without objecting to personal jurisdiction. "Considering all the factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden of establishing jurisdiction over this Defendant and that the exercise of jurisdiction, in this case, is not inconsistent with notions of fair play and substantial justice, the fundamental consideration in finding constitutional jurisdiction," Stobbs concluded. Madison County Circuit Court case number 15-L-533 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Jury Sets Record with $8.75MM Award ----------------------------------------------------------- Bergman Draper Ladenburg on May 26 announced a landmark verdict in a lawsuit brought on behalf of David and Patricia Hoff of Beaverton, Oregon. Mr. Hoff was exposed to a deadly carcinogen in the 1970s when his work as a carpenter brought him into contact with asbestos-containing drywall joint cement during commercial construction projects. In August 2015, three years after his retirement, Mr. Hoff was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung. Mesothelioma does not present until decades after initial exposure. The disease is caused by breathing microscopic asbestos fibers and even short exposures can cause cancer many years later. Mesothelioma is not curable and, despite aggressive treatment, Mr. Hoff was too ill to testify at trial. The jury found Kaiser Gypsum, the manufacturer of the joint cement, negligent in failing to warn workers about the dangers of asbestos used in their products. The jury also found Kaiser Gypsum strictly liable for the sale of a defective, unreasonably dangerous product. Three other companies involved with similar products reached out of court settlements before the case was submitted to the jury for deliberation. Bergman Draper Ladenburg's trial team of Brian Ladenburg, Craig Sims and Kaitlin Wright began working with the Hoffs during the fall of 2015 and noted the decision to go to trial reflected a tremendous commitment by the Hoff family. "The Hoffs wanted to ensure that companies realize they will be held accountable for exposing workers to toxic substances that cause cancer," explained Craig Sims. "The jury reinforced this message, but nothing can make up for the negligent disregard for the lives of workers who used their products." Kaiser Gypsum manufactured asbestos-containing joint cement in their plant in Seattle, Washington. These products were banned by the Consumer Products Safety Commission in 1978 because of the health risks of high asbestos fiber release during their use. Evidence was presented at trial, however, showing that the company knew about the risks associated with asbestos at least a decade earlier. Internal Kaiser documents indicated that Kaiser was aware of the link between asbestos and mesothelioma as early as 1965, yet Kaiser never included the link to cancer on any warnings on its products and continued to sell them without a cancer warning until 1978. Brian Ladenburg explained the critical importance of maintaining accountability of exposing workers to asbestos when such exposures were known to cause cancer, even though the exposures took place decades ago. New cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed at a rate of 2,500-3,000 per year, almost all associated with past asbestos exposure. The victory was the result of a strong collaborative effort by the Bergman Draper Ladenburg trial team. Ladenburg and Sims tried the case with Bergman Draper Ladenburg attorney Kaitlin Wright over the course of three-and-a-half weeks before the Hon. Judith A. Matarazzo of the Multnomah County Circuit Court. All three attorneys played critical roles during a lengthy and challenging trial. About Bergman Draper Ladenburg Bergman Draper Ladenburg (www.bergmanlegal.com) is a Pacific Northwest law firm with offices in Seattle and Portland that focuses on representing individuals and families who have been harmed by powerful interests. For more than 18 years it has protected the interests of asbestos victims in proceedings involving some of the largest manufacturers of asbestos products. The firm focuses on zealously advocating on behalf of cancer victims who were exposed to asbestos. Firm founder Matthew Bergman was a top negotiator for two groundbreaking settlements: a nationwide $5.1 billion settlement with Owens Corning, of which $61 million was set aside for Puget Sound-area claimants; and a $4.3 billion settlement with Halliburton, which allotted $30 million for asbestos claimants in the region. For individual clients the firm has collected over $630 million in settlements and verdicts. Bergman Draper Ladenburg attorneys speak at national and international conferences and industry engagements on all areas of asbestos law. Contacts Bergman Draper Ladenburg Matthew Bergman, 206-957-9510 matt@bergmanlegal.com or GreatWork Strategic Communications Diane Aboulafia, 206-232-5160 diane@greatworkcommunications.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court Rules for Exposed Worker ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reported that the California State Supreme Court rules for worker exposed to asbestos, reinstating a multimillion-dollar jury verdict for the family of a worker who inhaled asbestos dust from his job and later died of lung cancer. The ruling provided some legal protection, but not in this case, to suppliers of dangerous products who rely on manufacturers to warn consumers. From 1969 to 1979 William B. Webb worked as a warehouseman and truck driver for a company in Los Angeles County that shipped cement piping containers of crocidolite, the most dangerous form of asbestos. Around 10 times per year he delivered pipes where he inhaled dusty reside with no warning of the hazards. In 2011 Webb was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal lung cancer caused by asbestos, and died after he and his wife filed suit. The defendants include Special Electric Co., which supplied the asbestos without a warning label, and the pipe manufacturers, the now-bankrupt Johns-Manville Corp., which only until the 1980s were warnings were included, according to the court testimony. A jury found both companies at fault, awarding Webb's family $5 million in damages, however the trial judge overturned the verdict a against Special Electric, saying the supplier had no duty to warn users like Webb because it should have been able to rely on Johns-Manville to recognize the dangers and provide the warnings. The state's high court unanimously disagreed. The court said suppliers