/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170303.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 3, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 45 Headlines A.C. MOORE: Faces "Rossmeisl" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA ALABAMA: Faces "Schultz" Class Action Over Cash Bond Payment ALIZE II: "Salgado" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach ARCTIC CAT: LR Trust Files Securities Suit Over Textron Merger AVMED INC: Faces "Stone" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations BANK OF AMERICA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hughes" Suit BLUE SHIELD: Smith Seeks Review of C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. BOW TRUSS: Former Employees File Wage-Theft Class Action CACH OF NEW JERSEY: Faces "Shukla" Suit Over Debt Collection CARL KARCHER: Faces "Bautista" Class Action in Calif. Ct. CEMTREX INC: April 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Rodriguez" Wage & Hour Class Suit CHICAGO, IL: D.W.J. Petroleum Files Class Action v. city COMMAND SECURITY: Aroche Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code COMPLEX SAUCEY: Faces "Valencia" Suit Alleging Labor Law Breaches CR ENGLAND INC: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Order in "Roberts" Suit CROSS TOWN: "Shutoy" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA CYNOSURE INC: Shareholders File Class Action Over Hologic Merger DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Helping Hand Appeals Decision to 7th Circuit DYNASTY LANDSCAPING: Pavoni Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Sgnilek" Suit Over SXL Merger EXPRESS MESSENGER: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ege" Class Suit FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action FRITO-LAY: Seeks Dismissal of Deceptive Label Class Action FXCM INC: Faces "Zhao" Suit Alleging Securities Act Violations GNC HOLDINGS: Deprived Membership Benefits, "Register" Suit Says GOOGLE INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Rivera" Suit Over Face Scans GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Defrauded Donors, "Murphy" Suit Says HANOVER INSURANCE: Appeals Ruling in "Durand" Suit to 6th Circuit ICAP PLC: Averts Investors' US Libor Class Action INVENSENSE INC: Being Sold too Cheaply, "Nuzzo" Suit Claims INVUITY INC: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action in California KEYBANK NA: Faces "Stolarick" Suit Alleging Violations of DCPA KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over Sorento Engine Failure LEAPFROG ENTERPRISE: Must Defend Against Securities Class Action LOS ANGELES, CA: Landlords File Class Suit Over Rental Ordinance M-I LLC: $7MM Settlement of "Syed" Case Has Preliminary Approval MATTHEW BENDER: Himmelstein Firm Sues Over Tanbook Omissions MEDIX STAFFING: Faces "Danelian" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages MIDATLANTIC FLOORING: Seeks Review of Decision in "Barton" Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Roshko" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Action Over High Interest Rate Certified MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: June Trial Scheduled in Jail Class Action MOLYCORP INC: May 1 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Elderly Homeowners Sue Over Excessive Fees NATURE'S BEST: Faces "Wise" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations NESTLE USA: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Marketing of Frozen Meals NEWARK, NJ: Newark Cab Assoc. Appeals Decision to Third Circuit NIKE INC: "Taylor" Suit Over Outlet Store Prices Dismissed NIKE RETAIL: Requires Employees to Wear Nike Clothing, Suit Says NORTH STAR: Faces "Valencia" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Laws OLD DOMINION: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Sanders" Suit PALM BEACH FERRARI: Faces Class Action Over Odometers PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Breached Duty to Reimburse, MSP Suit Says PUDA COAL: May 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set QUALCOMM INC: Ervin Sues Over Modem Chipset Market Monopoly RADY CHILDREN'S: Faces Class Action Over Harassing Phone Calls REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces "Maldanado" Suit Over FLSA Violations REVCLAIMS LLC: Appeals Ruling in "Hargett" Suit to Eighth Circuit SALOV NORTH: May 30 Filippo Berio Settlement Fairness Hearing Set SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued Over Increase of Insulin Benchmark Prices SCRAM OF CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Alcohol-Monitoring Systems Defect SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Ruling in "Mojica" Suit to 9th Cir. SEXY HAIR: Shampoo Not Sulfate-Free, "Crane" Class Suit Says SHELBY COUNTY: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Robinett" Class Suit ST. BERNARD'S HOSPITAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Hargett" Suit STARKEY HEARING: Faces "Melcher" Suit Under FLSA, Minn. Labor Law STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Walsh" Securities Class Suit STUDY.COM LLC: Faces "Lopez" Class Action Over Auto Renewal TEIKOKU PHARMA: Judge Certified 2 Classes in Lidoderm Case TOYOTA MOTOR: "Mensie" Alleges Breach of "Gap" Protection Deal U.S. POSTAL: "Slavin" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA UNITED STATES: Faces Suit by Disabled War Translators UNITED STATES: U.S. Marshals Service Class Action Closer to Trial UPTAIN GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cholly" Class Suit VCA INC: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Moran" Suit Says WAL-MART STORES: Shareholder Suit Over Bribes in Mexico Dismissed WINTON TRANSPORTATION: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages YAHOO! INC: Faces "Neff" Suit Over Leak of Personal Information Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Liability Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate OK'd to Amend Civil Rights Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idaho Whistleblower Suit Stayed ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Narrows Utica's Diversity Suit vs. FFIC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Wrongful Death Claim Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Setting Aside Verdict in "Juni" Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyers Seek Up to $41MM From Halliburton Deal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Provides Update on "Bell" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Asbestos Trial Reconvenes ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cambodian Labor Ministry to Examine Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims' Group Exploring Litigation Scandals ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Danger to Public from Asbestos in Pipes ASBESTOS UPDATE: Redditch Schools Still Have Toxic Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-tippers Jailed After Dumping Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Being Handled by Unskilled Workers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Old Maintenance Shop ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in UK Schools A Serious Problem ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indigenous Residents Want Health Checks ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Forced Couple Out of Apartment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remediation Keeps Tenants Away ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dump Spilling Toxic Asbestos on to Bray Beach ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Killed by Asbestos-related Disease ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Rejects Speculative Evidence ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Victim's Family Settle Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Stadium Bleachers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victoria Company Sued Over Asbestos Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Still Facing Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Faces Asbestosis Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Has 11,700 Cases at Dec. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: PCC Has $439MM Litigation Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Still Faces Non-PCC Asbestos Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Faces 680 Asbestos Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 64,400 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Liability Totals $316MM at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Resolved 122,700 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $156MM Liability at Dec31 ********* A.C. MOORE: Faces "Rossmeisl" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY ROSSMEISL AND GUY LAUTURE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against A.C. MOORE ARTS & CRAFTS, INC., Defendant, Case 1:17-cv-10219 (D. Mass., February 8, 2017), alleges that Defendant's policy of uniformly classifying Assistant General Managers as exempt from federal and state overtime provisions violate the Fair Labor Standards Act. A.C. MOORE ARTS & CRAFTS, INC. -- http://www.acmoore.com/-- operates arts and crafts superstores throughout the Eastern United States. Plaintiff worked for A.C. Moore as an AGM in its Hyannis, Massachusetts store. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617) 607-3260 Fax: (617) 488-2261 - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. Chauniqua D. Young, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 245-1000 Fax: (212) 977-4005 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 ALABAMA: Faces "Schultz" Class Action Over Cash Bond Payment ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Alabama unconstitutionally imprisons defendants who are poor to pay cash bonds, four men claim in a federal class action in Anniston, Ala. The case is captioned, RAY CHARLES SCHULTZ, DAVON TRESHAWN BEEBE, TYRONE DAISHAWN BEEBE and JAMES HUGO STERLING, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated defendants, PLAINTIFF(s), v. STATE OF ALABAMA, DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:17-cv-00270-HGD (N.D. Ala., February 21, 2017). Attorney for Plaintiff: Melvin Hasting Attorney at Law 407 2nd Ave., SW PO Box 517 Cullman, AL 35056-0517 Tel: 256-736-2230 ALIZE II: "Salgado" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- VALENTIN SALGADO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against ALIZE II CORP. d/b/a CARIDAD & LOUIE'S RESTAURANT, MERCEDES GUZMAN, and RENATO RIOS, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00954 (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in Westchester County, New York as a dishwasher and cleaner. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third A venue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ QSRweb reports that a data breach at Arby's locations nationwide last fall has triggered a class action lawsuit on behalf of "financial institutions" that "suffered damages as a result," according to a press release from the Scott+Scott Attorney at Law firm. The firm said hackers last October used malware on the chain's POS system in a breach that lasted through at least this past January. Arby's leadership learned of the breach when an "industry partner" notified the company, states the release. Arby's publicly released information on the breach on Feb.16. The law firm alleges hackers exploited vulnerabilities in the POS system, allowing them to steal data from customers' credit and data cards, including names, numbers, expiration dates, service and verification codes. Scott+Scott filed its class action, First Choice Federal Credit Union v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., in the Northern District of Georgia. In the complaint, the firm alleges Arby's "inadequate data security" and measures taken by the chain to protect data were insufficient, allowing malware to go undetected. The suit states the financial institutions involved "have been forced to reissue potentially millions of credit and debit cards . . . which costs several dollars per card (and) imposes substantial costs on such financial institutions, who also incur many administrative expenses and overhead charges dealing with monitoring and preventing fraud." Likewise, the institutions involved must also pay back fraudulent charges, while losing interest and transaction fees, according to the release. ARCTIC CAT: LR Trust Files Securities Suit Over Textron Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- LR TRUST, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARCTIC CAT INC., CHRISTOPHER T. METZ, KENNETH J. ROERING, JOSEPH F. PUISHYS, KIM A. BRINK, TONY J. CHRISTIANSON, ANDREW S. DUFF and SUSAN E. LESTER, Defendants, CASE No. 0:17-cv- 00426 (D. Minn., February 8, 2017), alleges violations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in relation to the Company's merger with Textron Inc. According to the suit, the Recommendation Statement, which recommends that Arctic Cat stockholders tender their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Arctic Cat management's projections, utilized by the Company's financial advisor, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated in its financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by Baird in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii) the background and sale process leading up to the Proposed Transaction. Arctic Cat Inc. designs, engineers and manufactures all-terrain vehicles, side-by-sides and snowmobiles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Altman, Esq. ALTMAN & IZEK 140 Bassett Creek Business Center 901 North Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 335-3700 E-mail: daltmanlaw@comcast.net - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 AVMED INC: Faces "Stone" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTIE STONE, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Who Consent to Their Inclusion in a Collective Action; Plaintiff, v. AVMED, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00310-CEH- TBM (M.D. Fla., February 8, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was routinely denied overtime compensation even though she worked at least 10 hours of overtime every week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. AvMed, Inc., doing business as AvMed Health Plans, Inc., provides health coverage solutions to individuals, families, and businesses in Florida. The Plaintiff was employed as sales representative. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. MITCHELL L. FELDMAN, ESQ., P.A. 18801 N. Dale Mabry Hwy. #563 Tampa, FL 33548 Phone: (813) 639-9366 Fax: (813) 639-9376 Email: mlf@feldmanlegal.us BANK OF AMERICA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hughes" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Phillip Francis Hughes and Joanne Hafter filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Phillip Francis Hughes v. Bank of America NA, Case No. 7:15-cv-05083-MGL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at Spartanburg. The nature of suit is stated as banks and banking. The appellate case is captioned as Phillip Francis Hughes v. Bank of America NA, Case No. 17-1202, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Case Initial forms are due within 14 days; -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on March 27, 2017; and -- Response Brief is due on April 25, 2017. Plaintiffs-Appellants PHILLIP FRANCIS LUKE HUGHES, on behalf of Jane K. Hughes, and all others similarly situated, and JOANNE HAFTER, and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Brad Davis Hewett, Esq. David Michael Kelly, Esq. MIKE KELLY LAW GROUP, LLC P. O. Box 8113 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 726-0123 Toll Free: (866) 692-0123 Facsimile: (803) 252-7145 E-mail: bhewett@mklawgroup.com mkelly@mklawgroup.com - and - Jamie Nicole Smith, Esq. PTA-FLA, INC. P. O. Box 8839 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 726-0123 Facsimile: (803) 252-7145 E-mail: jsmith@mklawgroup.com Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION is represented by: Robert Ashley Muckenfuss, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 201 North Tyron Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 343-2052 Facsimile: (704) 343-2300 E-mail: rmuckenfuss@mcguirewoods.com BLUE SHIELD: Smith Seeks Review of C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Shannon Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Shannon Smith v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company, Case No. 8:16-cv-00108-CJC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 14, 2017, Barrett Young, Esq., of King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on January 13, 2017, the District Court granted Blue Shield of California's motion for summary judgment in the case on whether the insurer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff -- Shannon Smith -- received an automated, pre- recorded call from Blue Shield of California, her health insurer. The message alerted Ms. Smith that the insurer had mailed her information about her health insurance and that it was time to review her health insurance options. Ms. Smith alleged that the call violated the TCPA and the FCC regulations because (1) the call constituted telemarketing, and (2) Blue Shield of California had not obtained Ms. Smith's express written consent to make the call. The insurer argued that its call was lawful because (1) the call did not constitute telemarketing, and (2) the prior express -- though unwritten -- consent it had obtained from Ms. Smith was sufficient for its non-telemarketing call. The Court determined that the call was purely informational and did not constitute telemarketing. The appellate case is captioned as Shannon Smith v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company, Case No. 17-55191, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by March 15, 2017; -- Transcript is due on June 13, 2017; -- Appellant Shannon Smith's opening brief is due on July 24, 2017; -- Appellee Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company's answering brief is due on August 22, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiff-Appellant SHANNON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James T. Hannink, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 623-4230 E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com - and - Zachariah P. Dostart, Esq. DOSTART CLAPP HANNINK & COVENEY, LLP 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970 San Diego, CA 92122-1253 Telephone: (858) 623-4200 E-mail: Paul.Dostart@sdlaw.com Defendant-Appellee BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, is represented by: Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. Valerie Elizabeth Alter, Esq. Fred R. Puglisi, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001 Telephone: (310) 228-2259 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 E-mail: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com valter@sheppardmullin.com fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com BOW TRUSS: Former Employees File Wage-Theft Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Gossett, writing for Chicagoist, reports that the strange Bow Truss saga took another major turn on Feb. 27 as ten former employees announced that they have filed a class-action wage-theft lawsuit against the coffee chain. The lawsuit targets the company and its management, including embattled founder Phil Tadros. Alongside aldermen and other prominent local political figures, the employees announced the suit in front of a now-closed Bow Truss location on Feb. 27. They allege that Tadros' mishandling of the business led to regular bounced checks, and the suit seeks some $50,000 in damages. Ten Bow Truss locations closed in January after employees refused to open the stores in protest of unpaid wages. Only the Loop and River North locations are currently operational. State Sen. Daniel Bliss, Ald. Scott Waguespack and Ald. Ricardo Munoz joined former employees to help make public the legal action and stand in unison against alleged acts of wage theft. Founder Phil Tadros told Chicagoist by email that the company has attempted to pay its outstanding late debts to employees. He said he believes the two ex-workers who spoke at the press conference - - Ben Creech and Trumaine Hardy -- were paid the money they were owed. Mr. Tadros also claimed that Creech and Hardy were not involved in the walkout and were either dismissed or left in September and August, respectively. "We do not run or hide from our bills," Mr. Tadros said. The founder claimed in a followup email that all 10 complainants in the lawsuit "were paid in full." Mr. Tadros also said he suspects that Marcus Lemonis is at least partially behind the legal claim and worked to prompt the January walkout. (The plaintiff camp reportedly denies the claim.) Tadros filed suit against Mr. Lemonis (also host of The Profit), seeking $26 million in damages, after Mr. Lemonis backed out of a deal to acquire the financially beleaguered company. SEIU Local 1, which represents service employees, came out in support of the lawsuit on Feb. 27. CACH OF NEW JERSEY: Faces "Shukla" Suit Over Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that Cach of New Jersey and Square Two Financial Corp. try to collect debts by misrepresenting themselves as law firms, one debtor claims in a class action in New Brunswick, N.J. The case is captioned, Alexander Shukla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Cach of New Jersey, LLC, Cach LLC, and Square Two Financial Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 997-17, Superior Court of New Jersey, February 13, 2017. Attorneys for Plaintiff: FLITTER MILZ PC Cary L. Flitter, Esq. Andrew M. Milz, Esq. 525 Rt, 73 South, Suite 200 Marlton, NJ 08053 Tel: 856-396-0600 - and - THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC David C. Ricci, Esq. 51 JFK Parkway, First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Tel: 973-218-2627 CARL KARCHER: Faces "Bautista" Class Action in Calif. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- Luis Bautista, Margarita Guerrero, and those similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, LLC, Carl's Jr. Restaurants, LLC, Defendants, Case No. BC 649777 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 8, 2017), alleges that CKE has colluded to suppress the wages of the restaurant-based managers, from shift leader up, who work at Carl's Jr. restaurants in Los Angeles and around the world. CKE effects this scheme, allegedly, through a "no hire" agreement that expressly prohibits franchisees from "employ[ing] or seek[ing] to employ" any of the restaurant- based managers who work for other franchisees or for CKE directly. The case raises claims of violation of California Cartright Act, California Business and Professional Code, unfair competition under the California Business and Professional Code, and use of illegal covenants not to compete. CKE owns, operates, and franchises fast-food restaurant brands, including Carl's Jr., Hardee's, Green Burrito, and Red Burrito. Plaintiff Luis Bautista is a "shift leader" employed by a Carl's Jr. franchisee in Los Angeles County, CA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 278-2600 Fax: (310) 278-2640 E-mail: jtostmd@tostrudlaw.com - and - Towards Justice, Esq. Nina Disalvo, Esq. Alexander Hood, Esq. David Seligman, Esq. 1535 High Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80218 Phone: (970) 403-5694 - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Matthew E. Miller, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 789-3960 CEMTREX INC: April 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Cemtrex, Inc. ("Cemtrex" or the "Company") in the United States District Court for Eastern District of New York on behalf of persons or entities who purchased Cemtrex stock on the open market from December 7, 2016 through February 21, 2017 (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) over $1 million has been paid to notorious stock promoters since late 2015; (2) the entity paying for the stock promotion was owned by Defendant Aron Govil and based out of Cemtrex's corporate headquarters; (3) senior executives engaged in undisclosed insider selling; (4) the Company retained a foreign accounting firm with a history of fraudulent endeavors to conduct its financial audits; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Cemtrex's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 25, 2017. 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, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Rodriguez" Wage & Hour Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that The Cheesecake Factory faces class action in San Diego by prep cooks or cooks who say the restaurant chain failed to pay overtime or to provide meal and rest breaks, among other violations of California labor law, "while openly degrading them based upon their ethnicity, national origin and/or race." The case is captioned, NORMA RODRIGUEZ, and ANTELMA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY RESTAURANTS, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 -- 100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2017-00006571, San Diego County Superior Court, February 22, 2017. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Sean D. Stephens, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEAN D. STEPHENS 1059 10TH Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 838-5211 Fax: (619) 239-0216 - and - Anthony P. Bianes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY P. BIANES 401 West A Street, Suite 2350 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 232-4400 CHICAGO, IL: D.W.J. Petroleum Files Class Action v. city --------------------------------------------------------- D.W.J. PETROLEUM, INC., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Chicago, an Illinois Municipal Corporation and Jaclynn, Inc. d/b/a Gilio Landscape Contractors, an Illinois domestic corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2017 CH-01947 (Ill. Circ., Cook County, February 8, 2017), was filed on behalf of all Minority-Owned Business Enterprises and Woman-Owned Business Enterprises who participated in any way in contracts with the City of Chicago as a subcontractor where Special Conditions were included as part of the contract that allegedly illegally shifted the burden of filing an arbitration demand from the contractor, the City of Chicago. Defendant the City of Chicago is an Illinois Municipal Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ayres Law Offices, Ltd. 30 N. LaSalle, Ste. 3200 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 224-8390 E-mail: docket@AyresLawLtd.com COMMAND SECURITY: Aroche Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ HECTOR AROCHE, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. COMMAND SECURITY CORPORATION, a New York corporation; AVIATION SAFEGUARDS, an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC650351 (Cal Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2017), seeks penalties pursuant to the Labor Code, and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) in connection with Defendants' Labor Code violations. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class it seeks to represent, seeks relief against Defendants for (1) failure to pay all wages due, including minimum, regular, and overtime wages as a result of Defendants' policy of improperly paying its non-exempt hourly employees; (2) failure to provide meal and rest periods or compensation; (3) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees; and (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements upon payment of wages. Plaintiff further seeks equitable remedies in the form of declaratory relief and injunctive relief, and relief under Business and Professions Code for unfair business practices. Command Security provides contract security and related services in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. Atoy H. Wilson, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590 5550 Facsimile: (562) 590 8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net awilson@mahoney-law.net COMPLEX SAUCEY: Faces "Valencia" Suit Alleging Labor Law Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------------- GREG VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMPLEX SAUCEY, INC., Defendant, Case No. BC 649838 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 8, 2017), alleges misclassification of drivers, failure to reimburse work- related expenditures in violation of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to keep accurate employment records, and unlawful business practices. Purported plaintiff and members of the putative class are individuals who have been hired by Defendant Saucey, Inc. as independent contractor-drivers to deliver alcohol to Saucey's customers throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LIGHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617)994-5800 Fax: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com - and - Matthew D. Carlson, Esq. LIGHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 466 Geary St., Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415)630-2651 Fax: (617) 995-5801 E-mail: mcarlson@11rlaw.com CR ENGLAND INC: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Order in "Roberts" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants C.R. England, Inc., and Opportunity Leasing, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled ROBERTS, et al. V. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., et al., Case No. 2:12-CV- 00302-RJS-BCW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah - Salt Lake City. The appellate case is captioned as C.R. England, Inc., et al. v. Roberts, et al., Case No. 17-600, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13, 2017, C.R. England said it plans to appeal a federal judge's class certification of the case, a ruling that could result in thousands of owner-operators joining the two independent contractors in the 2012 lawsuit. Judge Robert J. Shelby for the District of Utah gave permission on January 31 to allow the lawsuit to proceed as a class action lawsuit and gave plaintiffs 30 days to prepare a final plan for notice to class members. T.J. England, the corporation's chief legal officer, said he was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling. "We vigorously dispute the allegations made in this case and disagree with the court's decision to certify a class," the attorney said. "We intend to immediately appeal the decision and to continue to fight these unfounded claims as long as is necessary." The Plaintiffs allege fraud and other statutory claims against the truckload carrier and its related company, Horizon Truck Sales and Leasing. The England family runs the company as well as Opportunity Leasing, Inc. which operates under the name Horizon Truck Sales and Leasing. Horizon's primarily purpose is to lease trucks to drivers who work as independent contractors affiliated with England. Plaintiffs Charles Roberts and Kenneth McKay say the companies recruit students to CRE's driver training schools with promises that they can become a company driver or enjoy strong earnings as an independent contractor. Petitioners-Defendants C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah corporation, and OPPORTUNITY LEASING, INC., are represented by: David B. Dibble, Esq. James S. Jardine, Esq. Adam K. Richards, Esq. RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1500 Facsimile: (801) 532-7543 E-mail: ddibble@rqn.com jjardine@rqn.com arichards@rqn.com Respondents-Plaintiffs CHARLES ROBERTS, an individual, and KENNETH MCKAY, an individual, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by: Aaron H. Aizenberg, Esq. Benjamin J. Glicksman, Esq. Stephen E. Kravit, Esq. Christopher J. Krawczyk, Esq. Benjamin R. Prinsen, Esq. KRAVIT, HOVEL & KRAWCZYK, S.C. 825 North Jefferson Street, Suite 500 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 271-7100 Facsimile: (414) 271-8135 E-mail: aha@kravitlaw.com bjg@kravitlaw.com kravit@kravitlaw.com cjk@kravitlaw.com brp@kravitlaw.com - and - Robert S. Boulter, Esq. 1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310 San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 233-7100 Toll Free: (855) 372-6529 Facsimile: (415) 233-7101 E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com - and - Jon V. Harper, Esq. Thomas R. Karrenberg, Esq. Heather M. Sneddon, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 West Broadway, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 Facsimile: (801) 364-7697 E-mail: jharper@aklawfirm.com tkarrenberg@aklawfirm.com hsneddon@aklawfirm.com - and - Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq. WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 P. Box 10 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 636-8000 Facsimile: (732) 726-4735 E-mail: mmcguckin@wilentz.com CROSS TOWN: "Shutoy" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- VADIM SHUTOY, DMITRIY SHPIGEL, ALEKSANDR KOZUBOV, MARK KHAIT, IGOR KOTLYARSKIY, VASILIY BIGUN, LIOUBOMIR BAIDALO, and NAZAR ZUBKIV, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CROSS TOWN TRANSPORTATION, INC. and IGOR GORODETSKIY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00800 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2017), seek unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, statutory penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Although Plaintiffs and others similarly situated often worked as many as seventy hours or more per workweek, Defendants failed to pay them overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess 40 hours in a workweek at one and one-half times the regular rate. The Defendants' unlawful practices are in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and applicable regulations. Defendant Igor Gorodentskiy is the owner, chairman/chief executive officer, manager and/or operator of Defendant Cross Town Transportation, Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES 110 State Highway 35, Suite #10 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (718) 799 9111 E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com CYNOSURE INC: Shareholders File Class Action Over Hologic Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Faulkner, writing for MassDevice, reports that Cynosure Inc. shareholders filed a class action lawsuit to halt the company's proposed $1.44 billion sale to Hologic, alleging that Cynosure's regulatory filing recommending the transaction is missing crucial information about the company's financial projections and the process that led up to the deal. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, suggested that the filing is misleading and that shareholders don't have enough information to ensure the proposed transaction is a good deal. "Cynosure stockholders are being asked to make a decision whether to tender their shares in connection with the Offer without all material information at their disposal," according to the complaint. In the months leading up to the deal, Leerink Partners acted as financial advisor for Cynosure as they sought to reach a deal with number of companies. According to court documents, 1 of those companies entered a confidentiality agreement with Cynosure in May last year. In November, Cynosure met with Hologic to discuss "potential future opportunities between the 2 companies" and by late January this year, Hologic was negotiating a takeover price, in competition with 2 other unnamed companies, according to the complaint. Finally, in mid-February this year, Hologic and Cynosure inked a deal at $66 per share -- an enterprise value of $1.44 billion. The lawsuit suggests that there is confusion over a potential confidentiality agreement signed between Cynosure and a 3rd company Feb. 10. The purported class action also alleges that "the defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading Recommendation Statement with the SEC and disseminated it to Cynosure's stockholders." According to court documents, the regulatory filing omitted or misled investors about Cynosure's financial projections, the data underlying the financial valuation analyses that supported Leerink's fairness opinion and the background process that led to the proposed transaction. Shareholders are asking the court to halt the transaction and award the plaintiffs "the costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees." DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Helping Hand Appeals Decision to 7th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-10127, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief arising out of unsolicited advertisements sent by fax. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants sent advertisements by fax to promote catered seminars about "wellness" in the workplace, including the fax for a "Lunch N Learn" seminar." The Plaintiff contends that the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits a person from sending an advertisement by fax without the recipient's prior express invitation or permission. Helping Hand Caregivers Ltd. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Lake County, Illinois. Darden Restaurants, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Orange County, Florida. The appellate case is captioned as Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1282, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. According to the briefing schedule in the Appellate Case, the Appellant's brief is due on or before March 22, 2017, for Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd. Plaintiff-Appellant HELPING HAND CAREGIVERS, LTD., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com Defendant-Appellee DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., a Florida corporation, is represented by: Jason P. Stiehl, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603-5577 Telephone: (312) 460-5568 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: jstiehl@seyfarth.com DYNASTY LANDSCAPING: Pavoni Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ERNESTO PAVONI and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNASTY LANDSCAPING SERVICE, INC. d/b/a DYNASTY TREE SERVICE f/k/a ECONOMIC TREE SERVICE CORP. AND F/K/A ECONOMIC TREE TRIMMING CORP. AND JOSE MOLINA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20577-CMA (S.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for willful violations of overtime and minimum wages under the laws of the United States, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff was paid on a daily rate. During approximately the first 18 weeks of his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was paid a daily rate of $150 a day. Thereafter, Plaintiff's daily rate was decreased to $100 a day for approximately 4 weeks and thereafter decreased to $80 a day for the last 5 weeks of his employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff was never paid his overtime wages when he worked in excess of 40 hours a week and is therefore seeking the additional halftime overtime rate for each overtime hour worked. The Defendants were required to pay Plaintiff overtimes wages. Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at a rate of time and one half, when he worked more than 40 hours per week. Dynasty provides lawn service including, mowing, edging, trimming, and mulching services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. Law Office of Daniel T. Feld, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Tel: (305) 308 - 5619 E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Telephone (305) 773 6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Sgnilek" Suit Over SXL Merger ----------------------------------------------------- LES SGNILEK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P., ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS GP, L.P, ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.L.C., ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P., KELCY L. WARREN, TED COLLINS, JR., MICHAEL K. GRIMM, MARSHALL S. McCREA, JAMES R. PERRY, MATTHEW S. RAMSEY, DAVID K. SKIDMORE, SUNOCO LOGISTICS PARTNERS L.P., SUNOCO PARTNERS LLC, and ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00141-UNA (D. Del., February 8, 2017), alleges that the Registration Statement relating to the merger of ETP with SXL Acquisition Sub LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P (SXL) omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the Partnership's officers and directors. As such, the Defendants violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. The consideration offered to ETP unitholders was worth approximately $39.29 as of market close on November 18, 2016. ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P. is a master limited partnership that owns and operates a large and diversified portfolio of energy assets. Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P is a master limited partnership that owns and operates a logistics business consisting of a portfolio of complementary crude oil, refined products, and natural gas liquids pipeline, terminalling and acquisition and marketing assets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Goldberg, Esq. BIGGS AND BATTAGLIA 921 N. Orange St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-9677 E-mail: goldberg@batlaw.com - and - Robert I. Harwood, Esq. Matthew M. Houston, Esq. Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Esq. HARWOOD FEFFER LLP 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 935-7400 Fax: (212) 753-3630 EXPRESS MESSENGER: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ege" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Abdirizaq Ege, Abdirahim Farah and Abdulkadir Hassan filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Abdirizaq Ege, et al. v. Express Messenger Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01167-RSL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the King County Superior Court (assigned Case No. 15-00002-18232-3-SEA). The case was later removed to the District Court. The Plaintiffs assert labor- related claims. Express Messenger is a shipping and delivery service company located in Chandler, Arizona. The appellate case is captioned as Abdirizaq Ege, et al. v. Express Messenger Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 17-35123, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Abdirizaq Ege, Abdirahim Farah and Abdulkadir Hassan's opening brief is due on May 22, 2017; -- Appellees Does 1 through 100 and Express Messenger Systems Inc.'s answering brief is due on June 19, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants ABDIRIZAQ EGE, ABDIRAHIM FARAH, and ABDULKADIR HASSAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, are represented by: Liana Carter, Esq. Glenn A. Danas, Esq. Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Liana.Carter@capstonelawyers.com glenn.danas@capstonelawyers.com andrew.sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com Defendant-Appellee EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC, a Delaware corporation, DBA Ontrac, is represented by: Ryan P. Hammond, Esq. Joanna M. Silverstein, Esq. Kellie Anne Tabor, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street Seattle, WA 98101-3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 E-mail: rhammond@littler.com jsilverstein@littler.com ktabor@littler.com FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Feb. 27 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of holders of FairPoint Communications, Inc. ("FairPoint") (NASDAQ:FRP) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of FairPoint by Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary (collectively, "Consolidated Communications") announced on December 5, 2016 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against FairPoint, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Consolidated Communications, is captioned Lentine v. FairPoint Communications, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv 00051-FDW-DCK (D.N.C.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl- legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/fairpoint-communications- inc-frp/. On December 3, 2016, FairPoint entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Consolidated Communications. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, FairPoint shareholders will receive 0.7300 shares of Consolidated Communications stock per share of FairPoint common stock (the "Proposed Transaction"). The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, on January 26, 2017, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint asserts that the Registration Statement, which recommends that FairPoint stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to FairPoint's financial projections, the opinions and analyses of FairPoint's financial advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of FairPoint common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 28, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation, and corporate governance litigation, on behalf of shareholders in states and federal courts throughout the United States. FRITO-LAY: Seeks Dismissal of Deceptive Label Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Shayna Posses and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report that snack food giant Frito-Lay urged a California federal judge on Feb. 24 to grant its renewed request for a quick win in a proposed class action over allegedly misleading health claims on certain products, saying the consumers leading the suit haven't shown they relied on or were harmed by the challenged label statements. Markus Wilson and Doug Campen can't establish that they decided to purchase several Frito-Lay North America Inc. products based on statements like "0 grams Trans Fat" and "Made With All Natural Ingredients," the company argued, saying the testimony offered by the consumers directly refuted the suit's allegations. "The lawyer-driven nature of this litigation that plaintiffs described at their depositions, while not dispositive, is instructive," Frito-Lay said. "It explains how the case arrived at this point -- having gone through multiple rounds of motions to dismiss and over a year's worth of discovery -- with named plaintiffs who lack any evidence to support the theories asserted in the [second amended complaint], and whose deposition testimony actually contradicts those claims." According to Frito-Lay, the consumers filed the proposed class action in March 2012 after being approached by plaintiffs' counsel, who have filed dozens of similar cases in this court, and by a plaintiff in one of the cases. Their May 2013 second amended complaint alleged that more than 90 Frito-Lay products such as Cheetos Puffs, Lay's Classic Potato Chips and Kettle Cooked BBQ Potato Chips were misbranded, including statements that duped buyers into thinking they were healthy options. The consumers alleged that the "0 grams Trans Fat" statement on certain items violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations because buyers weren't referred to the back panel for information about total fat in the snacks, according to court filings. Mr. Campen additionally said he was deceived by a "Made With All Natural Ingredients" statement that appeared several years ago on two products because the items actually contained artificial and synthetic ingredients, court filings said. U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti trimmed the action later that year, holding, among other things, in October 2013 that claims based on products the plaintiffs didn't buy should be dismissed, leaving only a handful of items. The consumers moved for class certification in March 2015, and two weeks later, Frito-Lay asked for summary judgment. The requests were stayed, however, in July 2015 pending the Ninth Circuit's decisions in two food-labeling cases, Jones v. ConAgra Foods Inc. and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods LLC, with Judge Conti noting that the former is more relevant to the class certification bid and the latter more applicable to the summary judgment request. The Ninth Circuit has since issued its decision in Brazil, but Jones is still pending, having been stayed itself while the U.S. Supreme Court reaches its decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, according to court filings. Noting that the judge had said Jones is most relevant to the class certification request, Frito-Lay asked to partially lift the stay in December so that the court could rule on its summary judgment request. U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, to whom the matter had been reassigned, agreed on Feb. 10, leading to Frito-Lay's Feb. 24 amended summary judgment request. The company argued that the consumers have had every opportunity to support their claims with affirmative evidence, but have failed. For one, neither consumer is entitled to injunctive relief because the challenged statements were removed from the products more than three years ago, and the company has no plans to reintroduce them, Frito-Lay argued. Then there are the issues with Mr. Campen's testimony, Frito-Lay said. He testified that he is only challenging the all-natural ingredients claims on two products but said he didn't buy the items because of the challenged statements, instead saying he purchased them because of their taste, contradicting the suit's allegations, according to Frito-Lay. Wilson's testimony also dooms his challenge to the trans fat claim on Lay's Classic Potato Chips, showing that he didn't rely on the statement when buying the product, Frito-Lay contended. According to the company, he made several statements that contradicted the complaint, including that he never believed the chips were healthy and would make only positive contributions to his diet. The challenges to the trans fat claim also don't hold up because they are rooted in a misreading of FDA labeling regulations, the company argued, saying the agency has "explicitly and repeatedly" allowed these statements. In any case, all of the claims fail because Wilson and Campen didn't meet their requirement to show that a significant portion of reasonable consumers are likely to be misled by the challenged statements, the company contended. Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return request for comment on Feb. 27. The consumers are represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt Associates and David McMullan Jr. -- dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com -- of Don Barrett PA. Frito-Lay is represented by Andrew S. Tulumello -- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Geoffrey M. Sigler -- gsigler@gibsondunn.com -- and Jason R. Meltzer of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. The case is Wilson, et al. v. Frito-Lay North America Inc., et al., number 3:12-cv-01586, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. FXCM INC: Faces "Zhao" Suit Alleging Securities Act Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- YING ZHAO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FXCM INC., DROR NIV, and ROBERT N. LANDE, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00955 (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2017), alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) between September 4, 2009 through at least 2014, FXCM's U.S. subsidiary engaged in false and misleading solicitations of its foreign exchange customers by concealing its relationship with its most important market maker and by misrepresenting that its "No Dealing Desk" platform had no inherent conflicts of interest with the Company's customers; and (ii) FXCM's U.S. subsidiary made false statements to the National Futures Association regarding the Company's relationship with the market maker. FXCM is an agency that provides online foreign exchange (FX) trading and related services to retail and institutional customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - POMERANTZ LLP Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 697-6484 Fax: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com GNC HOLDINGS: Deprived Membership Benefits, "Register" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that GNC unilaterally discontinued its Gold Card program in December 2016, depriving millions of their right to membership benefits for which they paid $15 a year, consumers claim in a federal class action in Newark, N.J. The case is captioned, BRANDON REGISTER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-01320 (D.N.J., February 24, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: James C. Shah, Esq. Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 475 White Horse Pike Collingswood, NJ 08107 Telephone: (856) 858-1770 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com GOOGLE INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Rivera" Suit Over Face Scans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glynis Farrell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Illinois refused to dismiss a class-action lawsuit claiming Google illegally collects face geometry scans from photographs taken on its smartphones without users' knowledge. Lead plaintiff Lindabeth Rivera alleges a photo taken of her on a Google Android device was automatically uploaded to the company's cloud-based service, Google Photos, where her facial features were scanned to create a unique face template without her consent. Co-plaintiff Joseph Weiss says Google used photographs from his Android device to "unlawfully create a face scan." On behalf of a proposed class, Rivera and Weiss accuse the company of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act because the photos were taken by Google devices in the Prairie State. "Between around March 2015 and March 2016, 'approximately eleven' photographs of Lindabeth Rivera were taken in Illinois by a Google Photos user on a Google Droid device," according to court records. "As soon as the photographs of Rivera were taken, the Droid automatically uploaded them to the cloud-based Google Photos service." Rivera claims Google then scanned the uploaded photos, zeroing in on her facial features to create a "template" to map and record her unique facial measurements. Weiss alleges that between 2013 and 2016, about 21 photos he took of himself on his Android device in Illinois were also automatically uploaded and scanned with the same custom face template technology. Rivera and Weiss both claim their face templates were then used by Google to find and group together other photos of them. Google, without permission, allegedly used the templates to recognize their unique characteristics, including gender, race, age and location. Rivera and Weiss claim the face templates created by Google are "biometric identifiers" that cannot be collected and stored without permission under the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The class-action complaint also alleges Google failed to publish a policy describing how long it stores biometric data or how it discards it, which is required by the Act. Google filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming face-scan measurements derived from a photograph are not biometric identifiers and only in-person scans qualify as such. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang rejected the tech giant's request. "Indeed, because advances in technology are what drove the Illinois legislature to enact the Privacy Act in the first place, it is unlikely that the statute sought to limit the definition of biometric identifier by limiting how the measurements are taken. Who knows how iris scans, retina scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, and scans of faces and hands will be taken in the future?" Chang wrote in his 30-page opinion. Chang noted that Rivera and Weiss do not claim that the photos themselves are biometric identifiers, only the face templates. "The bottom line is that a 'biometric identifier' is not the underlying medium itself, or a way of taking measurements, but instead is a set of measurements of a specified physical component (eye, finger, voice, hand, face) used to identify a person," the judge wrote. Google also argued that what Rivera and Weiss complain about occurs online or in a cloud, not in Illinois, and applying the Privacy Act to Google would be an extraterritorial application of the statute, but Chang said it was too early to dismiss the case on those grounds. "The court concludes that the plaintiffs sufficiently allege facts that would deem the asserted violations as having happened in Illinois. But there is no bright-line rule for determining this, so the parties will have the chance to develop more facts during discovery," the judge wrote. GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Defrauded Donors, "Murphy" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------- Erik De La Garza, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that The Christian organization Gospel for Asia is a "vile scheme" that defrauded donors of more than $450 million to build a "reprehensible . . . multimillion-dollar personal empire," not to help the poorest of the poor, as promised, a donor claims in a federal class action in Fayetteville, Ark. Dr. Garland Murphy III and his wife Phyllis claim that at the behest of its leader, co-defendant K.P. Yohannan, Gospel for Asia diverted hundreds of millions of donated dollars to profit-seeking businesses, an expensive Texas headquarters, personal homes, and an international sports team sponsorship. Four other individual defendants in the RICO lawsuit include Gospel officials and directors, including Yohannan's wife and son. The Feb. 16 lawsuit minces no words. It begins: "Soliciting charitable donations to benefit the poorest of the poor while covertly diverting the money to a multimillion-dollar personal empire is reprehensible; using a Christian organization as a front to attract and exploit the goodwill and generosity of devout Christians is a particularly vile scheme. But that is exactly what K.P. Yohannan and the organization he controls -- Gospel for Asia, Inc. -- have been getting away with for years." The Murphys, of Bentonville, Arkansas, say that Gospel for Asia raised more than $450 million in donations from the United States alone from 2007 to 2013, much of which Yohannan redirected to his personal empire. "Despite repeated, explicit guarantees from GFA to donors, only a fraction of the donated money supports the people and causes for which it was donated," according to the 43-page complaint. Though the defendants promise donors their money will be used only for the specific projects they select, the complaint details three specific instances in which, the class claims, of thousands of U.S. donors were defrauded, including through Gospel's most popular donor option, the "Bridge of Hope" program. This program promises to provide a child in India with "Jesus" love, a quality education, a daily meal and medical care, for a $35 monthly pledge. But the actual cost to support a child in "Bridge of Hope" was less than $8.20 per month, according to the complaint. It claims that in 2013, Gospel received more than $15 million in donations designated for "Bridge of Hope," but spent only $6.3 million on child welfare. It also misdirected money designated for "Jesus Wells," a program to provide clean water and to help orphans and widows, the class claims. "Despite GFA's explicit representations that it would spend in the field 100 percent of every dollar donors designated for the field, GFA spent only $14.9 million of $118.6 million on actual relief efforts, instead spending far more on salaries and overhead," according to the complaint. The Murphys call Yohannan, Gospel's founder, "central and principal actor in making the misrepresentations." Based Wills Point, Texas, defendants Gospel for Asia and Gospel for Asia-International also has offices in the United Kingdom, Germany, South Africa, Australia, India, South Korea, Finland, New Zealand, and Canada. The Texas headquarters is a 350-acre compound with a multimillion- dollar chapel and more than 80 single-family homes for members. The IRS recognizes Gospel as both a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and a religious order. Gospel for Asia did not respond to an emailed request for comment. Its website says it is committed to financial integrity and "to good stewardship of the funds entrusted to us by our friends and donors." "When a donor sends in the monthly support for their missionary, nothing is deducted for administrative purposes -- 100 percent is sent directly to the mission field for its intended purpose," according to the website's financial integrity section. The organization says it subjects itself to annual, independent financial audits. But the Murphys say in the lawsuit that the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountable, a private oversight body that reviews finances of Christian organizations that solicit charitable donations, decertified Gospel for Asia in September 2015 after investigating its finances. "All told, ECFA found that GFA violated five of the accountability group's seven core standards," Christianity Today reported in October 2015. "As a result, the ECFA board voted on October 2 to cut ties with GFA. The board said its decision is final." Gospel for Asia told Christianity Today it "accepts the decision with regret and sadness." The Murphys seek class certification, restitution, an injunction and punitive damages for racketeering conspiracy, fraud, deceptive trade and unjust enrichment. Their lead Woodson Bassett III, of Fayetteville, is assisted by the Stanley Law Group and Mills and Williams, both of Dallas. The case is captioned, GARLAND D. MURPHY, III, M.D., and PHYLLIS MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS, v. GOSPEL FOR ASIA, INC., GOSPEL FOR ASIA- INTERNATIONAL, K.P. YOHANNAN, GISELA PUNNOSE, DANIEL PUNNOSE, DAVID CARROLL, and PAT EMERICK, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:17-cv- 05035-TLB (W.D. Ark., February 16, 2017). Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class: Woodson W. Bassett III, Esq. James Graves BASSETT LAW FIRM LLP 221 North College Avenue P.O. Box 3618 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702 Tel: 479.521.9996 Fax: 479.521.9600 E-mail: wbassett@bassettlawfirm.com jgraves@bassettlawfirm.com - and - Marc R. Stanley, Esq. Martin Woodward, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75206 Tel: 214.443.4300 Fax: 214.443.0358 E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com - and - Tom Mills, Esq. MILLS AND WILLIAMS, LLP 5910 N. Central Expressway, Suite 980 Dallas, TX 75206 Tel: 214.265.9265 Fax: 214.361.3167 E-mail: tmills@millsandwilliams.com HANOVER INSURANCE: Appeals Ruling in "Durand" Suit to 6th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, Case No. 3:07-cv-00130, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Jennifer A. Durand, a former employee of the Company's former life insurance and annuity business who received a lump sum distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan at or about the time of her separation from the company, claims that she and others similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the Plan understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. Ms. Durand alleges that the Plan underpaid her distributions and those of similarly situated participants by failing to pay an additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value of an estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump sum distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65. The appellate case is captioned as In re: THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Case No. 17-5167, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Petitioners-Defendants THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC., and ALLMERICA FINANCIAL CASH BALANCE PENSION PLAN are represented by: Alan Scott Gilbert, Esq. DENTONS 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 7800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 876-8000 E-mail: alan.gilbert@dentons.com Respondents-Plaintiffs JENNIFER A. DURAND, On behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, WALTER J. WHARTON and MICHAEL A. TEDESCO are represented by: Eli Gottesdiener, Esq. GOTTESDIENER LAW FIRM 498 Seventh Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 Telephone: (718) 788-1500 Telecopier: (718) 788-1650 E-mail: eli@gottesdienerlaw.com ICAP PLC: Averts Investors' US Libor Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Victor Golovtchenko, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that NEX Group, which is the company that was formed after ICAP plc sold off its voice broking business, has been cleared of wrongdoing in a class action case in the US. The company announced that the firm's subsidiaries ICAP and ICAP Europe Limited have been dropped from the legislation. A number of investors claimed that the firm adversely impacted their trades by using a practice called 'spoofing' when the interbank market was setting Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Eurobor) rates. The practice of 'spoofing' is widely viewed as a big problem in algorithmic trading. An algo can quickly create orders that impact market prices without the sender having the intention of execute any of the orders. Back in November, British trader Navinder Sarao has admitted to using the practice to manipulate market prices during the 2010 'flash crash' episode. On the 6th of May, the trader used the practice while trading the S&P 500 index futures. Eurobor Ruling Coincides with JPY and USD Libor The judge appointed on the case states that the various investors who alleged manipulation of the Euribor did not submit enough evidence against the firm. According to the court's order, the complaint against ICAP fails to allege that ICAP actually undertook action to spoof Euribor submitters. The document also states that the plaintiffs failed to allege any United States connection to the alleged communications. The news is consistent with other cases pertaining to yen Libor and US dollar Libor rate allegations that have shown no personal jurisdiction over ICAP entities. The liability for ICAP plc resided with NEX Group plc, as did that of ICAP Europe Limited under the terms of the recently completed transaction with Tullett Prebon. INVENSENSE INC: Being Sold too Cheaply, "Nuzzo" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that directors are selling InvenSense too cheaply through an unfair process to TDK Corp., for $13 a share or $1.3 billion, shareholders claim in a federal class action in San Jose. The case is captioned, MARC NUZZO, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. INVENSENSE, INC., BEHROOZ ABDI, AMIR FAINTUCH, USAMA FAYYAD, EMIKO HIGASHI, JON OLSON, AMIT SHAH, ERIC STANG, YUNBEI YU, TDK CORPORATION, and TDK SENSOR SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00859 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 291-2420 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com INVUITY INC: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer & Holzer, LLC, on Feb. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors in Invuity, Inc. ("Invuity" or the "Company") (IVTY) who purchased Invuity shares between July 19, 2016 and November 3, 2016. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and captioned Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-1005. The complaint alleges Invuity issued false and misleading statements about its operations and results. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period Invuity misrepresented its ability to sustain its average revenue per account, which serves as a critical metric for the Company's growth. After the markets closed on November 3, 2016, Invuity announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2016 and, citing in part a decline in average revenue per account, the Company lowered its guidance. The price of Invuity stock fell significantly following the news. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from February 28, 2017. If you wish to discuss your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Holzer & Holzer, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. KEYBANK NA: Faces "Stolarick" Suit Alleging Violations of DCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle E. Stolarick, for himself and others similarly situated (3200 Byberry Road, Hatboro, PA 19040) Plaintiff vs. Keycorp t/a Keybank, N.A. (127 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44114) and Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, Co., L.P.A. (323 W. Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200, Cleveland, OH 44113), Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00593-WB (E.D. Pa., February 8, 2017), alleges that Defendant used and continues to use unfair and unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect debts based on false representations as to the alleged debt. Specifically, placing mortgage accounts into "nonperforming loans" and "flagging" these accounts, when, in fact, these accounts are current. The case alleges violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, Co., L.P.A. is in the business of collecting debt for and on behalf of KeyBank N.A. KeyBank is a mortgage holder/servicer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Eisenberg, Esq. Carol B. McCullough, Esq. MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG, LLC 65 West Street Road, Suite A-105 Warminster, PA 18974 Phone: 215 957 6411 Fax: 215 957 9140 E-mail: mlawoffice@aol.com KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over Sorento Engine Failure ------------------------------------------------------------ James Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that Kia Motors has tentatively settled a class action lawsuit that alleged a crankshaft bolt could break, causing catastrophic engine failure. Owners of 2003 through 2006 Kia Sorento SUVs who incurred damages are eligible for up to $4,900 in reimbursement. The alleged engine defect leads to a catastrophic chain of events that starts with severe heat buildup, the release of debris, and then leads to loss of steering control, engine failure, and the potential for an accident, according to the class action lawsuit. "Not only did Kia actively conceal the material fact that this particular component is defectively designed (and requires costly repairs to fix), but it also did not reveal that the existence of this defect would diminish the intrinsic resale value of the vehicle," plaintiffs alleged in the suit. Plaintiffs alleged Kia has known about the Sorento engine defect for years, as evidenced by numerous online complaints, but has withheld this information from consumers while making numerous statements about the quality and reliability of the Sorento. What to do Owners of affected vehicles may file a claim for reimbursement at www.crankshaftboltclassaction.com. The site includes detailed information about eligibility. Plaintiffs in the case were represented by attorney Shmuel Klein of Mahwah, N.J. LEAPFROG ENTERPRISE: Must Defend Against Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San Francisco Friday that while disappointing holiday sales justified Leapfrog's write-offs in the second quarter of 2013, the company hasn't offered a good enough explanation for a business forecast about-face to fully dodge a securities fraud class action. The case is captioned, In Re Leapfrog Enterprise, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-00347 (N.D. Cal.) LOS ANGELES, CA: Landlords File Class Suit Over Rental Ordinance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that landlords sued Los Angeles in a federal class action, claiming a rental ordinance gives city officials and employees law enforcement-like powers that violate protections against unlawful searches and seizures. Pasadena landlord Brandi Garris and Venice landlord Jason Teague also sued Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department, formerly known as the Housing Department. They claim that City of Los Angeles Housing Code is "facially unconstitutional," under the Fourth Amendment, and allow city employees to seize evidence and make arrests. If landlords or tenants are uncooperative they can be charged with a criminal misdemeanor and fined $1,000 a day. "The inspection ordinance in reality authorizes wholesale searches by law enforcement officers of every rental residence in the city without any showing of probable cause," the lawsuit states. The landlords cite the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, which affirmed a Ninth Circuit ruling that city officials could not force hotels to keep records of guest registries for 90 days. The city said it needed access to guest registries day and night for the LAPD to combat prostitution and drug dealing in some motels. The motel owners successfully argued the spot checks violated their constitutional rights. Garris and Teague say the city should modify the ordinance so that a neutral arbiter can review landlords' objections before they face criminal or civil penalties. Their attorney Dominic Surprenant, with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, said the ordinance is unfair to landlords and tenants. "It's essentially saying to renters: 'We're going to send police officers -- city inspectors who also have the powers of police officers -- into your homes. And you can't say no, and you can't get a hearing,'" Surprenant said in a telephone interview. Surprenant said there had been some "friction" between the city and the two landlords before they filed suit, but declined to comment on whether they faced criminal or civil liability. University of Southern California adjunct assistant professor and constitutional expert Olu Orange said he was surprised the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office did not resolve the dispute before a lawsuit was filed. "The ordinance as it's drafted would seem to conflict with the current state of the law," Orange said. "It makes sense that this would be a problem, because the ordinance seems to allow inspectors to bypass a determination that they should be on the premises to look for evidence of crime or misdeeds in the absence of there being a determination by a magistrate or some exigent circumstances. "You can't just write a law that lets government agents walk into people's abodes and do stuff." Los Angeles City Council this year amended an inspection ordinance to increase the frequency of inspections in the city of 700,000 rental units. Officials now can inspect rentals every two years. Previously, inspections happened every four years. Though most landlords act lawfully, Rushmore Cervantes, general manager of the city's Housing and Community Development Department, said in a radio interview that about 4 percent of landlords neglect their properties or do not have the money to properly maintain their rentals. Angelenos face an ongoing struggle to find affordable housing in the city where the median household income hovers just above $50,000 a year, according to the most recent U.S. Census data. One-bedroom apartments in Los Angeles have a median rent of $1,870 and two-bedroom apartments cost $2,600, according to the Apartment List's February Los Angeles rent report. Landlords pay a regulatory fee of $43.32 per rental per year under the ordinance. Surprenant said that landlords sometimes pass on the fee to their tenants. The general manager enforces regulations and city employees have the power to make arrests without warrants, according to the lawsuit. The landlords say they represent a potential class of hundreds of thousands of people. They seek class certification, an injunction against the ordinance, reimbursement of inspection fees and penalties. Jason Switzer, a tenant who says he paid inspection fees under the ordinance, is also a party to the complaint. The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The case is captioned, BRANDI GARRIS, JOHN SWITZER and JASON TEAGUE, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES and LOS ANGELES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT, f/k/a LOS ANGELES HOUSING DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01452 (C.D. Cal., February 22, 2017). Attorneys for BRANDI GARRIS, JOHN SWITZER and JASON TEAGUE: Dominic Surprenant, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: dominicsurprenant@quinnemanuel.com M-I LLC: $7MM Settlement of "Syed" Case Has Preliminary Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge in Fresno, Calif., gave preliminary approval to a $7 million class action settlement involving M-I Swaco and its oil-drilling specialists, known as "mud engineers," over wages and rest breaks. The case is captioned, SARMAD SYED and ASHLEY BALFOUR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. M-I, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, doing business as M-I SWACO; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, No. 1:12-cv-01718-DAD-MJS (E.D. Cal.) MATTHEW BENDER: Himmelstein Firm Sues Over Tanbook Omissions ------------------------------------------------------------ Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that, hitting a LexisNexis subsidiary with a class action in Manhattan, a law firm says Matthew Bender & Co.'s self-proclaimed authority on landlord-tenant law in New York is anything but. More commonly known as the Tanbook, the New York Landlord-Tenant Law is one of several legal publications that make up Matthew Bender & Co.'s annual "Color Books" series. Hoping to represent a class, the law firm Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph brought a Feb. 23 complaint against the publisher in Manhattan Supreme Court. "Rather than an authoritative source of state statutes, laws and regulations, the Tanbook, which is represented by the defendant as complete and unedited, is instead, at least as pertains to those involving rent regulated housing in New York rife with omissions and inaccuracies, rendering it of no value to the attorneys, lay people, or judges who use it," the 25-page complaint states. Himmelstein McConnell says it has bought multiple copies of the Tanbook every year since at least 2010 to keep its attorneys up to speed on real estate law. At least 100,000 Tanbooks were sold during that period, according to the complaint. The class says its attorneys at Fishman Rozen conducted an investigation that found 37 omissions and eight inaccuracies in the 2016 Tanbook regarding provisions of state and local statutes and regulations concerning rent regulation in New York. One omission included the entire subsections providing for the mandated formula for calculating rents when a rent-stabilized tenant -- who qualifies for exemptions as either a senior citizen or disabled person -- receives a rent reduction order from the state Department of Housing and Community Renewal. Other omissions included subsections limiting landlord from taking a vacancy-rent increase to no more than one time in any one calendar year. The class seeks restitution and an injunction, alleging deceptive business practices, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Himmelstein, McConnell wants to represent a class of all Tanbook purchasers since February 2011. "By offering a complete and authoritative compilation of such laws and regulations and then failing to provide such a product to the plaintiff and members of the class, the defendant breached its contract with such persons and entities," the complaint states. Other books in the series include New York Commercial Law (Goldbook) and New York Real Property Law (Bluebook). LexisNexis, a division of RELX Group, serves customers in more than 175 countries with more than 10,000 employees worldwide. Customers can by print and digital versions of the Tanbook at the LexisNexis online store for $120. Neither Matthew Bender & Co. nor LexisNexis have returned requests for comment. MEDIX STAFFING: Faces "Danelian" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Danelian, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Medix Staffing Solutions, Inc., an Illinois corporation; City of Hope National Medical Center, a California corporation; City of Hope, an entity of unknown form; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 8, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to pay Employees minimum wages as required under the Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Specifically, Employees were required to work post-shift hours, off-the-clock, for which they were never paid wages. Medix Staffing Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medixteam.com/-- is a provider of workforce solutions for clients and candidates across the healthcare, scientific and IT industries. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly research coordinator within the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 230-8380 Fax: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianJaw.com davidk@yeremianlaw.com MIDATLANTIC FLOORING: Seeks Review of Decision in "Barton" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Aaron Bailey, Mark Grossman and Midatlantic Flooring Ventures Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Pauline Barton v. MidAtlantic Flooring Ventures, et al., Case No. 1-13-cv-04592, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Pauline Barton v. MidAtlantic Flooring Ventures, et al., Case No. 17-1337, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellee PAULINE BARTON, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated ("Does"), is represented by: Robert J. Hagerty, Esq. CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive Laurel Corporate Center, Suite 300S P.O. Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (609) 234-6800 Facsimile: (856) 235-2786 E-mail: rhagerty@capehart.com Defendants-Appellants MIDATLANTIC FLOORING VENTURES INC, d/b/a Prosource of South Jersey d/b/a Prosource of Raritan Center, AARON BAILEY and MARK GROSSMAN are represented by: Jonathan D. Ash, Esq. DECOTIIS, FITZPATRICK & COLE, LLP 500 Frank West Burr Boulevard Glenpointe Centre West, Suite 31 Teaneck, NJ 07666 Telephone: (609) 896-3600 Facsimile: (201) 928-0588 E-mail: jash@decotiislaw.com - and - Ian D. Meklinsky, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 2000 Market Street, 20th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 299-2758 E-mail: imeklinsky@foxrothschild.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Roshko" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- RUSLAN ROSHKO on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff, against MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, AND ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00745 (E.D.N.Y., February 8, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair collection practices while attempting to collect on debts. Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. is engaged in the business of collecting or attempting to collect debts on behalf of Midland Funding, LLC as one of its principal areas of business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Phone: (718) 395-3459 Fax: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Action Over High Interest Rate Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge on Feb. 27 certified a class-action lawsuit accusing the big U.S. debt collector Midland Funding LLC of violating New York usury laws by charging thousands of struggling borrowers interest rates above 25 percent when trying to collect. U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel's decision in White Plains, New York, came eight months after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Midland Funding and Midland Credit Management Inc, which are units of Encore Capital Group Inc, seeking to halt Saliha Madden's lawsuit. Madden had objected to the 27 percent rate that Midland charged on a roughly $5,000 debt it bought from a credit card account she had opened with Bank of America. In a 43-page decision, Seibel said New York has a "fundamental public policy" against interest rates exceeding 25 percent, and the state's criminal usury cap "applies to prevent a creditor" from collecting a higher rate on defaulted debt. As a result, the judge said Midland must face Madden's civil lawsuit claiming it violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and New York's General Business Law, based on its alleged violation of the usury cap. Madden had sued on behalf of roughly 49,780 borrowers. Class certification can lead to higher overall recoveries. In a statement, San Diego-based Encore said it was disappointed with the decision and evaluating its options, but has "long since changed its business practices to occupy a conservative, consumer- centric stance. We remain committed to following all of the laws that govern our industry." Daniel Schlanger, a lawyer for Madden, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Debt collectors typically buy debt from banks and other creditors for pennies on the dollar, and try to collect higher amounts from borrowers. Encore said it spent about $907 million to buy $9.8 billion of receivables in 2016. Many regulators have expressed concern that high interest rates, including on products such as "payday loans," can trap borrowers into endless debt cycles. The class action covers New Yorkers who since November 2008 received letters from Midland seeking interest above 25 percent, and whose cardholder agreements purport to be governed by state laws such as Delaware's that lack usury caps, or "select no law other than New York." In May 2015, the federal appeals court in New York reversed Judge Seibel's prior dismissal of Madden's case, saying Midland was not a national bank deserving protection from Madden's claims. The case is Madden v Midland Funding LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-08149. MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: June Trial Scheduled in Jail Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Gretchen Schuldt, writing for Wisconsin Justice Initiative, reports that a class action lawsuit alleging Milwaukee County jailers shackled pregnant inmates during childbirth will go to trial June 5. U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller denied a motion from lawyers representing the defendants, including Sheriff David Clarke, and the main plaintiff in the case, identified in court documents as Jane Doe, asking for separate trials over the class action allegations and allegations that former Milwaukee County jailer Xavier D. Thicklen sexually assaulted Jane Doe on five occasions. Jailers work for Clarke. The sheriff testified in a deposition in the case that he did not know how many of his employees, whether it was 20 or 200, were referred each year to the district attorney's office for potential criminal charges. The shackling issue arose during the course of pre-trial work by Jane Doe's lawyers and the class action allegations were added to the original sexual assault lawsuit. Doe's lawyers have said as many as 300 women could be part of the class. Meanwhile, Mr. Thicklen's lawyer, Lew Wasserman, has asked to withdraw from the case because he has not been paid and cannot find Mr. Thicklen. "Mr. Thicklen has failed to communicate with counsel for over a year, indeed, counsel has been informed that even Mr. Thicklen's family is unsure of where he is presently residing," Wasserman said in his motion to withdraw. "Messages sent to Mr. Thicklen's family do not result in any response by Mr. Thicklen. Moreover, counsel concludes that it is unlikely that Mr. Thicklen will voluntarily appear for trial." Lawyers for all the parties in the case wanted separate trials on the sexual assault and class action issues. The sexual assault claim and the shacking claims rely on different sets of facts and Mr. Thicklen, the correction officer, had nothing to do with shackling female inmates. "Presentation of evidence of the other claim could confuse or prejudice the jury," the lawyers said. In addition, county lawyers want to ask an appeals court whether Mr. Thicklen was acting in the scope of his employment when allegedly conducting the assaults, and Jane Doe's lawyers want more time to conduct discovery on the class action allegations. Judge Stadtmueller was having none of it. "This matter is now almost three years old, and will be more than that by the time of trial . . . If the parties have failed to use this extraordinarily extended period to conduct necessary discovery and motion briefing on the class issue, the problem is of their own making," he wrote. Gretchen Schuldt writes a blog for Wisconsin Justice Initiative, whose mission is "To improve the quality of justice in Wisconsin by educating the public about legal issues and encouraging civic engagement in and debate about the judicial system and its operation." MOLYCORP INC: May 1 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby McInerney LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that a proposed settlement has been reached in the Molycorp, Inc. Securities Litigation. The class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court"), Case No. 13 Civ. 5697 (PAC), includes: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED MOLYCORP, INC. ("MOLYCORP") SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 21, 2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 15, 2013. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the District Court and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a hearing will be held at 4:00 p.m. on May 1, 2017 before the Honorable Paul A. Crotty, United States District Court Judge, in Courtroom 14C, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the Action for the principal amount of $1,250,000, plus accrued interest, should be approved by the District Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Final Approval Order and Judgment should be entered by the District Court dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and, therefore, should be approved; and (4) whether the Fee and Expense Application should be approved. In connection with the Fee and Expense Application, Lead Counsel will request attorneys' fees of 33% of the Settlement Fund, plus expenses (exclusive of administration costs) not to exceed $75,000. If you purchased Molycorp securities during the period from February 21, 2012 through October 15, 2013, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the settlement of the Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion For an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice") and a copy of the Claim Form, you may obtain copies by writing to In re Molycorp, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Angeion Group, 1801 Market Street, Suite 660, Philadelphia, PA 19103, or by calling (855) 306-1914, or on the internet at www.MolycorpSecuritiesLitigation.com, or from Lead Counsel's website at www.kmllp.com. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form, postmarked on or before May 18, 2017, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked by no later than April 10, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All members of the Settlement Class who have not timely and validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of October 21, 2016. If you properly and timely exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to any aspect of the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation or Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to designated representative Lead Counsel and counsel for the Defendants such that they are received no later than April 10, 2017, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel: Ira Press, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 825 Third Avenue, 16th New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 371-6600 By order of the District Court, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Elderly Homeowners Sue Over Excessive Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that elderly homeowners who have reverse mortgages are being charged excessive fees for unnecessary and illegal "drive-by" inspections, a class of consumers claims in Chicago. The lawsuit filed in Chicago federal court says Nationstar Mortgage -- operating under the name Champion Mortgage Company -- pads its bottom line by "systematically side-stepping" Housing and Urban Development requirements and conducting multiple inspections of the same properties in a 25-day period. "Champion targets elderly homeowners who have purportedly defaulted on some obligation under their reverse mortgages, then charges them repeated, unnecessary, and unreasonable 'drive-by' property inspection fees for inspections that may or may not have actually occurred, and to the extent they did occur, lasted only a few seconds," the complaint states. The drive-bys are scheduled by an automated system that "orders property inspections at pre-set intervals to maximize company profits, without regard to the results of the initial inspections that reveal there is no risk or problem whatsoever with the condition or occupancy of the property," according to the lawsuit. Homeowners are supposed to be notified of any inspection fees charged to their accounts, but "based on the process implemented, Champion ignores its duty to provide notice to the borrower [and so] plaintiff and reverse mortgage customers nationwide have and continue to be fleeced by Champion's unnecessary inspections," the complaint states. Rena Nicholson -- an 80-year-old homeowner from Chicago -- is the lead plaintiff in the case, and says her home was "inspected" five times in November alone. She says each inspection resulted in a $20 charge to her account, with three of the charges coming on the same day. These charges add "hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to plaintiff's reverse mortgage balance over time when compounded by interest on the fees," Nicholson says. According to the complaint, a reverse mortgage is "a type of home loan for older, cash-strapped homeowners (62 years or older) requiring no monthly mortgage payments . . . [that] allow these homeowners to borrow against the equity in their homes while still continuing to live there and keep the title to their homes." The proposed class seeks damages for claims of breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment. It is represented by Katrina Carroll of Lite, DePalma, and Greenberg in Chicago, and by Joseph G. Sauder of McCune Wright Arevalo in Berwyn, Pa. Nicholson's attorney declined to comment further on the lawsuit, and Nationstar did not respond to a request for comment. The case is captioned, RENA NICHOLSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC OF DELAWARE, D/B/A CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-1373 (N.D. Ill., February 22, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Ismael T. Salam, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750-1591 Facsimile: (973) 877-3845 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com isalam@litedepalma.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 555 Lancaster Ave. Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com mds@mccunewright.com jbk@mccunewright.com NATURE'S BEST: Faces "Wise" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Wise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nature's Best, LLC, a California Limited Company, Kehe Distributors, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and DOE One through and including Doe Ten, Defendants, Case No. BC 649808 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 8, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to pay its hourly non-exempt employees straight time wages for all hours worked, failed to pay premium overtime compensation worked beyond eight hours per workday or 40 hours per workweek, failed to provide statutory meal periods and rest breaks, and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Nature's Best, LLC is a wholesaler-distributor of health and natural food products in the Natural Products industry. The Plaintiff performed truck driving services for Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. 2 HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor County of Los Angeles Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 323.962.3777 Fax: 323.962.3004 NESTLE USA: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Marketing of Frozen Meals ------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Moore, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nestle USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. BC 649898 (Cal. Super., February 8, 2017), alleges deceptive practice by Defendant of marketing its Lean Cuisine(R) frozen meals as having "No Preservatives" when many of them contain citric and/or acetic acid preservative. The case alleges negligent misrepresentation, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of the California False Advertising Law, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, breach of Express Warranty, breach of implied warranty, and quasi-contract. Nestle USA, Inc. is a nutrition, health and wellness company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Leonid Kandinov, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 525-3990 Fax: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com kseely@robbinsarroyo.com lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDALNAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com NEWARK, NJ: Newark Cab Assoc. Appeals Decision to Third Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Newark Cab Association, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit styled Newark Cab Association, et al. v. City of Newark, Case No. 2-16-cv-04681, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Newark City on August 2, 2016, alleging civil rights violations. The appellate case is captioned as Newark Cab Association, et al. v. City of Newark, Case No. 17-1358, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellants NEWARK CAB ASSOCIATION, NEWARK TAXI OWNER ASSOCIATION, TETERBORO AIRPORT LIMOUSINE SERVICE, ABBAS ABBAS, PETRO ABDELMESSIEH, SAYEV KHELLAH, MICHAEL W. SAMUEL, and GEORGE TAWFIK, individually, and by certain plaintiffs on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Richard W. Wedinger, Esq. BARRY MCTIERNAN & MOORE, P.C. 75 Montgomery Street Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 333-0300 E-mail: rwedinger@bmctwlaw.com Defendant-Appellee CITY OF NEWARK is represented by: Gary S. Lipshutz, Esq. CITY OF NEWARK 920 Broad Street Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 733-5945 E-mail: lipshutzg@ci.newark.nj.us - and - Eric S. Pennington, Esq. ERIC S. PENNINGTON, P.C. One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 639-0600 Facsimile: (973) 639-9898 E-mail: epenningtonlaw@aol.com NIKE INC: "Taylor" Suit Over Outlet Store Prices Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge dismissed with leave to amend a class action in Portland, Ore., claiming Nike outlet stores' dual price tags mislead customers into thinking they're getting a bargain, finding the lead plaintiff's fraud claims lack the specificity needed to proceed. The case is captioned, MONIKA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NIKE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00661-MO (D. Ore.). NIKE RETAIL: Requires Employees to Wear Nike Clothing, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a former employee of Nike Retail Services claims in a class action in Santa Ana, Calif., that the athletic shoe giant requires employees to buy and wear Nike brand clothing at work. The case is captioned, OMRAN HAMID, an individual, on behalf himself and all others similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC. an Oregon Corporation; R.J. HILL an Individual; and DOES 1 to 200, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 30- 2017-00904483, Orange County Superior Court, February 17, 2017. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Natalie Mirzayan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NATALIE MIRZAYAN 26632 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 300 Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Telephone: (949) 285-3550 E-mail: mirzayanlaw@outlook.com NORTH STAR: Faces "Valencia" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Laws ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM STEVE VALENCIA, an individual, and LUIS FERNANDEZ SOTO, an individual, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NORTH STAR GAS LTD. CO., a California corporation; PEOPLEASE LLC, a South Carolina Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00250-GPC-JMA (S.D. Cal., February 8, 2017), alleges that employees of the Defendant often work well in excess of eight hours per day and 40 hours per week. Despite this, Defendants do not pay any overtime compensation. The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Code of Federal Regulations, the California Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations, California Industrial Wage Commission Wage Orders, and California's Unfair Competition Law. Defendants own, operate, or otherwise manage a natural gas company responsible for the distribution and supply of propane. Defendants employ Plaintiffs and others to transport propane by driving various routes to and from Defendants' propane supply. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 325-0492 Fax: (619) 325-0492 Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org smarkley@nicholaslaw.org OLD DOMINION: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Sanders" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Eugene Sanders v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02837-CAB-NLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Eugene Sanders commenced the lawsuit against Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-02016-00030725-CU-OE- CTL). The lawsuit was later removed to the District Court. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. provides regional and intrastate domestic shipping, assembly and distribution, domestic drayage, direct service. The appellate case is captioned as Eugene Sanders v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., Case No. 17-80017, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff-Respondent EUGENE SANDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com norm@bamlawlj.com kyle@bamlawca.com Defendant-Petitioner OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., is represented by: Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq. Matthew Kane, Esq. Sylvia Kim, Esq. John Arthur Van Hook, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 956-3419 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com mkane@mcguirewoods.com skim@mcguirewoods.com jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com - and - Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 800 East Canal Street Gateway Plaza Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-4746 Facsimile: (804) 698-2304 E-mail: bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com PALM BEACH FERRARI: Faces Class Action Over Odometers ----------------------------------------------------- Fiat Chrysler Authority's Sam McEachern, citing The Daily Mail, reports that an employee of Palm Beach Ferrari in Florida is accusing the automaker of using an electronic device to roll back the odometers of cars in order to drive up their value. Robert 'Bud' Root began selling Ferraris at the dealership in 2009 but in 2016 was immediately fired and replaced by 32-year old Noelle Miskulin, who was at the time the dealership owner's mistress and is now his wife. The dealer claimed Root was fired for an "egregious violation of business ethics," however the real reason, he says, is that he objected to the use of a device that was used to roll back the odometers of some customers' cars. The device, which is actually the Ferrari Diagnostic Easy Integrated System (DEIS) used to diagnose problems with the car and make adjustments to the settings, is allegedly used to roll back in the odometers of customer cars when authorized through a network connection by Ferrari higher ups in Italy. In one instance, retired Sara Lee foods executive C. Steven McMillan apparently had the odometer of his LaFerrari turned to 0 before he sold it, boosting its value from $1 million to $3 million. The dealership denied the allegations when asked for comment by The Daily Mail. "The dealership does not litigate in the newspaper," a dealer representative said. "Of course, we believe this case is wholly without merit and will be vigorously defended in court." Ferrari did not respond to a request for comment. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Breached Duty to Reimburse, MSP Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class-action federal lawsuit in Cleveland claims Progressive Insurance has breached its statutorily-mandated duty to reimburse Medicare Advantage organizations for medical expenses arising out of automobile accidents. The plaintiffs are MAO-MSO Recovery II LLC, MSP Recovery LLC and MSPA Claims 1 LLC. The defendants are The Progressive Corporation dba Progressive Group of Insurance Company and Progressive Casualty Insurance Company. The case is captioned, MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, Plaintiffs, vs. THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION d/b/a PROGRESSIVE GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES AND PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-00390 (N.D. Ohio, February 24, 2017). Counsel for Plaintiffs: Tracy L. Turner, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 5093 Heath Gate Drive New Albany, OH 43054 Phone: (614) 657-3454 E-mail: tturner@pbclawfirm.com - and - Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq. Courtney L. Stidham, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Phone: (504) 355-0086 E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com cstidham@pbclawfirm.com - and - Michael L. Baum, Esq. R. Brent Wisner, Esq. Pedram Esfandiary, Esq. BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 207-3233 Fax: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com PUDA COAL: May 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE PUDA COAL SECURITIES INC. et al. LITIGATION CASE NO: 1:11-CV-2598 (DLC) TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED COMMON STOCK OF PUDA COAL, INC. ("PUDA") OR ENGAGED IN TRANSACTIONS IN PUDA PUT OPTIONS OR PUDA CALL OPTIONS DURING THE PERIOD DECEMBER 8, 2010 THROUGH AND INCLUDING APRIL 11, 2011 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiffs in the above- captioned class action (the "Action") have proposed a settlement with Defendant MSPC Certified Public Accountants and Advisors, P.C. sued as Moore Stephens, P.C. ("MSPC" or "Defendant") that provides for MSPC to pay $125,000 for the benefit of the Settlement Class (the "MSPC Settlement"). The MSPC Settlement is in addition to (1) the $7.4 million settlement with Defendant Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. (the "Macquarie Settlement"); (2) the $1.2 million settlement with Defendant Brean Murray, Carret & Co. (the "Brean Settlement"); (3) the settlement with Defendants Lawrence S. Wizel and C. Mark Tang (the "U.S. Directors") that provided for payment of $100,000 and assignment of certain claims for the benefit of the Settlement Class (the "U.S. Directors Settlement") (collectively the "Settlements"); and (4) monies made available to purchasers of Puda common stock in Puda's December 2010 Offering through the Securities and Exchange Commission Fair Fund process relating to Macquarie. A hearing will be held on May 10, 2017 at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable Denise Cote in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY, 10007, to determine: (1) whether the MSPC Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the releases and liability protections specified and described in the Notice and the respective Stipulations should be granted, (3) whether the $125,000 obtained from this MSPC Settlement should be used to reimburse Plaintiffs' Counsel and to pay the costs of pursuing assigned claims against Puda's insurance company, PICC, for the benefit of the Settlement Class.; and (4) any other matters relevant to the Settlements the Court considers necessary or appropriate (the "Settlement Hearing"). IF YOU PURCHASED PUDA COMMON STOCK OR CALL OPTIONS ON PUDA COMMON STOCK OR SOLD PUT OPTIONS ON PUDA COMMON STOCK DURING THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD (DECEMBER 8, 2010 THROUGH AND INCLUDING APRIL 11, 2011) YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS SETTLEMENT. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Proposed Settlement, you may obtain a copy by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Puda Coal Securities Litigation P.O. Box 2838 Portland, OR 97208-2838 A copy of the Notice is also available at www.pudacoalfund.com. If you previously filed a proof of claim with the Claims Administrator related to the Brean, Macquarie, and U.S. Directors Settlement, you may rely on your previously filed claim and need not file a separate Proof of Claim in the MSPC Settlement. If Plaintiffs' Counsel is successful in recovering funds from PICC in China for the Settlement Class, such funds shall be distributed to Authorized Claimants in accordance with the existing Plan of Allocation. Any objection to the proposed Settlement or application for reimbursement of litigation expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to counsel for the Plaintiffs no later than April 19, 2017, in the manner and form set forth in the Notice. All objections must be prepared and served in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. All requests to be excluded from the MSPC Settlement must be filed by April 19, 2017. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead Counsel: Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, (T) (310) 201-9150, (F) (310) 432-1495, info@glancylaw.com, www.glancylaw.com. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: February 27, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE COURT URL: www.pudacoalfund.com. QUALCOMM INC: Ervin Sues Over Modem Chipset Market Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------- PAUL SCOTT ERVIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00713-HRL (N.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, injunctive relief, and any other available remedies to which he is entitled for Qualcomm's unlawful conduct. The action concerns purchasers of cellular telephones and other cellular devices such as computer tablets. In each such device, there is a modem chipset (also called a baseband processor), which allows the device to communicate and transmit voice and data across wireless networks controlled by carriers, such as Verizon or Sprint. The Plaintiff brought the action against Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated for its anticompetitive conduct in acquiring and maintaining its monopoly over the modem chipset market and abusing the intellectual property rights underlying this technology, and charging an excessive and unlawful royalty on cellular phones or devices incorporating such patents, with the result that each end- user purchaser of such phones or device pays an inflated price. Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq. THE MEHDI FIRM, PC One Market Spear Tower, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 293 8039 Facsimile: (415) 293 8001 E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com RADY CHILDREN'S: Faces Class Action Over Harassing Phone Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that telemarketing calls can get irritating, and debt collectors can certainly be ruthless. If one's information is leaked, the number of calls received can be overwhelming. And, it can be especially frustrating if one has paid a debt, but records aren't kept up to date, so the calls keep flooding in despite efforts to get these to stop. In this day and age, especially after the recession, companies do not take outstanding debts lightly. But, when do mere reminder calls become downright harassing? Taneesha Crooks and Anthony Brown of San Diego filed a class action lawsuit against a local hospital, stating that they received harassing phone calls which violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The act was passed by the United States Congress in 1991 and limits the use of automatic dialing systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text message, and fax machines. It also states that several technical requirements for fax machines, auto-dialers, and voice messaging systems -- with provisions requiring identification and contact information of the entity using the device to be contained in the messages. The complaints were initially filed individually. On February 8th, the suit against Rady Children's Hospital San Diego was presented to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, claiming the hospital had communicated to the individuals illegally, invading their privacy. The calls, according to the lawsuit, had caused the plaintiffs to suffer from anxiety and stress related to paranoia induced by their invasion of privacy and the sheer number of unexpected calls received. The purpose of the hospital's system was to collect the plaintiff's debt and their information was already in their records. The calls were placed to those with outstanding bills by an automatic telephone dialing system using either a fake or a prerecorded voice, and the system would leave harassing or abusive voice messages if the receiver didn't pick up. The plaintiffs had put in repeated requests for the service to stop, paying off the outstanding bills, without luck. Their phones kept ringing despite these efforts. The plaintiffs and their attorneys, Abbas Kazerounian and Jason A. Ibey of Costa Mesa's Kazerouni Law Group APC, Daniel G. Shay of Law Office of Daniel G. Shay in San Diego and Joshue B. Swigart and Yana A. Hart of Hyde & Swigart in San Diego, seek all of the following in a resolution: a trial by jury, certify the case as a class action, designate class representative and counsel, injunctive relief, $500 in statutory damages for every violation, $1,500 in statutory damages for every knowing violation, and all equitable relief. The case is known as U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case number 17-cv-00246. The hospital has also been under heat for discriminatory treatment of a transgender teenager back in September. The patient's mother took her son to the hospital in early April 2015 for suicidal ideation and to treat his serious self-inflicted injuries. The mother claims she made it perfectly clear to the staff that her son must be treated as male for all purposes. However, the hospital repeatedly referred to him as female. The lawsuit was filed in September 2016. REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces "Maldanado" Suit Over FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDIE MALDANADO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00055 (S.D. Tex., February 8, 2017), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by automatically deducting 30-minute meal periods from Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members' daily hours worked, despite knowing that Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely worked (and continue to work) throughout their designated 30-minute meal periods each day. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. provides waste collection and disposal services to its customers throughout the State of Texas and the United States. Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt waste disposal dispatcher at Republic's Del Valle (Austin) waste disposal facility. The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com REVCLAIMS LLC: Appeals Ruling in "Hargett" Suit to Eighth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Revclaims, LLC, Baptist Health, St. Bernard's Community Hospital Corporation, St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., and White River Health System, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Tammy Hargett v. Revclaims, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00200-JM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was initiated in the Craighead County Circuit Court (Case No. CV- 16-00449), and was later removed to the District Court. Revclaims LLC helps large hospitals and health systems, community hospitals, and trauma centers nationwide boost revenue and reduce accounts receivable days by increasing injury claims recoveries in record time. The appellate case is captioned as Tammy Hargett v. Revclaims, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-1340, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. According to the Appellate Case docket, cases were transferred from miscellaneous case numbers 17-8004 and 17-8005. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on March 7, 2017; -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Baptist Health, St. Bernard's Community Hospital Corporation, St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., White River Health System, Inc. and Revclaims, LLC is due on March 7, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 20 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 5 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. NO EXTENSIONS will be granted. Plaintiff-Appellee Tammy Hargett, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brandon W. Lacy, Esq. WILCOX & LACY, PLC 600 South Main Street Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 931 3101 Facsimile: (870) 931 3102 E-mail: blacy@wilcoxlacy.com - and - Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Esq. 324 South Main Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 336 0155 Facsimile: (870) 934 8887 E-mail: scriberfirm@gmail.com Defendant-Appellant Revclaims, LLC, is represented by: Joseph L. Adams, Esq. JONES & WALKER LLP 190 East Capitol Street, Suite 800 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 949-4856 Facsimile: (601) 949-4804 E-mail: jojoadams@joneswalker.com - and - Mark Alan Mayfield, Esq. Jeffrey W. Puryear, Esq. Ryan Michael Wilson, Esq. WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & MCNEIL, P.A. Post Office Box 3077 Jonesboro, AR 72403-3077 Telephone: (870) 932 0900 Facsimile: (870) 932 2553 E-mail: mmayfield@wpmfirm.com jpuryear@wpmfirm.com rwilson@wpmfirm.com Defendant Baptist Health is represented by: Robert L. Henry, III, Esq. James D. Robertson, Esq. BARBER LAW FIRM 425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3414 Telephone: (501) 372-6175 E-mail: rhenry@barberlawfirm.com jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com Defendants St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., and St. Bernard's Community Hospital Corporation are represented by: Paul D. Waddell, Esq. Sam Waddell, Esq. WADDELL, COLE & JONES, PLLC 310 East Street P.O. Box 1700 Jonesboro, AR 72403-1700 Telephone: (870) 931-1700 Facsimile: (870) 931-1800 E-mail: pwaddell@wcjfirm.com swaddell@wcjfirm.com Defendant White River Health System, Inc., is represented by: Kenneth P. Castleberry, Esq. Alfred F. Thompson, III, Esq. MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY 555 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Batesville, AR 72503-0000 Telephone: (501) 793-3821 SALOV NORTH: May 30 Filippo Berio Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Gutride Safier LLP regarding the Filippo Berio Olive Oil Class Action Settlement. If you purchased Filippo Berio Olive Oil a class action settlement may affect your rights. A proposed class action settlement has been reached concerning Filippo Berio Olive Oil labeling practices. The case is known as Kumar v. Salov North America Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-02411-YGR (N.D. Cal.). What is this about? The lawsuit claims that Filippo Berio olive oil products were inappropriately labeled as "Imported from Italy" on the front label. As part of the settlement, defendant Salov North America Corp. has agreed to stop this labeling practice and provide payments for customers. The defendant denies any wrongdoing. Who is a class member? You are an eligible class member if you purchased, between May 23, 2010 and June 30, 2015, (in the United States, for personal use and not resale), any of the following Filippo Berio branded olive oil products: Robusto Extra Virgin Olive Oil, Extra Virgin Olive Oil, Delicato Extra Virgin Olive Oil, Organic Extra Virgin Olive Oil, Olive Oil, or Light Tasting Olive Oil. What are the benefits? Defendant will provide class members a payment of $0.50 per can or bottle purchased. A minimum of $2.00 will be paid to any class member who submits a valid claim. Class members can obtain payments for up to 10 purchases (up to $5.00 per household) without proof of purchase. Proof of purchase is required to obtain a payment of more than $5.00 per household (for more than 10 bottles or cans purchased). What are my rights? You have the right to make a claim, to object to the settlement, to exclude yourself from the litigation, or to do nothing. To receive a payment, you must submit a claim, either online or by mail to the administrator. Your claim must be postmarked by May 2, 2017. In the alternative, you may exclude yourself from the litigation. This is the only way to preserve your right to pursue a separate lawsuit against the defendant about the claims released by this settlement. You will receive no payment. Your request for exclusion must be received by May 2, 2017. Finally, you may object to the settlement. To object, you must submit an objection in writing that complies with the requirements in the settlement notice available at www.SNAOliveOilSettlement.com. Your objection must be received by May 2, 2017. If you do nothing, you will receive no payment and have no right to sue later for the claims released by the settlement. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 1304 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, on May 30, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., to decide whether to approve the settlement and to award attorneys' fees and expenses of up to $982,500, to be paid by Defendant, and $2,500 for the Plaintiff, as a representative award. The motion for fees and expenses will be posted on the website below after they are filed. You may attend this hearing, but you don't have to. Payments will be made to the Settlement Class only if the Court approves the settlement and all appeals are resolved. Please be patient. If the settlement does not become effective, the litigation will continue, but only on behalf of purchasers in California. If you are a purchaser in California, you have the same rights under the settlement as other class members. You also have the right to make a claim or object now and exclude yourself from the litigation later, if the settlement does not become effective. For more information, please visit www.SNAOliveOilSettlement.com, or contact the claim administrator at 1-844-702-2783 or by writing to: Kumar v Salov, c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box 58476, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8476, or contact class counsel Gutride Safier LLP at www.gutridesafier.com. SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued Over Increase of Insulin Benchmark Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR VALDES and HECTOR J. VALDES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, NOVO NORDISK INC., and ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., Feb. 13, 2017), seeks remedy for the economic harms to consumers from Defendants' fraudulent scheme. Over 29 million people, 9.3% of the country, live with diabetes. A life threatening disease, many of those with diabetes rely on daily insulin treatments to survive. Interruptions to these regimes can have severe consequences, including sustained damage to the kidneys, heart, nerves, eyes, feet, and skin. Indeed, diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure, adult-onset blindness, and lower-limb amputations in the United States. The Defendants manufacture insulin used to treat diabetes. Over the course of the last five years, each has raised the publicly- reported, benchmark prices of their respective drugs in an astounding and inexplicable manner. Drugs that used to cost $25 per prescription now cost between $300 and $450 dollars. And in the last five years alone, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly have raised their benchmark prices by over 150%. Some patients now pay almost $900 dollars per month just to obtain the insulin drugs they need to survive. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994 1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Telephone: (917) 438 9102 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357 9000 E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com SCRAM OF CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Alcohol-Monitoring Systems Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that consumers claim in a federal class action in Los Angeles that Scram of California and Alcohol Monitoring Systems sell defective transdermal alcohol-monitoring systems that produce false- positives. The case is captioned, ROSEANNE HANSEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JENNIFER OH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, vs. SCRAM OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California Corporation; ALCOHOL MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01474 (C.D. Cal., February 23, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Edwin I. Aimufua, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN I. AIMUFUA 17000 Ventura Blvd, Suite # 201 Encino, California 91316 Telephone: (818) 855-1118 Facsimile: (818) 855-1101 E-mail: eia@aimufualaw.com SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Ruling in "Mojica" Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled SUSAN MOJICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendant. Case No. 5:14-cv-05258-TLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff has sought certification of a class and two subclasses asserting claims under the Federal Communications Act. The appellate case is captioned as Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Susan Mojica, Case No. 17-8008, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: Plaintiff-Respondent Susan Mojica, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert A. Braun, Esq. Benjamin Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC West Tower, Suite 500 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-3934 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: rbraun@cohenmilstein.com bbrown@cohenmilstein.com - and - Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq. Samantha Holbrook, Esq. James Maro, Esq. Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. Peter A. Muhic, Esq. Amanda Trask, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com mgalloway@ktmc.com sholbrook@ktmc.com jmaro@ktmc.com dmoffa@ktmc.com pmuhic@ktmc.com atrask@ktmc.com - and - Peter R. Kahana, Esq. Amy C. Martin, Esq. Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875 3000 Facsimile: (215) 875 4604 E-mail: pkahana@bm.net mitwersky@bm.net Defendant-Petitioner Securus Technologies, Inc., is represented by: Woody Bassett, Esq. James M. Graves, Esq. BASSETT LAW FIRM 221 N. College P.O. Box 3618 Fayetteville, AR 72702-3618 Telephone: (479) 521-9996 Facsimile: (479) 521-9600 E-mail: wbassett@bassettlawfirm.com jgraves@bassettlawfirm.com - and - Joshua Fowkes, Esq. Eren Jon Alexander Gryskiewicz, Esq. Stephanie A. Joyce, Esq. ARENT FOX LLP 1717 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5342 Telephone: (202) 857-6000 E-mail: joshua.fowkes@arentfox.com jon.gryskiewicz@arentfox.com stephanie.joyce@arentfox.com - and - Elizabeth Herrington, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive, 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60601-0000 Telephone: (312) 324-1445 Facsimile: (312) 324-1001 E-mail: beth.herrington@morganlewis.com SEXY HAIR: Shampoo Not Sulfate-Free, "Crane" Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that the makers and sellers of Healthy Sexy Hair market the shampoo as sulfate-free, but the bottle contains sodium sulfate and salt (sodium chloride), one woman claims in a federal class action in Boston against Sexy Hair Concepts LLC and Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. The case is captioned, Molly Crane, Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Sexy Hair Concepts, LLC, and Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10300-FDS (D. Mass., February 23, 2017) Attorneys for Plaintiff: Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane, Floor 6 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com imcloughlin@shulaw.com - and - Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 929 Worcester Rd. Framingham MA 01701 Tel: 508-872-1261 E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com SHELBY COUNTY: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Robinett" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Lacey Robinett filed an appeal from the District Court's order and judgment entered on January 31, 2017, in the lawsuit styled Lacey Robinett v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00188-DPM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Lacey Robinett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, initiated the lawsuit against Shelby County Healthcare Corporation, doing business as Regional One Health and Regional Medical Center, and Avectus Healthcare Solutions LLC, on July 26, 2016. Shelby County provides a variety of health care services to the residents of Memphis, Tennessee. The appellate case is captioned as Lacey Robinett v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., et al., Case No. 17-1336, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on March 27, 2017; -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Lacey Robinett is due on March 27, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. Plaintiff-Appellant Lacey Robinett, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brandon W. Lacy, Esq. WILCOX & LACY, PLC 600 South Main Street Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 931 3101 Facsimile: (870) 931 3102 E-mail: blacy@wilcoxlacy.com - and - Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Esq. 324 South Main Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 336 0155 Facsimile: (870) 934 8887 E-mail: scriberfirm@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee Shelby County Healthcare Corporation, doing business as Regional One Health, doing business as Regional Medical Center, is represented by: Don L. Hearn, Jr., Esq. John I. Houseal, Jr., Esq. GLANKLER & BROWN PLLC 6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400 Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 525 1322 Facsimile: (901) 761 1332 E-mail: dhearn@glankler.com jhouseal@glankler.com - and - John Irving Houseal, III, Esq. EASLEY & HOUSEAL PLLC 510 E. Cross Street P.O. Box 1115 Forrest City, AR 72336-1115 Telephone: (870) 633-1447 E-mail: john@ehtriallawyers.com Defendant-Appellee Avectus Healthcare Solutions LLC is represented by: Mark Alan Mayfield, Esq. Jeffrey W. Puryear, Esq. Ryan Michael Wilson, Esq. WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & MCNEIL, P.A. Post Office Box 3077 Jonesboro, AR 72403-3077 Telephone: (870) 932 0900 Facsimile: (870) 932 2553 E-mail: mmayfield@wpmfirm.com jpuryear@wpmfirm.com rwilson@wpmfirm.com ST. BERNARD'S HOSPITAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Hargett" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., Baptist Health, St. Bernard's Community Hospital Corporation, White River Health System, Inc. and Revclaims, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Tammy Hargett v. Revclaims, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00200-JM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was initiated in the Craighead County Circuit Court (Case No. CV- 16-00449), and was later removed to the District Court. Revclaims LLC helps large hospitals and health systems, community hospitals, and trauma centers nationwide boost revenue and reduce accounts receivable days by increasing injury claims recoveries in record time. The appellate case is captioned as Tammy Hargett v. St. Bernard's Hospital Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1339, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. According to the Appellate Case docket, cases were transferred from miscellaneous case numbers 17-8004 and 17-8005. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on March 7, 2017; -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Baptist Health, St. Bernard's Community Hospital Corporation, St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., White River Health System, Inc. and Revclaims, LLC is due on March 7, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 20 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 5 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. NO EXTENSIONS will be granted. Plaintiff-Appellee Tammy Hargett, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brandon W. Lacy, Esq. WILCOX & LACY, PLC 600 South Main Street Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 931 3101 Facsimile: (870) 931 3102 E-mail: blacy@wilcoxlacy.com - and - Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Esq. 324 South Main Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 336 0155 Facsimile: (870) 934 8887 E-mail: scriberfirm@gmail.com Defendant-Appellant Revclaims, LLC, is represented by: Joseph L. Adams, Esq. JONES & WALKER LLP 190 East Capitol Street, Suite 800 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 949-4856 Facsimile: (601) 949-4804 E-mail: jojoadams@joneswalker.com - and - Mark Alan Mayfield, Esq. Jeffrey W. Puryear, Esq. Ryan Michael Wilson, Esq. WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & MCNEIL, P.A. Post Office Box 3077 Jonesboro, AR 72403-3077 Telephone: (870) 932 0900 Facsimile: (870) 932 2553 E-mail: mmayfield@wpmfirm.com jpuryear@wpmfirm.com rwilson@wpmfirm.com Defendants St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., and St. Bernard's Community Hospital Corporation are represented by: Paul D. Waddell, Esq. Sam Waddell, Esq. WADDELL, COLE & JONES, PLLC 310 East Street P.O. Box 1700 Jonesboro, AR 72403-1700 Telephone: (870) 931-1700 Facsimile: (870) 931-1800 E-mail: pwaddell@wcjfirm.com swaddell@wcjfirm.com Defendant Baptist Health is represented by: Robert L. Henry, III, Esq. James D. Robertson, Esq. BARBER LAW FIRM 425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3414 Telephone: (501) 372-6175 E-mail: rhenry@barberlawfirm.com jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com Defendant White River Health System, Inc., is represented by: Kenneth P. Castleberry, Esq. Alfred F. Thompson, III, Esq. MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY 555 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Batesville, AR 72503-0000 Telephone: (501) 793-3821 STARKEY HEARING: Faces "Melcher" Suit Under FLSA, Minn. Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- LYNN MELCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. STARKEY HEARING TECHNOLOGIES and STARKEY LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-00420-DSD-DTS (D. Minn., February 8, 2017) seeks redress for damages and other relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and to recover overtime wages for workweeks over 48 hours under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. Starkey Hearing Technologies manufactures advanced hearing solutions. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a Territory Sales Representative (also referred to as inside sales representatives). The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: fisher@nka.com STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Walsh" Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH WALSH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC., IVAN BERGSTEIN, and DAVID GIONCO, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00940 (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2017), alleges that the Defendants violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by making false and/or misleading statements in relation to its January 2017 secondary public offering. Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that a cancer patient in a Stemline clinical trial tied to SL-401 had died from a severe side effect on January 18, 2017. The Defendant is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the discovery, acquisition, development, and commercialization of proprietary oncology therapeutics in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 697-6484 Fax: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com STUDY.COM LLC: Faces "Lopez" Class Action Over Auto Renewal ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a subscriber of Study.com claims in a class action in San Diego that the website failed to obtain affirmative consent as required by California's Automatic Renewal Law. The case is captioned, MATTHEW LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STUDY.COM, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1--10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2017-0006162-CU-MT-CTL, San Diego County Superior Court, February 17, 2017. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com TEIKOKU PHARMA: Judge Certified 2 Classes in Lidoderm Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that, rejecting arguments that damages would be too arduous to calculate on a class-wide basis, a federal judge in San Francisco certified two classes in a multidistrict antitrust suit over the pain patch Lidoderm. Drug makers Endo, Watson and Teikoku Pharma were sued in 2014, accused of striking an anti-competitive settlement deal in May 2012 that blocked a cheaper generic version of Lidoderm from hitting the market for more than a year. As part of that settlement, Watson agreed to delay launching its generic patch until September 2013 and to drop a patent suit that was pending against Endo and Teikoku, the creators of the original Lidoderm painkiller. In exchange, Endo gave Watson $96 million worth of Lidoderm patches and vowed not to launch its own authorized generic until 7-1/2 months after Watson's generic hit the market, according to the plaintiffs. In a ruling issued in the Northern District of California, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III certified two classes of direct buyers and end-payer plaintiffs who claim the arrangement artificially inflated the price of Lidoderm and denied them access to a cheaper generic alternative. During a hearing last November, attorneys for the drug makers implored Orrick to deny class certification, arguing that calculating damages would require analyzing individual health plans and supplier contracts for each plaintiff. But Orrick found the plaintiffs' experts used "reliable, statistically sound" methods to show class-wide injury and damages. He also found the potential need to individually determine which class members were injured and by how much "does not negate the significant common and predominant legal and factual questions" that must be resolved at summary judgment or trial. The judge certified a class of 55 direct-purchaser plaintiffs, including wholesalers, pharmacies, hospitals and retail stores that purchased Lidoderm from manufacturers between Aug. 23, 2012, and May 1, 2014. Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Jeffery Leitzinger estimated that direct buyers overpaid $295 million for Lidoderm during the period of delayed generic competition. That figure was disputed by the drug makers' expert, Dr. Gregory Leonard, who used "real-world prices" instead of those projected in drug makers' internal forecasts to arrive at a $218 million figure, $76 million less than Leitzinger's estimate. Debate over precisely what numbers should be used to calculate damages is not an issue to be decided for class certification, Orrick wrote, adding the dispute "does not undermine the approach or the reliability of Leitzinger's model." The judge appointed Drogueria Betances Inc., Rochester Drug Co- Operative Inc. and American Sales Company as class representatives for the direct-purchasers class. Orrick also appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as co-lead counsel for the direct buyers' class. Turning to the end-payer plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the drug companies again argued that plaintiffs failed to use the "real-world" prices of Lidoderm and generics when they finally hit the market in 2013 and 2014. End-payer plaintiffs' expert Dr. Hal Singer said those actual prices were "tainted" by antitrust conduct and higher than they would have been otherwise. The drug companies countered that Singer failed to factor in Watson's higher-than-expected production costs, which drove up the prices. Orrick found calculating the precise "but-for" prices to assess damages was not necessary at this stage of litigation. The judge also rejected claims that Singer failed to properly factor in consumers with flat co-pays who were unaffected by price differences, or brand loyalists, who purchase brand-name drugs despite the availability of generics. Singer estimated brand-loyalist purchases made up 6.1 percent of total purchases, and he excluded those from his damages model. The drug companies' expert, James Hughes, offered a much higher estimate, finding brand loyalists made up about 24 percent of the proposed class. "While Hughes believes that the number of brand loyalists is higher (or the amount of brand loyalist purchases is higher), that dispute does not undermine the fact that both experts rely on common proof (as opposed to individualized proof) to estimate the impact brand loyalists have on the aggregate damages number under both of their models," Orrick wrote in his 52-page ruling. The judge also found differences in copays and individual health plans could be accounted for in the damages model. Orrick certified two sub-classes of end-payer plaintiffs. One sub- class encompasses all persons living in 17 states who bought branded Lidoderm from Aug. 23, 2012, to Sept. 14, 2013, and those who bought generic Lidoderm from Sept. 15, 2013, to Aug. 1, 2014. The 17 states where individual end-payer plaintiffs are certified include California, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The second certified sub-class of end-payer plaintiffs includes all third-party payers and pharmacy benefit plans, including CVS Caremark, Cigna and others, that purchased brand-name Lidoderm from Sept. 15, 2013, to Aug. 1, 2014. Named plaintiffs for the end-payer plaintiff class include Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, the city of Providence and individual buyer Letizia Gallotto of Massachusetts. Orrick appointed Girard Gibbs, Cohen Milstein Sellars & Toll, and Heins Mills & Olson as co-lead counsel for the end-payer class. The judge also denied motions to exclude expert reports and testimony, finding the plaintiffs' experts proposed adequate models for assessing damages. He delayed ruling on another motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert John Fritz, an actuary in the insurance business with limited experience specific to the case, until summary judgment or trial. A case management conference has been set for March 28, 2017. The Lidoderm patch is a topical antiseptic that contains 5 percent Lidocaine as its active ingredient. It is used to treat painful skin conditions, such as shingles. The FDA first approved it in March 1999. Last month, Endo agreed to submit to an injunction barring it from striking anticompetitive pacts with generic drug makers as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. Endo spokesperson Heather Lubeski declined to comment on the class certification ruling. Direct purchaser plaintiffs' attorney Robert Kohn and end-payer plaintiffs' attorney Christina Sharp did not return phone calls seeking comment Friday. Kohn is with Fauqi & Faruqi in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania. Sharp is with Girard Gibbs in San Francisco. TOYOTA MOTOR: "Mensie" Alleges Breach of "Gap" Protection Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Marian J. Mensie, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00085-DPM (E.D. Ark., February 8, 2017), arises from TMCC's alleged systemic breach of its standard form contract related to "gap" protection for vehicle financing. Allegedly, TMCC refused to waive the full amount of the "gap" on Ms. Mensie's vehicle, contrary to the express terms of the GAP Contract. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation is a financial services firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Phillips, Esq. Brandon K. Moffitt, Esq. MOFFITT & PHILLIPS, PLLC 204 Executive Court, Su Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: (501) 255-74 6100 Fax: (866) 460-5744 E-mail: mphillips@moffittandphillips.com bmoffitt@moffittandphillips.com - and - Robert A. Hom, Esq. Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 421-0700 Fax: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: rhom@hab-law.com jkronawitter@hab-law.com - and - Brian Timothy Meyers, Esq. Brian C. McCart, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN TIMOTHY MEYERS 1125 Grand Blvd., Suite 1610 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (816) 842-0006 Fax: (816) 842-6623 E-mail: btmeyers@btm-law.com bmccart@btm-law.com U.S. POSTAL: "Slavin" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID SLAVIN, JOHN BRADHAM, AARON BRYANT, LINDA BUNCH, LAWRENCE CASH, HOWARD CHIN, AMONICA CORNELL, TYRONE CURRY, ISHMAEL FULANI, AYANNA GATLING, MATTIE GLOVER-HOOKER, KIMBERLY JONES HENRY, DAVID HOOKER, RANDALL HUGHES, SR., INEASE INMON, MARY JOHNSON, THERESA JONES, KENNETH JONES, THOMAS KENNEDY, MARLON LANGHORNE, JACKIE LEABOUGH, KRISTEN LOUGEE, BRANDON MINES, SARAH NEAL, CHARLES PARKER, KATRINA PARSON, HERMAN DONTE PLEASANTS, ERIC ROBINSON, ANDREA ROBINSON, RYAN SANDERS, SHARON SAUNDERS, MARCELLA SINGH, THEODORE STEWART, LATICIA THOMAS, WILLIAM TYLER, JR., PAUL WHITAKER, LESTER WHITE, RONNIE WHITFIELD, AND LINDA WOODY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00134-REP (E.D. Va., Feb. 13, 2017), seeks declaratory relief and injunctive relief; and to recover unpaid overtime compensation, and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the United States Postal Service who work and/or worked at Postal Service Branches and Stations in metro Richmond, excluding the Richmond Main Post Office. The Plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated, perform, and have performed, functions which entitle them to receive overtime compensation, yet Defendant has willfully refused to pay them such overtime wages. The Defendant compensated Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated on a uniform basis common to Plaintiffs and other persons performing similar functions. United States Postal Service is an independent entity of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Paul M. Falabella, Esq. BUTLER ROYALS, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648 4848 Facsimile: (804) 237 0413 E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com zev.antell@butlerroyals.com paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com UNITED STATES: Faces Suit by Disabled War Translators ----------------------------------------------------- Karina Brown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in the latest class challenge to U.S. refugee policies, Refugee Disability Benefits Oregon claims the United States illegally cut off benefits for disabled Iraqi and Afghani interpreters who helped the United States in the wars in their countries after Sept. 11, 2001. Plaintiff John Doe worked for the United States as a translator in Iraq during the war. He resettled in Oregon with his family as "special immigrants," but the government cut off his son's disability benefits after eight months -- a time limit that was changed in 2009. Doe says the government never implemented an extension authorized in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2009 to extend disability benefits for Iraqi and Afghani special immigrants to seven years -- the length of time given to other refugees. Aided by the nonprofit Refugee Disability Benefits Oregon, Doe sued Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Nancy Berryhill and Deputy Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement Ken Tota in Portland, Ore. Disabled refugees are entitled to $768 per month for up to seven years. But until the law was changed in 2009, special immigrants like Doe could get those benefits for only eight months. Despite the new law, the defendants refused Doe's request for extended benefits. Doe's attorney James Coon said it's unclear whether the government has ever granted the longer period of disability benefits to any special immigrant. Despite the 2009 law and a subsequent emergency message from the Social Security Administration directing its field offices to honor it, the agency never updated its internal rules to reflect the change, the complaint states. Coon, with Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost in Portland, said it appears that the government never has abided by the 2009 law, and may have been shortchanging disabled Iraqi interpreters for the past seven years. Coon said he assumes that the problem stemmed from a simple oversight -- a small change that got lost in the vast language of the defense appropriations bill. Despite its harsher policies toward immigrants, Coon said, he hopes the Trump administration will respond to the lawsuit by simply correcting the error. "I don't know why they'd want politically not to help these people who helped the government," Coon said. "And the current administration cannot go back and change the law to deprive these people of their benefits." UNITED STATES: U.S. Marshals Service Class Action Closer to Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sanford Heisler, LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that on February 24, 2017, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge Sharon E. Debbage Alexander granted Sanford Heisler's motion to amend the complaint in Fogg v. Department of Justice. The EEOC also affirmed the expanded class definition and authorized a discovery period extension. Based on the Feb. 24 ruling, the class now comprises all current and former African American Deputy U.S. marshals and detention enforcement officers working for the DOJ from January 23, 1994 through the present. Sanford Heisler won a revival of Fogg's initial claims in mid- 2013, securing certification of a class of African American federal marshals dating back to July 1994. "These decisions level the playing field for federal employees who have routinely been treated with derision and disrespect," said David Sanford, Chairman and co-founder of Sanford Heisler. "They have been waiting for justice from the DOJ for 23 years. We look forward to a class trial in Washington, D.C. next year." Fogg's 1994 class action complaint asserts the U.S. Marshals Service hires white employees at a higher rate than African American employees and its African American employees receive disproportionately harsher punishments than their white counterparts for similar infractions. It also asserts the Service intentionally delays processing discrimination complaints by African American employees and that white employees receive preferential access to special assignments. About Sanford Heisler, LLP Sanford Heisler, LLP is a public interest class-action litigation law firm with offices in New York, Washington, D.C, San Francisco and San Diego. The Firm specializes in civil rights and general public interest cases, representing plaintiffs with employment discrimination, labor and wage violations, predatory lending, whistleblower, consumer fraud, and other claims. Along with a focus on class actions, the firm also represents individuals and has achieved particular success in the representation of executives and attorneys in employment disputes. For more information go to http://www.sanfordheisler.com/or call 202 499- 5200 or email dsanford@sanfordheisler.com. UPTAIN GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cholly" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Julie Cholly filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Julie Cholly v. Uptain Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05030, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 20, 2017, District Judge Robert W. Gettleman denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted their motion to strike. Julie Cholly, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, has brought a one count third amended putative class action complaint (complaint) against defendants Uptain Group, Inc. (Uptain) and Alere Health, LLC (Alere), alleging that the Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The appellate case is captioned as Julie Cholly v. Uptain Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-8002, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Petitioner-Plaintiff JULIE CHOLLY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD 55 W. Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com - and - David J. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS 9760 S. Roberts Road Palos Hills, IL 60465-0000 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 Facsimile: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com Respondent-Defendant UPTAIN GROUP, INC., is represented by: John P. Ryan, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 222 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60601-1081 Telephone: (312) 704-3000 E-mail: jryan@hinshawlaw.com Respondent ALERE HEALTH, LLC, is represented by: Athanasios Papadopoulos, Esq. NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP Two N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60602-3801 Telephone: (312) 269-5982 E-mail: tpapadopoulos@neglaw.com VCA INC: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Moran" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that directors are selling the leading animal health care company VCA too cheaply through an unfair process to Mars, for $93 a share or $9.1 billion, shareholders say in a federal class action in Los Angeles. The case is captioned, FRANCES MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VCA, INC., ROBERT L. ANTIN, JOHN M. BAUMER, JOHN B.C HICKERING JR., JOHN HEIL, AND FRANK REDDICK, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01502 (C.D. Cal., February 23, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Email: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 291-2420 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 WAL-MART STORES: Shareholder Suit Over Bribes in Mexico Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that nearly five years after Wal-Mart's cover-up of bribery in Mexico made headlines, a federal judge in Manhattan closed the book on a class action accusing the retail giant of misleading shareholders about the scheme. The New York Times article blowing the whistle on the mega retailer wound up winning a Pulitzer Prize and sparking investigations by Congress and the Department of Justice. Though a securities class action by shareholder Michael Fogel has kept lawyers working for the world's largest retailer busy for roughly half a decade, the aftershocks have quieted considerably over the past year. Citing the statute of limitations, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the shareholder case for the third and final time. Though the Times article ran on April 21, 2012, it dissected an internal investigation that Wal-Mart conducted between 2005 and 2006. Failla said any misrepresentations made before 2008 are untimely under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The judge also found that the shareholders did not plausibly allege scienter -- the knowledge of wrongdoing -- on the part of Wal-Mex or its executives. Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove greeted the decision. "We appreciate the court's careful consideration of the issues and are pleased with the decision dismissing these claims," Hargrove said in an email. Shareholder Fogel's lawsuit claimed that Wal-Mex director Ernesto Vega "knew or was reckless in not knowing bribery was taking place" because he supervised Eduardo Juarez, the vice president of the internal audit who is not a party to the litigation. Judge Failla said this is hardly a smoking gun. "These allegations fall well short of the high bar required for plaintiff to plead adequately conscious misbehavior or recklessness on the part of Vega," the 45-page ruling states. "Plaintiff alleges that Ju†rez 'reported' to Vega, but this allegation is conclusory, derived solely from Vega's job title." The allegations against Wal-Mex CEO Scot Rank failed for the same reason. "Put simply, the court cannot infer scienter from Rank's position alone," Failla wrote. Representatives for the shareholders did not return a request for comment. The Wall Street Journal reported in late 2016 that the Department of Justice investigation was unlikely to end in charges for Wal- Mart executives. WINTON TRANSPORTATION: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD WILLIAMS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, AND ANTHONY CASEY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. WINTON TRANSPORTATION, INC. D/B/A UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, LLC, the DEFENDANT, Case No. 1:17-cv-00101-TSB (S.D. Ohio., Feb. 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs brought the action against Winton Transportation, Inc., for engaging in a systematic scheme of wage abuses against its hourly paid employees in Ohio. This scheme involves, among other things, failing to appropriately calculate employees' compensable time and refusing to pay employees for regular and overtime hours they worked. Universal provides transportation services to adults and children, transporting an average of 2,200 clients per day according to their website. Universal employs a large amount of drivers, including Plaintiffs, to transport this amount of clients per day. Universal's website states that it currently employs over 250 drivers. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melanie S. Bailey, Esq. Janet G. Abaray, Esq. David C. Harman, Esq. Justin J. Joyce, Esq. BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH, & JARDINE, P.C. 312 Walnut Street, Suite 2090 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 852 5600 Facsimile: (513) 852 5611 E-mail: mbailey@burgsimpson.com jabaray@burgsimpson.com dharman@burgsimpson.com jjoyce@burgsimpson.com YAHOO! INC: Faces "Neff" Suit Over Leak of Personal Information --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN NEFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. YAHOO! INC., and AABACO SMALL BUSINESS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00641-NC (N.D. Cal., February 8, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to secure their users' Personally Identifiable Information and failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII had been stolen on at least two occasions (on September 22, 2016 and December 14, 2016) causing significant damage to them. Yahoo, In. directly and through its wholly owned subsidiaries like Aabaco, offers various online services to consumers and small businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Azar, Esq. MILBERG LLP 2850 Ocean Park Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: (213) 617-1200 Fax: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: dazar@milberg.com - and - Ariana J. Tadler, Esq. Henry J. Kelston, Esq. Andrei V. Rado, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq. Roger L. Mandel, Esq. LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777 Dallas, TX 75219-4259 Phone: (214) 560-2201 Fax: (214) 560-2203 E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net beb@lhlaw.net Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Liability Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal of the complaint filed by Titus May, et al., against Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation. According to the Ninth Circuit, the district court properly dismissed the Plaintiffs' original complaint because it contained insufficient, non-conclusory allegations to state a plausible claim for relief or to put Northrop on notice of the basis for the Plaintiffs' claims so that it could defend itself effectively. The Ninth Circuit pointed out that the Plaintiffs' original complaint did not identify any specific product that Northrop itself manufactured, supplied, or was otherwise responsible for in a way that would give rise to a claim for products liability, which is fatal to both the Plaintiffs' negligent and strict products liability claims. Further, the original complaint does not identify the names of the decedent's family members that worked at Northrop, the specific Northrop facilities where these family members worked, what jobs they held, or any other information related to the circumstances of the family members' exposure to asbestos on Northrop's facilities. Without these basic information, the Plaintiffs' original complaint fails to put Northrop on notice of the basis for the Plaintiffs' premises liability claim, the Ninth Circuit said. However, the Ninth Circuit finds that the district court erred in denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their premises liability claim on futility grounds. The proposed First Amended Complaint alleges sufficient, non-conclusory allegations to plausibly state a claim for relief under a theory of premises liability and to put Northrop on fair notice of the basis for Plaintiffs' claim, the Ninth Circuit pointed out. Specifically, the proposed First Amended Complaint identifies the particular Northrop-controlled premises on which the decedent's family members worked, how Northrop reasonably failed to maintain its premises to protect its employees from airborne asbestos exposure, how the decedent's husband was exposed to airborne asbestos through the course of his employment with Northrop, and how the decedent was ultimately harmed by asbestos originating from Northrop's facilities through take-home exposure. Because the proposed First Amended Complaint sufficiently states a claim against Northrop for premises liability, the district court erred in denying Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint on futility grounds, the Ninth Circuit said. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reverses the judgment of dismissal on the Plaintiffs' premises liability claim and remanded for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated February 23, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/89degJ from Leagle.com. The appeals case is TITUS MAY; BARRY MAY; JEFFREY MAY; TRACI MAY; KELLI CHAVEZ; GREGORY MAYO; LORI MOBERLY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to The Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation and Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-56219 (9th Cir.). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate OK'd to Amend Civil Rights Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Bolton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleged in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, that as an inmate plumber, he was instructed to remove asbestos-containing materials without safety equipment. As a result, the Plaintiff developed symptoms related to asbestos exposure for which he was subsequently seen by Dr. Owolabi. According to the lawsuit, Dr. Owolabi "refused" to acknowledge the Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and ordered allergy medication, which only made the Plaintiff's symptoms worse. Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, but gave the Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint. The case is WAYNE BOLTON, Plaintiff, v. HOLLAND, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00298-SKO (PC)(E.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of the Order dated February 21, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/qj8uq8 from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idaho Whistleblower Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------ Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho stayed the whistleblower case captioned THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Plaintiff, v. IDAHO FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 91, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00019-BLW (D. Idaho), until a decision has been issued in parallel administrative proceedings before a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge. On May 31, 2011, Penny Weymiller filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Secretary of Labor, alleging that the District retaliated against her for raising concerns with its asbestos removal plans. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigated Weymiller's claims under the whistleblower provisions of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7622. OSHA granted relief against the District, who then requested a de novo hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The parties participated in a four- day trial before an ALJ in February 2016. However, a final decision has yet to be issued. The Secretary of Labor simultaneously investigated Weymiller's complaint under the whistleblower provisions of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986. As a result of that investigation, the Secretary of Labor filed the present civil action in federal court on behalf of Weymiller, pursuant to AHERA, 15 U.S.C. Section 2651(a). A trial in this matter is currently set to commence on April 3, 2017. Judge Winmill held that a brief stay of the proceedings is warranted, noting that there is potential the administrative proceedings will have preclusive effect on the case. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Decision and Order dated February 24, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/KO87vP from Leagle.com. Thomas E. Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Brinkerhoff, U.S. Department of Labor. Idaho Falls School District No. 91, Defendant, represented by Bret Allen Walther, Anderson Julian & Hull LLP & Brian K. Julian, ANDERSON JULIAN & HULL. Penny Weymiller, Intervenor, represented by Jonathan W. Harris, BAKER & HARRIS. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Narrows Utica's Diversity Suit vs. FFIC ----------------------------------------------------------------- Utica Mutual Insurance Company commenced a diversity action against defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, seeking to enforce the terms of its reinsurance contracts. The Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of nearly $29 million for amounts billed through August 31, 2009, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and declaratory relief based on the defendant's alleged breach of the reinsurance contracts and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. FFIC counterclaims for rescission based on the plaintiff's alleged intentional and/or negligent rescission. This case involves a dispute over $35 million which Utica claims FFIC owes it under its reinsurance contracts. FFIC argues it does not owe Utica any money because Utica breached provisions in the reinsurance contracts. Utica issued primary liability insurance policies to Goulds from 1966 through 1972. These seven primary policies have not been located and one of the main issues in this case is whether those policies contained aggregate limits for bodily injury. Goulds became the subject of thousands of asbestos bodily injury claims, with the first suits naming Goulds in 1997. FFIC filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (to dismiss Counts II and III), saying these are duplicative of Count I and are not independent causes of action. In Count I, Utica complains that FFIC breached the Certificates by not paying its claims and seeks damages in the form of the sums due under the Certificates through August 31, 2009. In Count II, Utica alleges that FFIC asked for irrelevant information and ignored its billings, inquiries, and repeated requests for payment, thereby violating FFIC's duty to deal with Utica in utmost good faith. For damages under Count II, Utica seeks attorneys' fees and other costs in connection with this lawsuit. In Count III, Utica seeks a declaration that FFIC is obligated to pay for bills after August 31, 2009, pursuant to the Certificates. Judge David N. Hurd of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted in part and denied in part FFIC's motion for judgment, and dismissed Count III. According to Judge Hurd, "Count III seeks payment for billings subsequent to August 31, 2009. The declaratory judgment sought in Count III will not clarify or settle the legal issues involved in this case. The declaration sought, that FFIC breached the Certificates and that FFIC is obligated to make payment to Utica for subsequent billings, will be addressed in Count I, the breach of contract claim. Nor will a declaratory judgment offer relief from uncertainty because resolution of the breach of contract claim will offer that relief. Therefore, Count III is duplicative of Count I and it is proper to decline jurisdiction over plaintiff's request for declaratory relief in Count III." The case is UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant, v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Counter Claimant, No. 6:09-CV-853 (DNH/TWD)(N.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of the Memorandum-Decision and Order dated February 24, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/ekEB3g from Leagle.com. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton, Williams Law Firm. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Walter J. Andrews, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Thies, Sidley, Austin Law Firm, pro hac vice, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice, Thomas D. Cunningham, Sidley, Austin Law Firm, pro hac vice & William M. Sneed, Sidley, Austin Law Firm, pro hac vice. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John B. Williams, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice & Mary A. Lopatto, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by John B. Williams, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice & Mary A. Lopatto, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, Walter J. Andrews, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice & Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by John B. Williams, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice & Mary A. Lopatto, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, Walter J. Andrews, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice & Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Wrongful Death Claim Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- In JANIS KELLY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John K. Kelly, Appellant, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, UNION CARBIDE CORP., PREMIX-MARBLETITE MANUFACTURING CO., and IMPERIAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellees, No. 4D15-4666 (Fla. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, was presented for review a question on whether the Florida Wrongful Death Act supersedes the common law requirement that a spouse must be married to the decedent before the date of the decedent's injury to recover damages for loss of consortium. Stated another way, the Appeals Court was asked whether the legislative enactment, giving the estate's representatives and survivors a remedy not found in the common law, "explicitly," "clearly," and "unequivocally" abrogate the common law requirements to recover consortium damages when those damages are awarded under the Wrongful Death Act. Because there can be no change in the common law unless the statute is "explicit and clear in that regard" and the Wrongful Death Act does not "explicitly," "clearly," and "unequivocally" abrogate the common law rule, the Appeals Court holds that a spouse who was not married to a decedent at the time of the decedent's injury may not recover consortium damages as part of a wrongful death suit. The Appeals Court held that despite the clear intention that the Wrongul Death Act allow for the recovery of consortium damages after the decedent's death, nothing in the statute abrogates the common law marriage before injury rule. Therefore, because the legislature did not explicity and clearly overrule the common law limitation on loss of consortium when enacting the Wrongful Death Act, the Appeals Court held that the common law marriage before injury rule was incorporated into the Act. Accordingly, the Appeals Court finds that the trial court did not err in entering an order granting Georgia-Pacific, LLC's motion to dismiss a wrongful death claim filed by Janis Kelly, the wife of John Kelly, in their asbestos-related lawsuit. Therefore, the Appeals Court affirms. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated February 22, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/nSgSIW from Leagle.com. Paulo R. Lima, Juan P. Bauta II, and Amanda A. Kessler of The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., Miami, for appellant. Marie A. Borland of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, and Stuart A. Weinstein, Esq. -- sweinstein@sbwh.law -- and Laura E. Eggnatz, Esq. -- leggnatz@sbwh.law -- of Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee Georgia-Pacific, LLC. Matthew J. Conigliaro, Esq. -- mconigliaro@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tampa, and Ryan S. Cobbs, Esq. - - rcobbs@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee Union Carbide Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Setting Aside Verdict in "Juni" Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MARY JUNI, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. ET AL., Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. THE COALITION FOR LITIGATION JUSTICE, INC., THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF NEW YORK STATE AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, Amici Curiae, 190315/12, 2458, 2457 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, was required to address whether a plaintiff who seeks damages for contracting mesothelioma based on exposure to a defendant's asbestos- containing products must satisfy the standards expressed in Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. (7 N.Y.3d 434 [2006]) and Cornell v 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC (22 N.Y.3d 762 [2014]) by offering evidence that, if it does not provide an exact mathematical quantification of that exposure, at least provides some "scientific expression" (Parker at 449) of the level of exposure to toxins in defendant's products that was sufficient to have caused the disease. The Plantiff's decedent, Arthur Juni, commenced a personal injury action due to his mesothelioma allegedly caused by claimed exposure to asbestos-containing products while he worked as an auto mechanic. Juni died on March 16, 2014, after which his widow, Mary Juni, who also has a loss of consortium claim, was substituted as administratrix for Juni's estate. The appeal concerns only the trial of claims against defendant Ford Motor Company, based on Juni's exposure to asbestos over the years he worked on the brakes, clutches, and manifold gaskets of Ford vehicles, during which work, plaintiff says, asbestos dust was released. After a trial in which a jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff's favor, the trial court granted Ford's motion to set aside the verdict. The Appellate Division held that the evidence presented by the plaintiff here was insufficient because it failed to establish that the decedent's mesothelioma was a result of his exposure to a sufficient quantity of asbestos in friction products sold or distributed by defendant Ford Motor Company. The Appellate Division pointed out that the Plaintiff's expects effectively testified only in terms of an increased risk and association between asbestos and mesothelioma, but failed to either quantify the decedent's exposure levels or otherwise provide any scientific expression of his exposure level with respect to Ford's products. The Appellate Division held that its dissenting colleague suggests that the proof in asbestos cases need not be analyzed using the same criteria as those we use to analyze exposure in other toxic tort cases, namely, the quantification or other "scientific expression of exposure" required by Parker. The dissent also suggests that applying the same criteria would set an insurmountable standard for asbestos claims. However, the Appellate Division said there is no valid distinction to be made between the difficulty of establishing exposure to, say, benzene in gasoline and exposure to asbestos. In each type of matter, a foundation must be made to support an expert's conclusion regarding causation, the Appellate Division concluded. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered June 3, 2015, in favor of Ford, is affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order of the same court and Justice, entered April 13, 2015, should be dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated February 28, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/u3bfOW from Leagle.com. Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Alani Golanski of counsel), for appellant. McGuire Woods LLP, New York (J. Tracy Walker, IV, Esq. -- twalker@mcguirewoods.com -- of the bar of the State of Virginia, admitted pro hac vice, and Tennille J. Checkovich, Esq. -- tcheckovich@mcguirewoods.com -- of counsel), and Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York (Nancy L. Pennie, Esq. -- nlpennie@arfdlaw.com -- and Oded Burger, Esq., of counsel), for respondent. Malaby & Bradley, LLC, New York (Robert C. Malaby, Esq. -- rcmalaby@mblaw.net -- and Maryellen Connor, Esq. -- mconnor@mblaw.net -- of counsel), for amici curiae. Linda Popejoy, Washington, D.C., and William L. Anderson, Washington, D.C., for the Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., amicus curiae. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyers Seek Up to $41MM From Halliburton Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Newsham, writing for Law360, reported that Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti LLC lawyers who reached a $100 million investor settlement with Halliburton over its asbestos liability disclosures told a Texas federal court they would seek up to $40.8 million after a decade's litigation and two trips to the U.S. Supreme Court. The settlement, which energy giant Halliburton Co. had revealed late last year, puts an end to one of the oldest securities fraud class actions still kicking around in U.S. courts. The case is Erica P John Fund Inc et al v. Halliburton Company et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152 (N.D. Tex.). The case is before Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn. The case was filed June 3, 2002. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Provides Update on "Bell" --------------------------------------------------- Kevin J. Penhallegon, Esq. -- kpenhallegon@milesstockbridge.com -- at Miles & Stockbridge, in an article, provided updates on the status of Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana following a previous blog post examining the court's order enunciating a "third view" on the so-called "bare metal defense" for asbestos litigation. Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., CV- 15-6394, Africk, L., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137547 (E.D. La. Oct. 4, 2016). When the court issued its order on October 4, 2016 it provided the parties with an opportunity to re-brief the motions for summary judgment pursuant to the framework for analyzing the bare metal defense as described by the court. On December 21, 2016, the defendants filed their motions for summary judgment applying the court's newly set forth "third view" on the bare metal defense. Plaintiffs filed responses to those motions on January 23, 2017. Accordingly, the issue will now be ripe for the court's decision on these motions for summary judgment by applying its so-called "third view" on the bare metal defense. The court's decision on these motions could have a significant impact on how courts across the country analyze the bare metal defense going forward. Ruling on "Every Exposure" Theory of Causation Just days after issuing its order on its "third view" of the bare metal defense, the Bell court made another significant ruling by excluding plaintiffs' experts who attempted to rely on the "each and every exposure" theory of causation. The defendants filed various motions to exclude Dr. Richard Kradin, Dr. Terry Kraus and Mr. Frank Parker III because, among other reasons, each relied on the "each and every exposure" theory for determining causation. Various iterations of the "each and every" exposure theory have become increasingly popular in recent years as plaintiffs' experts attempt to support a causation opinion regarding the plaintiffs' low-dose exposures to asbestos from various products. In a nutshell, the theory is that each defendant who's product the plaintiff may have worked with or around is equally liable, regardless of the evidence regarding the quantitative dose of exposure. In Bell, the court held that "the each and every exposure theory 'is not an acceptable approach for a causation expert to take' because it is 'nothing more than the ipse dixit of the expert.'" The court noted the experts' subtle shift in testimony such that the experts opine only that each and every "significant" exposure to asbestos caused the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. However, the court dispensed with that theory by saying that it "sees no material difference between the 'every exposure' theory and the 'every significant exposure' theory." As the court explained, the theory is essentially one of general causation only and the experts "provide no testable methodology for determining whether [plaintiff] is one of the members of the population for which a particular exposure level attributable to a particular defendant's products caused mesothelioma or whether Mr. Bell is one of the many members of the population for which a certain marginal exposure level does not in fact result in mesothelioma." Accordingly, the court concluded that the experts' opinions "impermissibly rest on little more than the experts' ipse dixit." The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the court's Order excluding the three experts and briefing has been completed on that motion. Conclusion As the litigation continues in Bell, the court continues to make significant rulings that could have an impact on crucial issues impacting asbestos litigation nationwide. The court's ultimate decision on both the "bare metal" issue and the "every exposure" issue could play a significant role in shaping asbestos litigation moving forward. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Asbestos Trial Reconvenes --------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reported that a Madison County asbestos trial against Hennessy Industries reconvened on Feb. 27 in Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs' courtroom. Hennessy is represented in the case by Jim Lowrey of Gordon & Rees. Plaintiffs Janet and Stanley Urban are represented by Tom Hart and Allyson Romani of Shrader & Associates. The Urbans are from Michigan, and all of Stanley Urban's alleged exposures occurred in Michigan. The Urbans filed their complaint in March 2013, alleging Stanley Urban was exposed to asbestos-containing products while working at various auto dealerships from the 1960s to 1974 and while working at several schools as an auto technology teacher from 1975 to present. More specifically, Urban claims he was exposed to asbestos while using Hennessy's brake grinders. Urban was diagnosed with mesothelioma both above and below his diaphragm in January 2013. Madison County Circuit Court case number 13-L-437 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cambodian Labor Ministry to Examine Asbestos ------------------------------------------------------------- Kong Meta and Yesenia Amaro, writing for The Phnom Penh Post, reported that the Cambodian Ministry of Labour announced the formation of a new working group tasked with gathering data on the precise prevalence of asbestos and its adverse effects in the Kingdom. Minister Ith Sam Heng said the group will compile data in order to prepare a national action plan and an effective prevention program on the risks of asbestos. Dr Leng Tong, director of the ministry's Department of Occupational Safety and Health, said the group will gather information on asbestos products imported to the Kingdom and how many workers fall ill due to asbestos. It will also receive training from other countries, such as Australia, which has banned the use of asbestos. Asbestos causes asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer, with construction workers facing higher risks. There are an estimated 200,000 construction workers in Cambodia, but how many have been exposed to asbestos is not yet known. "In the future, we'll have to [ban] it for the safety of the workers," Tong said. The ministry in 2015 was already working on a study that it had planned to take to the government to ask for an asbestos ban. However, Tong said the study was small and there were limited resources. Sam Heng said the ILO, WHO and civil society would also be involved. UN data show that Cambodia imported some 29 tonnes of "fabricated asbestos fibres" and "mixtures with a basis of asbestos" in 2015, while much more enters as part of pre-fabricated construction materials. Sok Kin, leader of the Building and Wood Workers Trade Union Federation of Cambodia, said his union was one of the three in the working group. He said construction workers handling asbestos often don't even have access to masks or gloves. "I hope the government will ban the import and will stop using asbestos, like other countries," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims' Group Exploring Litigation Scandals ------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Warner, writing for Huffington Post, reported that like no doubt many other ideas, the "Asbestos Double-Victims Workgroup" grew out of an after-party conversation at "The Reliable Source," the National Press Club bar, in Washington, D.C. Maybe two dozen people gathered after watching a work-in-progress screening of the Paul Johnson Films documentary "UnSettled: Inside the Strange World of Asbestos Lawsuits." Not surprisingly, like nearly everyone else in D.C. last December, we were discussing the pending Trump Era, and, more specifically, how personal injury litigation would be different, including the asbestos issues raised by the UnSettled movie. The consensus: All hell is about to break loose. To understand just how hot things might get, you might begin with a North Carolina bankruptcy case called "Garlock" that figures prominently in the film. Forbes magazine explained Garlock: A federal judge ". . . allowed Garlock to conduct discovery on 15 settled cases, and discovered plaintiff lawyers had failed to disclose evidence in all 15." Based in large part on that research, the judge reduced the potential liability for mesothelioma cases, an asbestos-caused cancer, by a billion -- with a 'B' -- dollars. Information from Garlock has already rippled through the asbestos landscape, prompting several civil racketeering lawsuits. The Garlock company has already sued some victims' firms on civil racketeering grounds, and the plaintiffs' firms settled that case. There will be more. Meanwhile last summer, The American Legion, the nation's largest veterans' advocacy organization, passed its first formal resolution supporting bankruptcy trust transparency. It recently doubled-down, passing the resolution a second time so it was valid for the new congressional session. (At this writing, the federal transparency law, called the FACT Act for "furthering asbestos claims transparency, is moving through the U.S. House of Representative and will likely pass.) In a powerful scene from UnSettled, a former American Legion national commander emotionally accuses attorneys of fraud. His concern is that plaintiffs' attorneys prompt asbestos victims to tell one story to some of the 100-or-so bankruptcy trust funds, then another in civil court cases -- exactly the problem found in Garlock. That means the funds are depleted and veterans are shortchanged. Garlock ripples have already hit the insurance industry. Several "subrogation" actions are under way, including such big-name groups as Humana, Aetna, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and even hospital networks operated by Johns Hopkins and Tufts. Those groups contend they need the names of plaintiffs who have recovered money from the trusts so they (the medical groups) can be reimbursed for medical expenses they paid to cover the illnesses related to asbestos. There are concerns that many families may not have made those payments. Perhaps worse, there are similar requirements to repay Medicaid that may have not been met. I've long worried about the "Perjury Pawns" in all this. The idea is that most victims and their families, facing death, pretty much just go along with their lawyers. There's a famous "coaching memo" that illustrates how they get coached to remember companies that are still solvent, and to ignore companies that are protected by bankruptcy -- although they might file claims against those companies as well. Which brings us back to President Trump. In UnSettled, it is noted that President Obama played golf with one of the big-name partners involved in Garlock even after the controversy surfaced, although the asbestos scandal was hardly mainstream media news. It's no secret that the plaintiff's bar funds much of the Democratic party and that Republicans tend to back the business side of the asbestos equation. There are questions: Are there opportunities for Medicaid repayment? What happens if families learn that some of their jury awards, trust payments or settlement monies should have been paid back to medical providers? Is that their fault, or their lawyer's? Of course, there are other, perhaps more straightforward, double- victims of the system. Some might even argue that insurance companies and American taxpayers are "victims" when required medical repayments are not met. And then there's California attorney Mike Lampe, himself a trial lawyer and the hero of UnSettled, who fought a case for about a decade that began with a relatively minor claim against his brother's auto dealership. Eventually, Mr. Lampe wound up working with the very family that first sued him -- and against their former asbestos-practice attorney. That led to discovery of what Lampe calls a corrupt business practice -- he thinks it's a corrupt business model and doubts it's exclusive to this one case. There is, of course, a tragic irony here. Mesothelioma, the asbestos cancer that's always fatal, can take decades to develop. Veterans who thought they had survived their service learn one day that, instead, they just had a silent wound that would claim their life a bit later. Now, the families of those folks may very well join others to find out that asbestos has, once again, remained silent until it doesn't. So to explore all this, we are forming the Asbestos Double-Victims Workgroup (AD-VWG). The National Courts Monitor, the civil litigation website where I'm publisher, will help organize initial efforts. Frankly, we actually hope that we're wrong about all this. However, with all the Garlock revelations, the civil racketeering lawsuits and all those insurance issues -- and growing interest in those Medicaid payments -- it's more likely we're just noticing the tip of a very messy iceberg. ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Danger to Public from Asbestos in Pipes ----------------------------------------------------------- Kieran O'Mahony, writing for Southern Star, reported that Irish Water has confirmed that they are not in a position to unveil a completion date for work on the removal of abestos pipes on the network between Clonakilty and Rosscarbery. 'Rosscarbery is served from the Clonakilty water supply scheme and to date EUR3.8m for the replacement of 27.2km has been approved on the Clonakilty scheme by Irish Water,' said a spokesperson. 'This includes EUR129,000 to replace almost 1km of water mains along the N71 at Cahermore, which is the main supply to Rosscarbery.' In relation to asbestos in the pipes in Rosscarbery, Irish Water said that there is no danger to the public and pointed out that asbestos is only hazardous when it is airborne (dust) and that the pipes present no hazard when the asbestos pipe is in service (wet). 'All works to replace these pipes are carried out in accordance with approved health and safety procedures for working with material containing asbestos.' An Irish Water spokesperson also added that Rosscarbery wasn't unique in having asbestos in its water pipes. 'The use of asbestos cement pipes was commonplace throughout the country until the mid 1980s and as a result a significant portion of the old watermains infrastructure comprises asbestos-cement pipes.' Cork South West Fine Gael TD Jim Daly said he was well aware of the issues with the water pipe network at Rosscarbery and that the asbestos pipe issue is a nationwide problem. 'The primary issue, however, for me is the water quality and pressure which is being delivered to the user and I want to dispel the myth that asbestos piping places any threat to public health, as this is not the case,' he told The Southern Star. 'Asbestos dust only become a threat to public health when it becomes airborne and inhaled,' said Deputy Daly. 'West Cork is receiving unprecedented investment in water infrastructure with EUR12m currently being invested in the Skibbereen water supply project and EUR5m in the Cape Clear network. The Rosscarbery area falls just outside the Skibbereen upgrade and is high priority for upcoming funding.' However, Fine Gael Senator Tim Lombard said the problems the residents of Rosscarbery are experiencing are 'totally unacceptable'. 'The supply was not available on approximately six to eight separate occasions during 2016 and on three separate instances between January 12th and 16th,' he said. 'Unfortunately for the residents of Rosscarbery, any project of this scale takes times for proper planning and preparation to be executed, but I want to assure them that I will continue to communicate with Irish Water as to ensure that this project is a priority and the issue is resolved as soon as possible.' ASBESTOS UPDATE: Redditch Schools Still Have Toxic Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------------- Liz Sharpe, writing for Redditch & Alcester Advertiser, reported that almost 20 schools in the Redditch area still contain asbestos -- despite it killing about 2,000 people in the UK every year, the Advertiser can reveal. A Freedom of Information request to Worcestershire County Council uncovered a list of 131 community schools across Worcestershire that still hold the toxic substance, not including academies. In the Redditch area, this includes: Batchley First School Beoley First School Birchensale Middle School Oak Hill First School Holyoakes Field First School Moon's Moat First School Roman Way First School Tenacres First School Woodrow First School Pitcheroak School St Luke's CE First School St Stephen's CE First School St George's CE First School Inkberrow First School Feckenham CE First School The Forge Secondary Short Stay School The Beacon Primary North East PRU The Beacon Primary North West PRU Meadow Green Primary School (Wythall) But the council has insisted that removing the material in some schools would entail demolishing the building altogether, with the only possible response to leave the danger contained in the structure. A council spokesman said: "Asbestos was formerly in common use as a building material, typically found in cement boards or sheets, roofing materials or as insulation. Asbestos, when bonded in cement, is relatively stable but becomes dangerous where it gets damaged or the fibres are disturbed. "The council has had a programme of asbestos surveys and removal, encapsulation and remediation works for many years and this is under continual review. Although the majority of friable asbestos has been dealt with there is still a legacy of asbestos in places that are difficult to access or are part of the structure of the building; removing the latter would probably entail demolition and rebuild. "It is and it remains Worcestershire County Council policy to remove asbestos materials that are likely to be damaged or disturbed and this is routinely done during major refurbishment and maintenance works." The council emphasised it is complying with asbestos regulations and claims there have been no incidents of asbestos exposure in Redditch in the last five years Asbestos-related diseases rarely show symptoms until between 25 and 50 years after the person was exposed to it. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-tippers Jailed After Dumping Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Humphries, writing for Liverpool Echo, reported that two brazen fly-tippers who dumped toxic asbestos near a dance school were jailed after the council spied on them with secret cameras. 