of dangerous but legal products must provide warnings to workers and consumers who may be exposed to the dangers. The warnings are not required, but when someone else in the chain of distribution is aware of the dangers and is reasonably trusted by the supplier to provide the warnings, said the court. But in this case, while Johns-Manville knew of the risks posed by asbestos, there was no evidence that the manufacturer knew the crocidolite from Special Electric was seven times more likely as other forms of asbestos to cause cancer, said the court. It also said at least one sales representative from Special Electric told customers that crocidolite was safer than other forms of asbestos. "The record does not establish . . . that Special Electric actually and reasonably relied on Johns-Manville to warn end-users like William Webb about the dangers of asbestos," Justice Carol Corrigan said in the ruling reinstating the jury verdict. Ted Pelletier, who represented Webb's family, said the ruling is a victory for "victims everywhere of hazardous products at the hands of manufacturers and suppliers" and provides "a very limited exception" for some suppliers. James Parker, the lawyer for Special Electric, said the company is disappointed by the outcome, butt the court recognizes the suppliers of dangerous products can avoid liability when they can prove the manufacturers "are sophisticated and know of the dangers." ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Cos. Remain Defendants in "Arbogast" -------------------------------------------------------- Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted partial summary judgment to the defendants in the case captioned CHARLES LEMUEL ARBOGAST, JR., et al., Plaintiffs. v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO. et al., Defendants, Civil No. JKB-14-4049 (D. Md.). Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., and Barbara Arbogast, sued 27 defendants -- of whom twenty-four remain in the case -- and alleged they, as manufacturers and/or distributors of various products, caused Charles Arbogast to be exposed to asbestos, which led to his diagnosis of mesothelioma. The complaint contains four counts, including Count I (strict liability), Count II (negligence), Count III (aiding and abetting and conspiracy), and Count IV (loss of consortium). Plaintiffs demand compensatory damages in excess of $75,000. Various motions are pending that, if granted, will streamline the case considerably. Plaintiffs have stated they do not oppose the motions, or parts thereof, that are subject of this memorandum. In addition, Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence of aiding and abetting and conspiracy in opposition to any motion for summary judgment. The Court infers, then, that Plaintiffs are not pursuing those claims against any Defendant and will grant partial judgment on that basis. If Plaintiffs believe the Court's view as to their aiding and abetting and conspiracy claims is in error, then they may file a motion with supporting evidence asking for a revision of this ruling. As a result of the various rulings made today, the following Defendants remain in the case: CBS Corporation of Delaware; Crane Company; Eaton Corporation; Foster Wheeler, LLC; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Georgia-Pacific, LLC; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; MCIC, Inc.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Schneider Electric USA, Inc.; Sepco Corporation (but subject to automatic bankruptcy stay); Union Carbide Corporation; and Uniroyal Holding, Inc. A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 5, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/rN4Irl from Leagle.com. Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., Plaintiff, is represented by David M Layton, Esq. -- Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & John E Guerry, III, Esq. -- jguerry@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC. Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, is represented by David M Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice LLC & John E Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC. CBS Corporation of Delaware, Defendant, is represented by Clare Marie Maisano, Esq.-- cmmaisano@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff. Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, Esq. -- nmacdonald@macdonaldlawgroup.com -- MacDonald Law Group, LLC, David A Fusco, Esq. -- david.fusco@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP, James B Insco, II, Esq. -- james.insco@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J Sechler, Esq. -- michael.sechler@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP & Thomas E Birsic, Esq. -- thomas.birsic@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Michelle Noorani, Esq. -- mnoorani@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Warren N Weaver, Esq. -- wweaver@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. Foster Wheeler, LLC., Defendant, is represented by R Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Esq. -- tradcliffe@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Esq. -- psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by R Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Donald S Meringer, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC, David J Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC,Erik D Nadolink, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice & David Speziali, Speziali Greenwald and Hawkins PC. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by F Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D Cook, Wilcox and Savage & James E Hooper, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Theodore F Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & M Elizabeth O Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice. MCIC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC. Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by F Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Laura A Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Matthew R Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Richard M Lee, Selman Breitman LLP, pro hac vice. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Danielle Grilli Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. Goodrich Corporation, Movant, represented by John C Ruff, DeHay and Elliston LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Default Judgment in "Barbarino" Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motion for a default judgment on liability in the case captioned JOAN BARBARINO, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of ROY BARBARINO, deceased Plaintiff, v. BASF CATALYSTS, LLC et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190072/14, 2016 NY Slip Op 30840(U)(N.Y.Sup.), and referred the issue of the amount of damages to a special referee. Plaintiff, whose deceased husband was employed by the New York City Transit Authority as a transit bus body mechanic, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2014. Plaintiff moves for a default judgment against R.C.A. Rubber Company ("RCA") pursuant to CPLR Section 3215. While plaintiff does not ask for a specific amount of damages, she attaches a proposed judgment in the amount of $2,100,000. Alternatively, plaintiff seeks a default on liability and an inquest on damages. A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 5, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/POKB6I from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Strikes Expert Disclosures in "Begin" ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, struck the Plaintiff's expert disclosures in the case titled WILLIAM D. BEGIN and GINNY BEGIN, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID CORPORATION, CRANE CO., WARREN PUMPS LLC, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, and GOULD PUMPS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-830-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.). As a discovery violation sanction and pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1), Plaintiffs are not allowed to use expert witnesses Dr. Arnold R. Brody, Dr. Barry I. Castleman, William Ewing, Dr. Arthur Frank, Dr. Edwin Holstein, Captain William A. Lowell, Dr. John C. Maddox, Dr. Eugene J. Mark, Dr. Gerald Markowitz, Dr. Steven Markowitz, Arnold P. Moore, or Dr. David Rosner to "supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial." Plaintiffs shall proceed in this matter without expert evidence. This matter is before the Court on the Discovery Disputes brought to the Court's attention on April 29, 2016. Defendant Crane Co. objected to the expert disclosures filed by Plaintiffs on March 18, 2016 (Doc. 337), arguing that they failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). At the April 29, 2016 conference, Plaintiffs raised disputes as to Requests to Produce and Interrogatories served on October 7, 2015. In particular, Plaintiffs state that Defendant Crane Co. failed to produce Navy contracts that may be pertinent to their experts' opinions. In light of these disputes, this Court held an in person hearing on May 6, 2016 in which Plaintiffs and Defendants appeared by counsel. A full-text copy of the Order dated May 10, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/AaKOyM from Leagle.com. William D. Begin, Plaintiff, is represented by Laci Marie Whitley, Esq. -- lwhitley@toverdict.com -- Flint & Associates, LLC & Timothy P. Hulla, Esq. -- thulla@toverdict.com -- Flint & Associates, LLC. Ginny Begin, Plaintiff, is represented by Laci Marie Whitley, Flint & Associates, LLC & Timothy P. Hulla, Flint & Associates, LLC. Air & Liquid System Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Esq. -- mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.. Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Carl J. Geraci, Esq. -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Jessica Schmit, Esq. - - jschmit@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & Benjamin J. Wilson, Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC. Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, is represented by James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al.. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq. -- J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Esq. -- J.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab, Esq. -- yasmin.tayyab@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis et al. & Undray Wilks, Esq. -- undray.wilks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis et al. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak's Protectve Order Bid Partially Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Amtrak's (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) motion to compel and denied in substantial part the Insurers' motions for a protective order in the case captioned CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS at LLOYD'S, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 14-CV-4717 (FB)(E.D.N.Y.). In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiff-insurers seek, inter alia, a determination as to whether a series of liability insurance policies, issued to defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") more than three decades ago, obligates plaintiff-insurers to reimburse Amtrak for costs incurred in connection with environmental waste allegedly found on Amtrak's property. Currently pending before the Court are certain aspects of Amtrak's motion to compel discovery, as well as a motion for a protective order filed by plaintiff-insurers concerning Amtrak's entitlement to production of reinsurance agreements under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"). A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 16, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/tCJMpf from Leagle.com. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, Plaintiff, is represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Esq. -- aisha.bembry@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Esq. -- joseph.ruby@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Esq. -- mark.leimkuhler@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Esq. -- martin.baach@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Esq. -- ronald.abramson@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC. Accident & Casualty Co., Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Accident & Casualty Insurance Company Of Winterthur, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Accident & Casualty Insurance Company of Winterthur (No. 2 A/C), Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Accident & Casualty Insurance Company of Winterthur (No. 3 A/C), Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Aegon NV, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. AG De 1830 Compagnie Belge D'Assurances Generales Incendie Accidents Et Risques Divers SA, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. American Home Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Amsterdan -- London Verzekeering Maatschappij NV, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Ancon Insurance Company (UK) Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Argonaut Northwest Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Assicurazioni Generali SPA (UK Branch), Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Bishopsgate Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Britamco Pool, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. CNA Reinsurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. CNA Reinsurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Cornhill Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Credit De Namur, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Delta-Lloyd Non-Life Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Delta-Lloyd Schadeverzekering NV, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Stronghold Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. The Dominion Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Northwestern National Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Europeesche Verzekering Maatschappij Nv, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Excess Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Helvetia-accident Swiss Insurance Company (As Part of Gibbon "E" Group), Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Gresham Fire & Accident Insurance Society Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Gresham Insurance Society Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. Harper Insurance Ltd F/k/a/Turegum Ins Co, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Instituto De Reasseguros Do Brasil (Irg) -- London Branch, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Interlloyd Verzekering Maastschappij Nv, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Koning & Boeke Van 1819, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. La Belgique, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. L'assicurazioni D'Italia, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Le Assicurazioni D'Italia Spa, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Les Assurances Generales De France, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Les Proprietaires Reunis S.A. D. Assurances I.A.R.D., Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. L'Etoile, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. London & Edinbugh General Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. London and Edinburgh General Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Maas Lloyd Nv Schadeverzekeringsmaatschappu, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Mercator Algemene Verzekerings Maatschappu Nv, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. N.V. Rotterdamse Assurantiekas, N.V. Verz Mij De Noodern, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Namur Assurances du Credit, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. National Casualty Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. National Casualty Company of America Limited, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Nissan Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Noorholland Brandw, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Norwich Union Fire Insuarnce Socity Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Providential Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Rheinland Versicherungs Ag, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Royal Belge Sa, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Royal Nederland Schadeverzekering Nv, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Royale Belge Incendie Reassurances SA., Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. St Katherine Insurance Company PLC, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Terra Nova Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. The Sumitomo Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Unionamerica Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Wurttembergisch Feuerversicherrung AG, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company(UK) Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. Diligentia, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC &Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC. National RailRoad Passenger Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Rhonda D. Orin, Esq. -- rorin@andersonkill.com -- Anderson Kill & Olick LLP, Angela Singleton, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Daniel John Healy, Esq. -- dhealy@andersonkill.com -- Anderson Kill, LLP & Vivian Costandy Esq. -- vcostandy@andersonkill.com -- Michael, Anderson Kill. Allianz Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Anthony R. Gambardella, Esq. -- anthony.gambardella@rivkin.com -- Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Esq. -- lawrence.levy@rivkin.com - - Rivkin Radler LLP, Michael A. Kotula, Esq. -- michael.kotula@rivkin.com -- Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney, Esq. -- robert.maloney@rivkin.com -- Rivkin Radler LLP. American Home Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, rbryan@jackscamp.com -- Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Esq. -- Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Esq. -- cquinlan@jackscamp.com -- Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Esq. -- kvine@jackscamp.com -- Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. American Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Anthony R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., formerly known as American Reinsurance Company, Defendant, is represented by William Eugene Mcgrath Jr., Esq. -- wmcgrath@smithstratton.com -- Smith Stratton. Argonaut Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Brian Michael Reid, Esq. -- reid@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent J. Velardo, Esq. -- velardo@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP. Banco De Seguros Del Estado, Defendant, represented by Ernesto Palomo, Locke Lord LLP, Jeffrey Steven Kramer, Locke Lord LLP, Joseph N. Froehlich, Locke Lord LLP & Robert A. Badgley, Karbal Cohen Economou Silk Dunne LLC. Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John S. Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, Kathryn M. Frost, Elenius Frost & walsh,Arthur A. Povelones, Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto, P.A., George Richard Hardin, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto & William Patrick Lalor, Elenius Frost & Walsh. Evanston Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Robert P. Siegel, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. First State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Alison P. Baker, SHIPMAN AND GOODWIN LLP & Katherine Hance, Shipman & Goodwin LLP. Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. Insurance Company of The State of Pennsylvania, Defendant, represented byRichard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. &Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. Interstate Reinsurance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anthony R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP. Landmark Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. Lexington Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.. Northbrook Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP. Wausau International Underwriters, Defendant, represented by Claude N. Grammatico, Epstein, Gialleonardo, Frankini, Kristin S. Heres, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP & Wm. Gerald McElroy, Jr., Zelle LLP. Yosemite Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Mark W. Zimmerman, Clausen Miller, Steven J. Fried, Clausen Miller PC & Elise D. Allen, Clausen Miller P.C.. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP. XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd, Defendant, represented by Whitney Morgan Smith, Cahill Gordon and Reindel. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Claude N. Grammatico, Epstein, Gialleonardo, Frankini, Kristin S. Heres, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP & Wm. Gerald McElroy, Jr., Zelle LLP. Certain London Market Insurance Companies, Defendant, Pro se. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment in "Botts" -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case captioned ROGER BOTTS and CAROL BOTTS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-35007 (9th Cir.) for further proceeding. Roger and Carol Botts appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government. The district court erred in finding that Botts failed to produce evidence from which a finder of fact could reasonably conclude that asbestos exposure at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard resulting from violations of the Navy's mandatory rules after March 1970 was a substantial factor in causing Roger Botts' mesothelioma. A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 16, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/zSk0NE from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Objection to Spoliation Instruction Sustained -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled KATHY BOYER, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Milton Boyer, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant. No. 14-cv-286-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin sustained defendant Weyerhaeuser Company's objection to plaintiff's spoliation instruction. Plaintiff Kathy Boyer submitted a proposed spoliation inference instruction, along with a hard hitting brief in support of that instruction, which asserts that the evidence supports a finding that defendant Weyerhaeuser Company acted in bad faith in losing or destroying many documents about the use of asbestos materials and of asbestos emissions into the community. In response to that brief, defendant Weyerhaeuser served a Rule 11 motion, which contended that plaintiff significantly misrepresented defendant's discovery production. Apparently, the serving of this Rule 11 motion prompted plaintiff to file an amended brief, because it is several pages shorter than her original filing and omits certain information, including most notably a list of documents plaintiff originally contended "Weyerhaeuser possessed and then caused to be destroyed or lost." A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/tneNVo from Leagle.com. Kathy Boyer, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael P. Cascino, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Alyssa R. Segawa, Esq. -- Galiher DeRobertis Waxman, Anthony Carr, Gary Galiher, Ilana Waxman, James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., John Everett Guerry, III, Esq. -- rguerry@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, John Eugene Herrick, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark, Esq. -- mkclark@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Nathan David Finch, Esq. -- nfinch@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Thomas David Hoyle, Motley Rice LLC & William C Swett, Esq. -- Motley Rice LLC. Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, is represented by Joshua J. Metcalf, Esq. -- joshua.metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Mitch McGuffey, Esq. -- mitch.mcguffey@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Ruth F. Maron, Esq. -- ruth.maron@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Tanya D. Ellis, Esq. -- tanya.ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Thomas Benton York, Esq. -- thomas.york@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP & Walter G Watkins, III, Esq. -- walter.watkins@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP. Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, is represented by Sherry Dawn Coley, Esq. -- scoley@dkattorneys.com -- Davis & Kuelthau, S.C. & Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Esq. -- jjohanningmeier@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn S.C.