'Man and van' team George Parry and David Smith were paid to get rid of rubbish, including building materials and an old couch -- and chose Back Broadway in Clubmoor as their dumping ground. Liverpool City Council used controversial legislation, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), to install hidden cameras -- and caught the pair red handed. Parry, 55, was jailed for 20 weeks at Liverpool Magistrates' Court after pleading guilty to four charges of depositing controlled waste on public land and banned from driving for 12 months. He has previous convictions for robbery, burglary and assault. His close pal Smith, 53, who lived with Parry in Aspes Road, West Derby, was jailed for 12 weeks after admitting the same offences. The court heard the pair dumped asbestos just a few metres from the entrance gate of Jade School for Dance at Back Broadway, an area used by children. Marie Shaw, prosecuting on behalf of the council, told the court: "There had been numerous complaints from members of the public regarding the dumping of waste in this area. "A decision was made by Liverpool City Council to monitor the area, and over the next few months waste was being deposited in the area of Back Broadway." Ms Shaw said officers investigating the incident monitored CCTV and noticed a white Ford Transit van appeared to turn down the street, behind the shops on Broadway, around the time waste was being deposited. The court heard the street was clear from around 6pm on March 17 last year, but when officers visited the area at 8pm they found bags of builder's rubble, tiles and large amounts of garden waste. Ms Shaw said the CCTV footage was checked and the suspect van was noticed turning into the street at 7.21pm. Examination of the rubbish led to the address of a couple, who told council officers they had paid a man to get rid of the waste after seeing an advert on the website Gumtree. Further investigations led to the identification of the van in the Fazakerley area, and the registration plate was passed to Merseyside Police. The pair struck again on April 25, when six bags of crumbed asbestos, asbestos roof sheeting and bags of building waste were left in the same street. Ms Shaw said the council were granted permission under the Ripa act to install hidden cameras in Back Broadway, which caught the two defendants red handed on May 23 and May 29. Over those two occasions the cameras caught Parry and Smith casually dumping a large pile of wood, building materials, fluorescent light bulbs and a large brown leather couch. The pair were eventually arrested and the van was seized and crushed. Fly tipping incident in Norris Green (Photo: Liverpool Echo) Colin Rowson, defending Parry, said his client had suffered with alcoholism and did not realise the waste contained asbestos. He said: "I don't think for one moment if either party had known what the waste consisted of, it would have been deposited." Frank Roe, defending Smith, said his client had also suffered alcohol issues and was in poor health. He said: "Things started to go wrong for him last year when his long-term partner died. He was then effectively thrown out of the home he had for quite a long time due to financial problems." Mr Roe said Smith had not driven the van, and had not led the enterprise. District Judge Andrew Shaw, passing sentence, told the pair: "Fly- tipping is a curse of modern society. "In this case, for financial gain, you dumped rubbish including crushed asbestos in a semi-residential area. You had no concern for any local residents. I'm told you didn't know what you were dumping. That is no excuse; you didn't care." A spokesman for Liverpool City Council said fly-tipping is estimated to cost the authority more than ú1 million per year. In response the council is set to double the number of mobile teams from two to four, with more emphasis on "finding and fining those responsible." Councillor Steve Munby, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, said: "Fly tipping has a huge environmental and financial cost and must be fought tooth and nail. Today's ruling is a warning to anyone thinking of fly tipping that we will always take any action we can, including destroying your vehicle." The council urges anyone with information about fly-tippers to anonymously contact Liverpool City Council's Street Scene Team on 0151 233 3001. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Being Handled by Unskilled Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ Lucy Cormack, writing for Illawara Mercury, reported that Australia's peak professional body for the painting industry has expressed serious concerns about tradespeople who have been issued qualifications to handle toxic materials without the requisite training. The National Institute of Painting and Decorating (NIPD) raised questions about the validity of painting qualifications issued by Get Qualified Australia, a vocational education provider, which was recently stripped of registration for three of its training organisations. The education consultancy assists job seekers in obtaining qualifications to recognise prior learning in a range of industries, linking them with its own training organisations and others. "I have spoken to at least three painters who obtained a Certificate III in Painting and Decorating [from GQA] and are not adequately qualified or competent," said Daniel Wurm, managing director of (NIPD). "It is a requirement that all painters who do a Certificate III in Painting are trained to identify and handle asbestos and lead paint, both of which are toxic and hazardous to the community." Mr Wurm said he had spoken with one painter on a 457 working visa who was granted recognition of prior learning, despite having limited experience. "He had received no training and did not even know what lead paint was, or how to identify asbestos," he said. "This is a tremendous risk . . . how many painters got their certificates this way?" In a telephone call to Get Qualified, Mr Wurm inquired about whether he could obtain a Certificate III in Painting and Decorating, if he had no prior experience with lead paint or asbestos and "did not know" what they were. Mr Wurm said he was told it would be no issue that he had not "dealt with lead paint" and that he would just need to "do a bit of online research . . . [to] get a bit of knowledge". A Get Qualified spokesman said it was seeking a review of its deregistration in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and did not wish to "comment publicly on matters which may come before the Tribunal." Get Qualified and its sole director Adam Wadi will appear in the Federal Court in an action brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission over alleged misleading and unconscionable conduct. Mr Wurm said he was most concerned for tradespeople "who think they are qualified...if they haven't been trained to identify asbestos, imagine what it's doing to them." He said questionable qualifications would only increase the number of unskilled painters working in the industry, a figure he believes has grown since the NSW government relaxed painting licensing laws in 2015. The changes, which industry bodies have criticised, removed licensing requirements for painting work on home interiors, including work under $5000. It prompted a coalition between the peak bodies representing employers, contractors, trainers and accredited colleges in the industry; who said they had no say in the decision. "We didn't know they were going to make those changes, we were not consulted," said Therese Lauriola, chief executive of the Master Painters Association NSW. "There is a significant risk in having unlicensed painters working on properties that contain lead and asbestos. They think they can just sand it, drill it, cut it, because they have not had the training." Ms Lauriola said the association was equally concerned about registered training organisations issuing unwarranted qualifications. "We call it 'ticking and flicking', those organisations who are giving people qualifications they really shouldn't have," she said. "It's disastrous for the industry. People think they are getting qualified painters and in some instances they are not." Ms Lauriola suggested an additional "continuing professional development" course for painters, which could ensure they were qualified in all requisite areas. A spokesman for the NSW Fair Trading said the Master Painters Association, and others, were given a lengthy period in which to contribute to the consultation process, however "no concerns were raised". "The reforms are intended to remove red tape that may unnecessarily stifle innovation and competition," he said. In the 12 months from January 2014, a total of 184 complaints were received about painting and decorating services generally. Since January 2015 Fair Trading has received 113 complaints about painting and decorating work under the $5000 threshold. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Old Maintenance Shop ------------------------------------------------------- John Bear, writing for Boulder County News, reported that Nederland officials will seek bids for professional asbestos removal services after the substance was discovered during the course of decommissioning the town's old maintenance shop. During an analysis of the shop, which was part of the town's application for obtaining a state demolition permit, asbestos was discovered in several of the buildings that make up the shop, according to a news release. The building has been sealed after an assessment by an outside contractor revealed the presence of asbestos in roofing materials, window glazing, vermiculite insulation and sink undercoating. Any material with more than 1 percent asbestos is considered to be an asbestos-containing product. The shop, located at 750 W. Fifth St., was built in 1954. The town opened its new shop on Friday. Asbestos is a fiber that was used in construction until the late 1970s, and it has been shown to cause some types of cancer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in UK Schools A Serious Problem --------------------------------------------------------- Camilla Turner, writing for The Telegraph, reported that asbestos in schools is a "serious" problem which could threaten the health of children, a Government report has found, as it concluded that thousands of schools are failing to follow safety guidelines. One fifth of schools which responded to an official survey were found to be "not fully compliant" with asbestos procedures, leaving over a million children potentially exposed to dangerous fibres. Of those, over 100 schools were deemed a "significant cause for concern" and required government intervention. The Department for Education (DfE) said it emailed those schools and received "reassurances" the asbestos is now safe. School leaders have branded the report's findings "deeply concerning", and urged the DfE to instigate a works programme that would see asbestos removed from all schools. Even low levels of exposure to asbestos fibres can cause both lung cancer, as well as cancer of the lining of the lung called mesothelioma. Most victims die within 18 months of diagnosis, but it often does not appear until around 40 years after the person first breathes in the dust. The report, published by the Education Funding Agency (EFA), found that around 20 per cent of schools were were "not fully compliant" with asbestos procedures "in that they did not have fully documented plans, processes and procedures in place at the time of the data collection, or did not know if asbestos was present." The EFA is part of the DfE and oversees funding for all schools, academies and colleges in England. A report by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that "asbestos is a significant, and potentially dangerous, issue in many buildings, including most schools". The NAO report also noted that "the department does not collate information on the number of school buildings affected". According to the National Union of Teachers, 319 teachers have died from mesothelioma since 1980. It is estimated that for every teacher's death, nine children will die, meaning over 100 people will die every year in the UK as a result of exposure when they were at school. "These results seriously call into question the DfE's fundamental assumption that asbestos can be managed safely left in situ, as clearly this is not happening in too many cases," said Chris Keates, general secretary of the teaching union NASUWT. "Asbestos is lethal. The only safe asbestos is removed asbestos. The DfE must bring forward proposals for the phased removal of all asbestos in schools without delay." A voluntary survey was sent to schools by the Government between January and March last year, but only a quarter of schools responded. This means that true number of schools who do not comply with asbestos safety procedures is likely to be far higher, as the report notes that there may be a "selection bias" towards schools that "already manage asbestos well". Asbestos is lethal. The only safe asbestos is removed asbestos. Chris Keates, general secretary of the teaching union NASUWT Ms Keates added: "It is reasonable to assume that schools who know they are not compliant would be less likely to respond, therefore the true number who are failing to comply could be substantially higher, with hundreds of schools putting pupils and teachers at risk by failing to manage asbestos effectively." Three quarters of schools contain asbestos, but the Health and Safety Executive say that it only presents a risk if it is disturbed or damaged, which risks fibres being released into the atmosphere. A report on asbestos in schools by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Occupational Health and Safety in 2012 recommended that the Government set up programme to remove asbestos from all schools. It concluded: "It is clear that, at present, there are serious deficiencies in the way that asbestos is managed in schools." A DfE spokesperson said: "The health and safety of children and staff in our schools is vital -- that's why we are investing ú23 billion in school buildings by 2021. This will help ensure asbestos is managed safely and that the amount in school buildings continues to reduce over time. "We have published updated guidance for schools on how to manage asbestos and the results of a survey which showed the majority of respondents have procedures in place. We have followed up with the schools which responded and did not have these procedures in place, and they have all provided assurances they are now compliant with Health and Safety Executive regulations." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indigenous Residents Want Health Checks -------------------------------------------------------- The National Reporting Team's Jane Bardon reported that residents in the remote Northern Territory town of Tennant Creek are calling on the NT or federal governments to offer their children health checks to determine whether they are suffering from asbestos exposure. For years the children unknowingly played in a vandalised building containing asbestos purchased by the town's largest Aboriginal corporation with Commonwealth money. Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation bought the building eight years ago with part of a $1.2 million Federal Government grant for community centres and housing. Residents now want answers about why the government didn't ensure Julalikari put the building into use, which they feel would have prevented it being vandalised and broken apart by children. "Because the structure was all smashed up into tiny bits, as you can see those bits on the ground, kids were playing in here for months and months using it as a cubby house," resident Linda Turner said. Christine Morton lives with her extended family across the road from the building, and says she is very worried that asbestos effects may show up in her grandchildren years later. "We'd like for government to come and talk to us, and what all the dangers are for us and especially for those kids that were playing in those buildings," she said. Christine Grant, who also lives nearby, says she wants her children to be tested for asbestos effects, "to give them a check up, to see how they feel, whether they're alright or not". Testing revealed other asbestos buildings The same demountable buildings sit unused on six other Tennant Creek sites, and the asbestos in them was revealed in November when residents commissioned their own laboratory tests. The NT Government's Worksafe authority only confirmed the asbestos was present, after more tests were carried out by the Asbestos Disease Support Society. "I personally was disappointed in Worksafe and I thought their response was tardy," said Tennant Creek businessman Richard Dodd. Julalikari has released a statement saying when the units were imported, "the importer assured the corporation that they didn't contain asbestos". The corporation says now that its own tests have confirmed asbestos, and that it is working with NT Worksafe to put in a series of risk control measures to protect the public and workers, including fencing off all the units. Worksafe NT has said it "is satisfied that any risk is being adequately managed". The buildings were imported from China for Julalikari by former AFL star Neville Roberts' company Rehne. In January 2016 he told the ABC: "They were recreational houses for the Julalikari Corporation down there. They're staff houses and houses for transitional children and transitional Indigenous travelling around." He has now declined to comment on the asbestos. Authorities failed residents Australian asbestos imports were banned in 2003; the Immigration Department hasn't explained why it allowed the buildings into Australia but says it is "further scrutinising the importer". "It's definitely a massive failure on behalf of Border Force, and obviously the government of the day and the ministers of the day because it shouldn't be coming in," said Andrew Ramsay from the Asbestos Disease Support Society. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has been investigating Julalikari's compliance with funding agreements, including for the demountable buildings, for three years. It has given Julalikari until March to respond to the results of its investigation, which it has refused to publish. For three years the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet told the ABC its investigation into Julalikari's compliance with funding agreements, including for the demountable buildings, was continuing. Julalikari told the ABC that rather than there having been one investigation into its compliance with funding agreements, including for the demountables, "there have been several isolated investigations, which have been resolved as they have arisen". "People are disappointed the government don't seem to react to what is a large community concern for years," Richard Dodd said. The Federal Indigenous corporations watchdog ORIC moved on Julalikari, putting it into administration for six months, saying its ability to respond to governance and operational matters had been compromised by community disputes. Julalikari has hit back, saying it "provided ORIC with a comprehensive response that addressed all of its concerns, and made a compelling case against the need to appoint a special administrator". Julalikari labels ORIC's claims 'baseless' Julalikari's response to ORIC was provided to the ABC on Sunday. In it Julalikari has particularly rejected the "most serious findings (of impropriety and lack of due care and diligence)" as being "baseless". The Corporation has outright rejected some findings, including that a majority of its directors were employees. "Presently five of Julalikari's directors are employees of the corporation.. . . the Act . . . is breached if seven or more directors are also employees." Julalikari said other findings, including that it had "failed to properly monitor and manage" the remote jobs Community Development Program, had been resolved. "PM&C did raise concerns to the corporation with respect to the delivery of the CDP program in 2015 and early 2016 . . . all concerns were met and finalised and the corporation's performance is now consistently sound." Julalikari said the finding that "insufficient staff were engaged to deliver certain programs and this was contributing to poor program outcomes in some" is "an issue which has been rectified". It accepted some findings, including that not all of its directors are from corporation-member communities, and that "all cheques, withdrawal forms and other banking documents are not signed by at least two directors". "The Corporation has a comprehensive financial delegation policy which delegates the powers of the board in respect of approving purchases (up to $250,000) to members of senior management and the financial department," it said. "It is from a pragmatic perspective anomalous that directors must approve each individual transaction on a case-by-case basis." Julalikari also accused ORIC of listening too enthusiastically to criticisms from Tennant Creek people, including service station owner Richard Dodd, who is involved in a dispute with the Corporation over their joint business partnership. "I don't blame any one particular body of government, I think the whole lot of them should have got off their backsides and done something a hell of a lot earlier than this," Andrew Ramsay said. Resident Christine Morton says the government action against Julalikari is too late to make much difference to people who now have a horrible wait to see whether they will suffer asbestos effects. "Ever since I heard about it, I can't stop thinking about it. All the time, especially for the kids," she said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Forced Couple Out of Apartment -------------------------------------------------------- Isabel Vincent, writing for New York Post, reported that an Upper East Side couple has had to live apart for two years after creeping toxic dust from a neighbor's gut renovation forced them out of their $2 million apartment, a lawsuit claims. Edward and Marisa Greason each moved in with an elderly parent in December 2014 after they found their Sutton Place apartment covered in asbestos and lead-paint dust. Alarmed by the carcinogenic powder, they grabbed what they could and fled. They've been couch-surfing ever since. "All our Christmas ornaments from 2014 are still in the living room," Edward Greason, 57, told The Post. "It's been a strain. We are living in overnight bags in two separate places." Greason, an attorney, has ordered six scientific tests of the dust particles, which continue to invade the apartment from air vents. and through cracks caused by their upstairs neighbor's renovation, he claims. The tests show the presence of asbestos, and levels of lead 80 times the federal allowable limit, said Greason. Contaminated dust around the kitchen door frameAngel Chevrestt Their two-bedroom apartment has been "rendered uninhabitable" and caused the couple "severe emotional distress," according to legal papers filed by the Greasons against upstairs neighbor Mary Cunningham, the co-op board, architect Jim Thomas, and the construction company Global Group Industries Corp. involved in the six-month renovation. Workmen gutted Cunningham's apartment, tearing down walls and ripping up floors that exposed asbestos-wrapped pipes and lead paint in the old parquet floors, according to court papers. They failed to cover work areas with " plastic sheeting," court papers say. And while the co-op board did spring for an initial clean-up and attempted to seal the exposed cracks and vents, the dust continued to rain down on the Greasons' kitchen and bathrooms, the lawsuit says. At one point, a member of the board told Greason that he was overreacting, and should just wipe off the dust with a wet towel. To add to their woes, the board took them to court to demand the two years' of maintenance payments, which total more than $40,000 that the Greasons had put into an escrow account to pressure the board to pay for cleaning and repairs. But their mortgage lender paid out the maintenance, leaving the Greasons little financial leverage against the co-op board. The Greasons are asking a judge to force the defendants to pay for a thorough environmental clean up of their home, and seek unspecified damages for forcing them out of their home. A spokesperson for the building told The Post, "We dispute strenuously any environmental problems in our building. We point out that plaintiffs started this lawsuit months ago and have not pushed it forward, which to us is some indication of its lack of strength." Calls to Cunningham and the construction company were not returned. Thomas, the architect, had no comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remediation Keeps Tenants Away -------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Dedyna, writing for Times Colonist, reported that scores of tenants displaced from an apartment building in James Bay will likely be out of their units for a month, according to the company doing asbestos-related remediation at the site. Pinchin West is continuing work to meet Island Health safety requirements, and tenants have been told the company expects re- occupancy approval, tenant Paul Mitchell told the Times Colonist. Tenants from about 60 units in Charter House at 435 Michigan St. were moved to the Doubletree Hotel at the end of January after elevated levels of asbestos were detected in settled dust samples. Residents were initially told they would likely be out of their units for two weeks. They will not be allowed back until Island Health signs off on asbestos test results. Hotel accommodations paid for by Starlight Property Holdings Inc., which owns the 1960s building and several others in Victoria, will continue, with rents in abeyance until tenants return. Mitchell said he finds living in a single hotel room without a kitchen tiresome, although he's been provided with $200 for food per week. It's the second delay in the return of the residents. "What I believe this indicates is that Island Health is holding them to a much higher standard of testing than, for example, the very quick testing that was done when my suite was contaminated in September," Mitchell said. A renovation crew voluntarily stopped work in December. The building was also the subject of two WorkSafe B.C. stop-work orders last year. The orders involved compliance and health and safety issues regarding asbestos surveys, containment and ventilation. "The violations were small disturbances of asbestos and each employer complied with the orders and the stop-works were lifted," said Trish Chernecki of WorkSafe B.C. The agency considers any level of disturbed airborne asbestos hazardous to workers. NDP MLA Carole James said she cannot find any requirement that tenants be informed of asbestos in their living quarters. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dump Spilling Toxic Asbestos on to Bray Beach -------------------------------------------------------------- Tim O'Brien, writing for The Irish Times, reported that an exposed dump is spilling toxic asbestos on to a beach in Bray, Co Wicklow -- and may contain more then twice the volume of waste as thought. For decades the former Bray Urban Council dumped municipal waste on the site north of the harbour, most of which is actually in Co Dublin, making it now the responsibility of D£n Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. In September 2005, after the environmental group Coastwatch reported the dump had begun falling into the sea, an assessment carried out by Wicklow County Council estimated the waste could amount to as much as 48,000 cubic metres in volume. The assessment concluded that the main environmental impact of the former landfill was limited to the visual intrusion of the exposed waste within the cliff face on the coastline, and at the top of the cliff. However, a report by environmental consultants Fehily Timoney for D£n Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and delivered last December found that the dump contains more then 104,000 cubic metres of waste, including broken asbestos tiles, and features excessive levels of ammoniacal nitrogen, potassium and manganese in the groundwater. The report concluded that the depth of waste in the landfill was 8.7m at the northern end of the site and noted that erosion of the clay walls has exposed a 200m stretch of the former landfill. It said contents are spilling onto the beach and being washed away by the sea. Cameras to monitor what waste is being placed in green bins Green bin waste returned from Rotterdam due to contamination Poolbeg incinerator to fire up after 20 years of opposition The report said asbestos-containing materials have also been identified at the coastal breach area in the southern portion of the site in recent years. The issue was raised in the D†il on January 25th by Wicklow TD John Brady of Sinn FÇin. In response, Minister for Climate Change and Environment Denis Naughten, said a management plan to contain the waste was being drawn up. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Killed by Asbestos-related Disease ------------------------------------------------------- The Suffolk Free Press reported that a Hadleigh man, who died from an asbestos-related disease, was first exposed to the material after being called up for National Service, an inquest heard. John Gant, 82, died at his home in Woodthorpe Close on September 26. On February 13, an inquest in Ipswich heard that, after working in the building trade, Mr Gant had, as a young man, been called up for National Service. It was while working as a motor vehicle mechanic that he was first exposed to asbestos dust from components containing the material. Assistant Suffolk coroner Kevin McCarthy said that, after ending his military service, Mr Gant had continued to work as a mechanic. Doctors confirmed last year that Mr Gant was suffering from the fatal condition mesothelioma, which is linked to asbestos exposure. Mr McCarthy recorded a conclusion that Mr Gant died as a result of an industrial disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Rejects Speculative Evidence ---------------------------------------------------------- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, in an article for JD Supra Business Advisor, wrote that in a new wave of asbestos-related personal injury litigation, plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to talc-containing products that were possibly contaminated with asbestos. A line of recent California court decisions may, however, signal a sea change in the type of proof that is required for plaintiffs in such cases to avoid summary judgment. Applying the settled principle in California that the "mere possibility" of exposure to asbestos does not raise a triable issue of fact, three separate trial court judges granted summary judgment to talc defendants. See DePree v. BASF Catalysts LLC, No. RG12659674, 2013 WL 8103815, at *1-3 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda Cnty. Oct. 12, 2013); Unterleitner v. BASF Catalysts LLC, No. RG15778755 at 4 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda Cnty. February 3, 2016); Fields v. Ford Motor Co., No. RG15754936 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda Cnty., Aug. 2, 2015). The first of these trial court decisions, Depree v. BASF Catalysts, was recently affirmed on appeal. In Traditional Asbestos Litigation, Defendants Typically Prevailed on Summary Judgment Only Where the Plaintiff Failed to Provide Product Identification. In the first wave of asbestos-related personal injury litigation, the plaintiffs' bar targeted companies as defendants that mined and distributed raw asbestos fibers and companies that designed, made and sold products that intentionally incorporated asbestos to resist heat or bind other materials. Epidemiology studies demonstrated that certain occupationally exposed cohorts--such as insulators and pipefitters--were suffering asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma, at alarmingly high rates. In this first wave of asbestos litigation, the defendants did not dispute that products they intentionally designed to contain asbestos were "defective." The plaintiffs were, therefore, able to get to a jury simply by identifying an asbestos-containing product from which they claimed they were exposed to visible dust. Once Companies Began Making and Selling a Non-Asbestos-Containing Variant of the Same Products That Previously Incorporated Asbestos, California Courts Required Plaintiffs to Do More than Merely Identify a Product by Name to Avoid Summary Judgment. As the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos became widely known, most companies that designed, made and sold traditional asbestos-containing products, like insulation and gaskets, began producing another variant of the same product that no longer contained asbestos as a component. In cases where a plaintiff sued a company that was responsible for making and selling both asbestos-containing and non-asbestos containing variants of the same products, courts concluded that the plaintiff was required to do more than simply identify the product by name and allege exposure to visible dust from that product to get to a jury. In a series of four California Court of Appeal decisions, the Courts uniformly held that a plaintiff cannot avoid summary judgment with evidence of exposure to a product where only some, but not all, of the products in the accused product line asbestos. See Collin v. Calportland Company (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 582, 595 (affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant that made asbestos-containing and non-asbestos-containing versions of a product, because plaintiff could not "present evidence that would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find [it] more likely than not that" the plaintiff was exposed to the asbestos-containing variant."); Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1078 (evidence that some, but not all, of a product contains asbestos insufficient to defeat summary judgment because such evidence establishes only a "possibility" that the plaintiff was exposed to the asbestos-containing variant); McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1105 ("[e]vidence that creates a dwindling stream of probabilities that narrow into conjecture" cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment.); Casey v. Perini Corp. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1237 ("Mere speculation or conjecture about exposure to asbestos . . . is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact to preclude summary judgment."). Thus, where the evidence adduced demonstrated a "mere possibility" of exposure to asbestos, the claims failed as a matter of law. Applying Settled California Law to the New Wave of Asbestos- Related Personal Injury Litigation Involving Talc-Containing Products, Claims Involving the Mere Possibility of Exposure to Asbestos from Contaminated Talc Also Fail as a Matter of Law. In a new wave of litigation filed against companies that mine, process and distribute raw talc and companies that design, make and sell consumer products that contain talc, none of the products at issue was formulated to contain asbestos. Instead, plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to products that contained talc and that talc was occasionally and sporadically contaminated with asbestos. Because such products were never designed to include asbestos as an ingredient, and because not every, or even most, of the talc- containing products were contaminated with asbestos, multiple courts have required the plaintiff to do more than merely identify a talc product by name and claim exposure to visible dust from that product to get to a jury. Absent direct evidence that one or more of the talc-containing product containers used by the plaintiff were actually contaminated with asbestos, or circumstantial evidence that all, or at least most, of the accused talc-containing products were contaminated with asbestos, a jury could not conclude that a talc company was responsible for the plaintiff's asbestos-related disease without impermissibly resorting to conjecture and surmise. Under California law, courts have begun finding that such claims fail as a matter of law. For example, in DePree v. BASF Catalysts LLC, No. A140681, 2016 WL 1039497 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016) (unreported), the plaintiffs alleged that Plaintiff John Depree had developed mesothelioma from exposure to an auto body filler product called Bondo. The product was formulated to contain 20 to 40% talc but no asbestos as an ingredient. Id. at *1-2. Relying on the opinions of a geology expert, the plaintiffs claimed that the talc used in Bondo was contaminated with asbestos. Id. at *3, *8-10. However, plaintiffs could not present evidence that any can of Bondo actually used by Mr. Depree contained asbestos, or that any talc shipped to defendant ever contained asbestos. The court recognized: "The question before us is not whether plaintiffs produced evidence from which a jury could conclude Mr. DePree was exposed to Bondo containing Emtal talc. Instead, the question is whether plaintiffs produced evidence from which a jury could conclude--without speculating--that Mr. DePree was exposed to Bondo containing asbestos-contaminated Emtal talc." Id. at *11 (emphasis in original). Relying on established California case law the court held: "In the absence of evidence that all or even most of the talc was contaminated with asbestos, plaintiffs could show only a possibility of asbestos exposure," and "such a possibility is insufficient to support a finding in plaintiffs' favor on the issue of causation." Id. at *1. The court emphasized that "at best" the evidence before the trial could have permitted an inference that "some" of the talc at issue contained asbestos and it was "possible" plaintiff was exposed to a can or cans of Bondo containing asbestos-contaminated talc. Id. at *12 (emphasis in original). Consistent with the quartet of California Court of Appeal decisions involving products where only some variants contained asbestos, the possibility of exposure to asbestos from a talc-containing product is insufficient as a matter of law to create a disputed issue of material fact. The DePree decision also comports with California case law concerning exposure to other materials that were allegedly contaminated, rather than formulated, with a toxin. For example, in Miranda v. Bomel Const. Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 1326, the plaintiff alleged that he contracted "Valley Fever" from contaminated soil stockpiled in the defendant's vacant lot next to his office. Id. at 1328. The trial court granted summary judgment because the plaintiff had no evidence that his disease was caused by contaminated soil on the defendant's lot as opposed to another source and because the plaintiff had presented no evidence that the soil on the defendant's lot was actually contaminated. Id. at 1337, 1344. In affirming the trial court's decision, the Court of Appeal observed that cases involving exposure by contamination must be distinguished from cases involving exposure to products intentionally designed to contain asbestos where defendants "acknowledge the products under their control contained asbestos." Id. at 1339. The Court of Appeal concluded that in a contamination case, the plaintiff must prove the specific product or substance to which she was exposed actually contained the disease-producing toxin. Conclusion. Under California law, where there is no direct evidence of asbestos in the product the plaintiff actually used, a plaintiff cannot defeat summary judgment merely by showing that some, but not all, of a defendant's product contained asbestos. The recent application of this law to the novel issue of exposure to talc-containing products is an important--and logical-- development. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Victim's Family Settle Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reported that the family of a Melbourne man who died of asbestos-related cancer has reached an out-of-court settlement with the operators of the notorious Wunderlich factory. Wunderlich operators Seltsam Pty Ltd and the family of Samual Azzopardi, who died of mesothelioma in February 2016, settled out of court a day after his widow's suit against the company began in the Victorian Supreme Court. Maurice Blackburn asbestos lawyer Victoria Keays would not reveal details about the settlement but said the Azzopardi family is glad to finalise the matter. "The Azzopardi family, including his wife Theresa and their four children, is pleased to have this matter behind them," she wrote in a statement to AAP. Mr Azzopardi was aged 69 when he died of cancer allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos as a child. Mr Azzopardi's father, Charlie, would come home covered in dust and fibres from his job at Wunderlich. The work involved cutting open bags of raw fibres, Michael Wilson QC told a Victorian Supreme Court on Monday. His father worked at the factory between the 1950s and 1970s. The court also heard Mr Azzopardi was allegedly exposed to asbestos a second time when he used concrete sheets purchased from Wunderlich to renovate his parents' bungalow. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Stadium Bleachers ---------------------------------------------------- Nikki Dotson Merritt, writing for The Herald-Dispatch, reported that the Wayne County Board of Education revealed during a meeting that paint used on the Ward-Craycraft stadium bleachers contains asbestos. Interim Superintendent Steven Paine said there is no cause for concern from the community, although this is a bump in the road to either refurbishing the bleachers or tearing them down. "The bleachers are in fact safe, so no one needs to panic, they are in a good state," he said. "However, there is a procedure to either abate or encapsulate the asbestos." Paine said he wants to let everyone involved know he and the board are supportive of the restoration of the bleachers, but there has to be a procedure followed. "When you get into asbestos, things can get tricky," he said. "Anytime we have members of the community who are passionate about a cause, we want to capitalize on that and support them, but there are procedures that will have to be followed." Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral fiber that was used in numerous building materials and vehicle products for its strength and ability to resist heat and corrosion before its dangerous health effects were discovered. Asbestos is a known human carcinogen and can cause chronic lung disease as well as lung and other cancers. Symptoms and/or cancer may take many years to develop following exposure. Exposure is hazardous due to unknowingly inhaling fibers trapping them in the lungs. If swallowed, they can become embedded into the digestive tract as well. Paine also explained that not only is removing or sealing the substance tedious, disposing of the material is complicated because only certain landfills accept the waste. There is also a large price tag on the process, ranging upwards of $30,000 for complete removal. Board members will receive a bid on the price, and will take steps from there to ensure community safety. Perhaps the biggest roadblock is the inability to open the newly constructed Ceredo-Kenova Elementary School without properly handling the asbestos situation. "The fact is we are in a different realm on that project now," Paine said. "But, we will do whatever is needed to ensure the safety of the community and to ensure that beautiful new school is safely opened." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victoria Company Sued Over Asbestos Death ---------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Le, writing for the Australian Associated Press, reported that the family of a Melbourne man who died from mesothelioma is suing the operators of the former Wunderlich cement factory where his father used to work. Samual Azzopardi was 69 when he died in February 2016 after developing the disease allegedly caused by his exposure to asbestos as a child. His father is said to have come home covered in dust and fibres from his job at Wunderlich. Mr Azzopardi was allegedly exposed to asbestos a second time when he used concrete sheets purchased from Wunderlich to renovate his parents' bungalow, Michael Wilson QC told a Victorian Supreme Court on Monday. "There is no issue in this case that what caused his death is mesothelioma," Mr Wilson said in his opening statement before a jury of six. Mr Wilson said between the 1950s and 1970s, Mr Azzopardi's father, Charlie, would come home covered in dust and fibres from his job at Wunderlich, which involved cutting open bags of raw fibres. "Charlie was working in a dusty environment," he said. "He would bring home the fibres on his work clothes ... and he would come into the family home and contaminate the furnishings in the house. "Sam was a young boy at this stage." Mr Azzopardi senior also brought home off-cuts from Wunderlich that his children touched. "Sam's brothers and sisters played with these off-cuts," Mr Wilson said. "They picked them up, used them as chalk and would have contact with these broken up concrete sheets." But there's also a second period of exposure that could have caused Mr Azzopardi's mesothelioma, which was not diagnosed until a month before he died. After getting married in 1969, Mr Azzopardi used concrete sheets from Wunderlich to renovate his parents' bungalow so that he and his wife, Theresa, could live there. "In the process of extending the bungalow and renovating it, Sam handled these sheets, cut them with a power saw," Mr Wilson said. "It was a very dusty process." His widow is suing Wunderlich operators Seltsam Pty Ltd for loss and damages that their alleged negligence caused her husband's estate. Mrs Azzopardi is also claiming loss and damages as a dependent of her husband. The trial before Justice Rita Zammit will resume on Tuesday. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Still Facing Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Dynamics Corporation faces or may face possible asbestos- related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "...[V]arious claims and legal proceedings incidental to the normal course of business are pending or threatened against us. These other matters relate to such issues as government investigations and claims, the protection of the environment, asbestos-related claims and employee-related matters. The nature of litigation is such that we cannot predict the outcome of these other matters. However, based on information currently available, we believe any potential liabilities in these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows." General Dynamics Corp. operates as an aerospace and defense company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Faces Asbestosis Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corporation faces occupational claims, including asbestosis, by former or retired employees, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Occupational claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory diseases, as well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive motion) are often not caused by a specific accident or event but rather allegedly result from a claimed exposure over time. Many such claims are being asserted by former or retired employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail industry for decades. The independent actuarial firm provides an estimate of the occupational claims liability based upon our history of claim filings, severity, payments, and other pertinent facts. The liability is dependent upon judgments the company makes as to the specific case reserves as well as judgments of the actuarial firm in the quarterly studies. The actuarial firm's estimate of ultimate loss includes a provision for those claims that have been incurred but not reported. This provision is derived by analyzing industry data and projecting our experience. The Compay adjusts the liability quarterly based upon our assessment and the results of the study. However, it is possible that the recorded liability may not be adequate to cover the future payment of claims. Adjustments to the recorded liability are reflected in operating expenses in the periods in which such adjustments become known. Norfolk Southern Corporation is a transporation company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Has 11,700 Cases at Dec. 30 --------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt public limited company faces approximately 11,700 asbestos-related cases as of December 30, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the transition period from October 1, 2016, to December 30, 2016. Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of December 30, 2016, there were approximately 11,700 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. Mallinckrodt public limited company develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes branded and generic specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PCC Has $439MM Litigation Liability at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Pittsburgh Corning Corporation had $439 million total asbestos litigation liability as of December 31, 2016, according to Corning Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned 50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC"). PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000 and the Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan") became effective in April 2016. At December 31, 2015, the Company's liability under the Plan was estimated to be $528 million. At December 31, 2016, this estimated liability was $290 million, due to the Company's contribution, in the second quarter of 2016, of its equity interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. in the total amount of $238 million, as required by the Plan. Corning recognized a gain of $56 million in the second quarter of 2016 in the selling, general and administrative expenses line of the Company's Consolidated Statements of Income for the difference between the fair value of the asbestos litigation liability and carrying value of the investment. This gain includes the release of foreign translation losses in the amount of $25 million reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income. The remaining $290 million liability is for the series of fixed payments required by the Plan. At December 31, 2016, the total amount of the payments due in years 2018 through 2022 is $220 million and is classified as a non-current liability. The remaining $70 million payment due in the second quarter of 2017 is classified as a current liability because it is expected to be made within the next twelve months. Corning Incorporated is a global technology-based company. The Company produces optical fiber, cable, and photonic components for the telecommunications industry, as well as manufactures glass panels, funnels, liquid crystal display glass and projection video lens assemblies for the information display industry. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Still Faces Non-PCC Asbestos Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Corning Inc. is a defendant in certain cases alleging injuries from asbestos unrelated to Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (the "non-PCC asbestos claims"), according to Corning Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, " Corning is a defendant in certain cases alleging injuries from asbestos unrelated to PCC (the "non-PCC asbestos claims") which had been stayed pending the confirmation of the Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC. The stay was lifted on August 25, 2016. Corning previously established a $150 million reserve for these non-PCC asbestos claims. The estimated reserve represents the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees. The amount may need to be adjusted in future periods as more data becomes available; however, the Company cannot estimate any lesser or greater liabilities at this time." Corning Incorporated is a global technology-based company. The Company produces optical fiber, cable, and photonic components for the telecommunications industry, as well as manufactures glass panels, funnels, liquid crystal display glass and projection video lens assemblies for the information display industry. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Faces 680 Asbestos Cases at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- WestRock Company faces approximately 680 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, as of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "As with numerous other large industrial companies, we have been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant. As of December 31, 2016, there were approximately 680 lawsuits. We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims. We have valid defenses to these claims and intend to continue to defend them vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we could incur significant costs resolving these cases. We believe that the resolution of pending litigation and proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material effect on our results of operations." WestRock Company is in the packaging business. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 64,400 Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company faces 64,400 claims relating to alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in products at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "We are currently one of numerous defendants in legal proceedings in certain state and Federal courts involving approximately 64,400 claimants at December 31, 2016 relating to their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in products allegedly manufactured by us or asbestos materials present at our facilities. We manufactured, among other things, rubber coated asbestos sheet gasket materials from 1914 through 1973 and aircraft brake assemblies containing asbestos materials prior to 1987. Some of the claimants are independent contractors or their employees who allege exposure to asbestos while working at certain of our facilities. It is expected that in a substantial portion of these cases there will be no evidence of exposure to a Goodyear manufactured product containing asbestos or asbestos in our facilities. The amount expended by us and our insurers on defense and claim resolution was approximately $20 million during 2016. The plaintiffs in the pending cases allege that they were exposed to asbestos and, as a result of such exposure, suffer from various respiratory diseases, including in some cases mesothelioma and lung cancer. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and other relief." The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells tires and related products and services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Liability Totals $316MM at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded liabilities totaling $316 million, including related legal fees expected to be incurred, for potential product liability and other tort claims, including asbestos claims, at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "General and product liability and other litigation liabilities are recorded based on management's assessment that a loss arising from these matters is probable. If the loss can be reasonably estimated, we record the amount of the estimated loss. If the loss is estimated within a range and no point within the range is more probable than another, we record the minimum amount in the range. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters is assessed and the estimates are revised, if necessary. Loss ranges are based upon the specific facts of each claim or class of claims and are determined after review by counsel. Court rulings on our cases or similar cases may impact our assessment of the probability and our estimate of the loss, which may have an impact on our reported results of operations, financial position and liquidity. We record receivables for insurance recoveries related to our litigation claims when it is probable that we will receive reimbursement from the insurer. "Specifically, we are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in Federal and state courts. "In determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten year period. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or changed circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and that increase may be significant. We had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted asbestos claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $171 million at December 31, 2016. "We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. We record a receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a particular recovery. This determination is based on consultation with our outside legal counsel and taking into consideration agreements with certain of our insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors. "As of December 31, 2016, we recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $123 million, and we expect that approximately 70% of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance through the period covered by the estimated liability. Of this amount, $12 million was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at December 31, 2016. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers. Although we believe these amounts are collectible under primary and certain excess policies today, future disputes with insurers could result in significant charges to operations. "General and product liability (income) expense - discontinued products includes charges for claims against us related primarily to asbestos personal injury claims, net of probable insurance recoveries. General and product liability (income) expense - discontinued products for the year ended December 31, 2016 includes a benefit of $24 million for the recovery of past costs from certain asbestos insurers and a benefit of $10 million related to changes in assumptions for probable insurance recoveries for asbestos claims in future periods. General and product liability (income) expense - discontinued products for the year ended December 31, 2015 included a benefit of $25 million for the recovery of past costs from one of our asbestos insurers and a benefit of $21 million related to changes in assumptions for probable insurance recoveries for asbestos claims in future periods. The 2015 benefits were partially offset by an $8 million increase in the net asbestos liability based on updated assumptions for defense and indemnity costs in future periods based on historical cost data and trends." The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells tires and related products and services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Resolved 122,700 Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company disposed of approximately 122,700 claims alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and Federal courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 122,700 claims by defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately $517 million and $497 million through December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. A summary of recent approximate asbestos claims activity is available at: https://is.gd/jWAWzs "Because claims are often filed and disposed of by dismissal or settlement in large numbers, the amount and timing of settlements and the number of open claims during a particular period can fluctuate significantly. "We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $171 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015. In determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten year period. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or changed circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and that increase may be significant. "We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a particular recovery. "We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $123 million at December 31, 2016 and $117 million at December 31, 2015. We expect that approximately 70% of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during the period covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $12 million was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at both December 31, 2016 and 2015. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary carriers and excess insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers. "We believe that, at December 31, 2016, we had approximately $430 million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place agreements. We also had additional unsettled excess level policy limits potentially applicable to such costs. We had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements. "We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims, and the receivable for recoveries from insurance carriers recorded in respect of these claims, reflects reasonable and probable estimates of these amounts. The estimate of the assets and liabilities related to pending and expected future asbestos claims and insurance recoveries is subject to numerous uncertainties, including, but not limited to, changes in: -- the litigation environment, -- Federal and state law governing the compensation of asbestos claimants, -- recoverability of receivables due to potential insolvency of carriers, -- our approach to defending and resolving claims, and -- the level of payments made to claimants from other sources, including other defendants and 524(g) trusts. "As a result, with respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by us." The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells tires and related products and services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $156MM Liability at Dec31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International Plc has $156 million estimated asbestos related net liability as of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. As of December 31, 2016, the Company's estimated asbestos related net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's consolidated statements of financial position is $156 million. The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial position is comprised of a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $544 million, of which $35 million is recorded in other current liabilities and $509 million is recorded in other noncurrent liabilities. The Company also maintains separate cash, investments and receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated statements of financial position of $388 million, of which $42 million is recorded in other current assets, and $346 million is recorded in other noncurrent assets. Assets include $32 million of cash and $252 million of investments, which have all been designated as restricted. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such recoveries recorded at December 31, 2016 is $104 million. As of September 30, 2016, the Company's estimated asbestos related net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's consolidated statements of financial position is $148 million. The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial position is comprised of a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs of $548 million, of which $35 million is recorded in other current liabilities and $513 million is recorded in other noncurrent liabilities. The Company also maintains separate cash, investments and receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated statements of financial position of $400 million, of which $41 million is recorded in other current assets, and $359 million is recorded in other noncurrent assets. Assets include $16 million of cash and $264 million of investments, which have all been designated as restricted. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such recoveries recorded at September 30, 2016 is $120 million. The Company believes that the asbestos related liabilities and insurance related receivables recorded as of December 31, 2016 and September 30, 2016 are appropriate. The Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed and is discounted to present value from 2069 (which is the Company's reasonable best estimate of the actuarially determined time period through which asbestos-related claims will be filed against Company affiliates). Asbestos related defense costs are included in the asbestos liability. The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. The Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made through 2069. Annually, the Company assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability for pending and future claims and defense costs by evaluating actual experience regarding claims filed, settled and dismissed, and amounts paid in settlements. In addition to claims and settlement experience, the Company considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, and the Company's defense strategy. The Company also evaluates the recoverability of its insurance receivable on an annual basis. The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs or insurance receivable is warranted. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results. Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified technology and multi industrial company worldwide. ********* 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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2017. 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 * * *