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Daubert Motions Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied several asbestos plaintiffs' "motion for reconsideration and clarification regarding February 19, 2016, decision and, alternatively, for leave to amend complaints." While not all of the bases apply to each of the cases, the plaintiffs, as a group, seek reconsideration of one or more of the following rulings: (1) the court's grant of summary judgment based in part on defendant Weyerhaeuser's Daubert motion as to plaintiffs Jacobs, Masephol and Seehafer; (2) "extending" the exclusivity provision of the Wisconsin's Workers Compensation Act to an employee's take-home asbestos exposure; and (3) the court's grant of summary judgment in Weyerhaeuser's favor on plaintiffs' private nuisance claims. Judge Conley also granted in part and denied in part Defendant Weyerhaeuser's motions to strike the plaintiffs' reply briefs. The cases are KATHY BOYER, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Milton Boyer, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant; BRIAN HECKEL, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Sharon Heckel, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORP., GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants; DIANNE JACOBS, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Rita Treutel, Plaintiff, v. RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION, and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants, RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION, Cross-claimant, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Cross-defendant; KATRINA MASEPHOL, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Richard Masephol, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants; VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants; JANICE SEEHAFER, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Roger Seehafer, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant.; and THERESA SYDOW, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Wesley Sydow, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Nos. 14-cv-286-wmc, 13-cv-459-wmc, 12-cv-899-wmc, 14-cv-186-wmc, 14-cv-143-wmc, 14-cv-161-wmc, 14-cv- 219-wmc (W.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/Tb1Ymg from Leagle.com. Richard Masephol, Plaintiff -- The Estate of, is represented by Michael P. Cascino, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Alyssa R. Segawa, Esq. -- Galiher DeRobertis Waxman, Anthony Carr, Gary Galiher, Ilana Waxman, James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., John Everett Guerry, III, Esq. -- rguerry@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, John Eugene Herrick, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark, Esq. -- mkclark@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Nathan David Finch, Esq. -- nfinch@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Thomas David Hoyle, Motley Rice LLC & William C Swett, Esq. -- Motley Rice LLC. Katrina Masephol, Plaintiff, is represented by John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark, Motley Rice LLC & Nathan David Finch, Motley Rice LLC. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Smitha Chintamaneni, Esq. -- schintam@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper. Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, is represented by Joshua J. Metcalf, Esq. -- joshua.metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Mitch McGuffey, Esq. -- mitch.mcguffey@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Ruth F. Maron, Esq. -- ruth.maron@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Tanya D. Ellis, Esq. -- tanya.ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Thomas Benton York, Esq. -- thomas.york@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP & Walter G Watkins, III, Esq. -- walter.watkins@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP. Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, is represented by Sherry Dawn Coley, Esq. -- scoley@dkattorneys.com -- Davis & Kuelthau, S.C. & Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Esq. -- jjohanningmeier@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn S.C. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser's Bid in Limine Partially Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned KATHY BOYER, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Milton Boyer, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant, No. 14-cv-286-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted in part, denied in part, and reserved in part Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company's motions in limine. Judge Conley also denied Plaintiff Kathy Boyer's motion in limine to reconsider rulings on government regulations as evidence of negligence; granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motions in limine; granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion for leave to file supplemental expert reports. Plaintiff filed three motions in limine specific to Boyer's claims. First, plaintiff seeks an order excluding evidence or argument that plaintiff Kathy Boyer has received, has been entitled to receive, or has applied for disability benefits. Plaintiff argues that this evidence is not material to any issue of liability, and that it is also immaterial to damages because of the collateral source rule. Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that the evidence is material to damages because it will correct any jury inference that Kathy Boyer "either could not work due to her husband's illness, or was previously a homemaker by choice such that she brought no income into the home. Defendant further argues that the evidence is not barred by the collateral source rule. Second, Plaintiff seeks an order excluding any comment, argument or evidence that any of plaintiff's witnesses, including Charles Reno, filed any past grievances or workers' compensation claims against Weyerhaeuser. Plaintiff contends that this evidence is not relevant, and in anticipation of defendant's opposition, further argues that any relevance is outweighed by the risk of confusion and waste of time. For its part, defendant responds that this evidence is highly relevant to each witness's credibility and bias. Third, in a separately-filed motion styled "motion in limine," plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's June 2, 2015, opinion and order preventing plaintiff from relying on Environmental Protection Agency regulations in establishing the standard of care. In that order, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' nuisance claims on the basis that the Clean Air Act preempts state law nuisance claims, at least "to the extent that plaintiffs intend to rely on NESHAP [National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants] or other regulatory standards under the CAA to prove negligent conduct under either a private or public nuisance claim." Plaintiffs previously moved for reconsideration of that decision, which the court also denied. Despite the court's instruction not to re-file the same motions in limine, defendant did just that, albeit in an abundance of caution to ensure that its arguments were preserved. More appropriately, defendant identifies a few, specific nuances by which it seeks to differentiate this court's rulings in Pecher. Some of defendant's motions also concern evidentiary challenges not resolved fully in Pecher. The court gives further consideration to some of these motions, while finding the others not worth additional discussion. A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/Y0M94e from Leagle.com. Kathy Boyer, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael P. Cascino, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Alyssa R. Segawa, Esq. -- Galiher DeRobertis Waxman, Anthony Carr, Gary Galiher, Ilana Waxman, James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., John Everett Guerry, III, Esq. -- rguerry@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, John Eugene Herrick, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark, Esq. -- mkclark@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Nathan David Finch, Esq. -- nfinch@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Thomas David Hoyle, Motley Rice LLC & William C Swett, Esq. -- Motley Rice LLC. Katrina Masephol, Plaintiff, is represented by John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark, Motley Rice LLC & Nathan David Finch, Motley Rice LLC. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Smitha Chintamaneni, Esq. -- schintam@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper. Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, is represented by Joshua J. Metcalf, Esq. -- joshua.metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Mitch McGuffey, Esq. -- mitch.mcguffey@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Ruth F. Maron, Esq. -- ruth.maron@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Tanya D. Ellis, Esq. -- tanya.ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Thomas Benton York, Esq. -- thomas.york@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP & Walter G Watkins, III, Esq. -- walter.watkins@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP. Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, is represented by Sherry Dawn Coley, Esq. -- scoley@dkattorneys.com -- Davis & Kuelthau, S.C. & Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Esq. -- jjohanningmeier@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn S.C.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Order Denying Sanctions Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders and denied Philips Electronics North America Corporation's and its Dutch parent company, Koninklijke Philips, N.V.'s motion for sanctions in the case styled ELBERT COX, JR.; CECIL WAYNE FRANKLIN; JOHN SPEARS; WANDA BEASLEY; DONALD KING; LINDSEY PENNINGTON; TERESA PRESTON; BEVERLY PRESLEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of Annabell Gordon, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., a Netherlands Corporation, aka Royal Philips Electronics, N.V. Koninklijke; PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-6048 (6th Cir.). Former employees at a glass and bulb manufacturing plant brought this action against their employer, Philips Electronics North America Corporation and its Dutch parent company, Koninklijke Philips, N.V. ("KPNV"), for injuries arising from exposure to hazardous chemicals during their employment. The district court dismissed the employees' claims against KPNV for want of personal jurisdiction, dismissed their claims against Philips as statutorily barred, and declined to award them costs in serving KPNV process. The employees appeal those rulings, while KPNV and Philips seek sanctions. A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 9, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/Zytjgr from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford USA Wins Bid for Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the order of the Appellate Division granting Defendant Ford USA's motion for summary judgment dismissing MARY FINERTY & C., Respondents, v. ABEX CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant. (And Another Action.), No. 1, 2016 NY Slip Op 03411 (N.Y. App.). Plaintiff and his wife commenced this action against, among others, Ford Motor Company ("Ford USA"), Ford Motor Company, Ltd. ("Ford UK") and Henry Ford & Son, Ltd. ("Ford Ireland") alleging strict products liability under the theories of defective design and failure to warn. After discovery, Ford USA moved for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Ford USA did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the parts in question, pointing out that they were manufactured, produced, distributed and sold by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Ford UK. Ford USA further moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) arguing that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action because it was devoid of any allegations supporting a claim that the court should "pierce the corporate veil" such that Ford USA could be held derivatively liable for the acts of Ford UK. Plaintiff countered that Ford USA was "actively involved" in the design, specification, production and sale of Ford products throughout the world, including the United Kingdom, such that it could be held liable for the role it "independently played" in placing the products into the stream of commerce and in failing to warn plaintiff. The Supreme Court, while holding that there was no basis upon which to pierce the corporate veil, nonetheless determined that because plaintiff produced evidence showing that Ford USA "exercised significant control over Ford [UK] and Ford Ireland and had a direct role in placing the asbestos-containing products to which [plaintiff] was exposed into the stream of commerce," there was a question of fact concerning Ford USA's "direct responsibility for plaintiff's injuries." The Appellate Division affirmed the order of Supreme Court denying Ford USA's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division granted Ford USA leave to appeal to this Court pursuant to CPLR 5713, and certified the question of whether that portion of the order that affirmed the order of Supreme Court was properly made. A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 3, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/1Q6Lpq from Leagle.com. Anton Metlitsky, Esq. -- ametlitsky@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP for appellant. James M. Kramer, Esq. for respondents. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, amicus curiae. ********* 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 2016. 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 * * *