/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170915.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 15, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 183 Headlines ACCOUNT SERVICES COLLECTIONS: Faces "Gillespie" Suit in N.D. Tex. AIC COMMUNICATIONS: St. Louis Judge Awards $32.4MM in Lawsuit ALVARADO MANUFACTURING: Faces "Valladares" Suit over Data Theft AMAZON.COM INC: Sued over Defective Eclipse Glasses AMERICAN AIRLINES: Must Face Retired Flight Attendants' Suit ANTHEM INC: Feb. 2018 Final Hearing to Approve $115-Mil. Accord BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Mortgage Loan Officers, Boswell Says BB&T CORPORATION: Court Certifies ERISA Class in "Sims" Suit BRASSELER USA: Orrington's Bid to Certify Denied w/o Prejudice BROOKDALE SENIOR: Sued For Poor Care of Elderly BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Clark's Bid for Class Cert. BURNS NATIONAL: Cunningham Sues over Repossession of Vehicle CANADA: Plaintiffs in 5 National Class Suits Team Up vs AF CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Lugo" Suit in District of New Jersey CENTRAL FUMIGATION DEPARTMENT: Faces "Morales" Wage-and-Hour Suit CITGO PETROLEUM: Settles TCPA Class Action CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fernandez Sues over Collection Practices COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Waldrup Moves for Certification of Class CREDENCE RESOURCE: Koch Says Debt Collection Unlawful CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS: Unlawfully Collects Debts, Dominguez Says CURLY'S FOODS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit With Workers DELAWARE NORTH ISLANDIA: Faces "Sofia" Suit in E.D. New York DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Garnett Suit over Food Stamp Program DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Garnett Seeks Certification of Two Classes DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Siddiqi's Bid to Certify Entered and Continued ENHANCED RECOVERY: Tachera Sues over Debt Collection Practices ENVOY AIR: Schroeder' Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission EQUIFAX: 2 Oregon Residents File Class Action Over Negligence EQUIFAX: AG Schneiderman Issues Statement on Arbitration Clause EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Hadjimarkos" Suit in W. Dist. of Wisconsin EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bahnmaier" Suit in N.D. of Oklahoma EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Cole" Suit in Massachusetts FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Veytsman" Suit in S.D. New York FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Overtime Pay Miscalculated, Preston et al. Say FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Emissions Defect Suit FRONTLINE ASSET: Collection Practices Unfair, "Ferreira" Claims FUTURE INCOME: Faces "Underwood" Suit in C. Dist. Cal. GALIZ RESEARCH: Violates Labor Laws, "Gomez" Suit Claims GRANT COUNTY, IN: Timbs Seeks to Certify Class of Car Owners H & M HENNES & MAURITZ: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York HEARTLAND HEALTHCARE: Rangel and Romano Sue over ERISA Breach HOUSTON, TX: Law Against Homeless Blocked Temporarily ILLINOIS, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Rutherford" Suit ILLINOIS, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Sundling" Suit INDIANA: Judge Says Civil Forfeiture of Vehicles Illegal INDIANAPOLIS, IN: Faces "Young" Suit over Homeless' Rights JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces "Alatortev" Suit in N.D. California KREISLER MANUFACTURING: Bid to Dismiss "Kahn" Granted LAMB WESTON: "Albright" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri Court LIBERTY MUTUAL: Lopez Moves to Certify Class of Claims Handlers LLEWELLYN PHILLIP: Car Wash Workers Underpaid, "Joseph" Suit Says LMCHH PCP: Kusnick and Delaney Appeal in WARN Act Suit LYCHEE HOUSE: "Dai" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage and OT Pay M3 USA CORP: Comprehensive Health Amends Bid to Certify TCPA Class MARYLAND: Dismissal CP Violation Claims Affirmed MAURY COBB: Faces "Palacios" Suit in District of New Jersey MCDONALDS CORP: Class Suits Filed over Illinois Soda Tax MIDAS PROPERTY: Underpays Construction Workers, "Reyes" Suit Says NATIONS RECOVERY CENTER: Faces "Gomez" Suit over Debt Collection NEBRASKA: Corrections Department Sued over Overcrowding in Jails NESTLE: Poland Spring Water "a Colossal Fraud," Patane Suit Says NY EDUCATION DEPT: Doesn't Pay OT to Custodians, Fernandes Says OTTER PRODUCTS: iPhone Waterproof Case Doesn't Work, Aikman Says PANDORA MEDIA: Fails to Pay Indie Musicians, "Cupolo" Suit Says PELLA CORP: "Opalka" Suit over Defective Windows Moved to D. S.C. PETMED EXPRESS: October 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set PFIZER: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Lipitor & Effexor Antitrust Claims POCATELLO, ID: State Supreme Court Ruling Could Cost Millions PPI INC: Underpays Poker Dealers, "Rosenberg" Suit Claims QUARTER AT A TIME: Faces "Watson" Suit in California QUINTIS: Hit With CA Over Losses of More than $120 Million QUORN FOODS: Agrees to Change Labels to Reveal Main Ingredient RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL: "Vigueras" Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. RESURGENT CAPITAL: Unlawfully Collects Debt, "Burgos" Claims RIVAS METALS DESIGN: Faces "Arroyo" Wage-and-Hour Suit RUBY TEQUILA: Hot With Class Action Over Back Wages SAN JACINTO, TX: Potts Law Firm Sues on Behalf of Flood Victims SHAMROCK FOODS: Faces "Ruiz" Suit in Central District California SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Faces Suit over NJ Superfund Site Cleanup SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Faces Suits over Mayweather-McGregor Fight SNA CONCRETE: Faces "Fabre" Suit in E.D. of New York SNY LEE: Barajas et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay SOTHEBYS HOLDINGS: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York SPOKEO INC: Must Defend Against Class Suit, 9th Cir. Says STATE FARM: Mitchell Moves for Certification of Liability Class SUGAR FACTORY: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. of New York TACO CHIC: Corvalan Seeks to Certify Class of Servers Under FLSA TACO CHIC: Corvalan Seeks to Certify Servers Class Under Rule 23 TOKYO ELECTRIC: Army Exposed to Radiation, "Burbach" Suit Says TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Lacks Standing to Collect Debts, Jackson Says UBER TECH: Mejia Sues in Florida over Ban on Guns UBER TECH: Embedded Terms of Service Link Valid, 2nd Cir. Says UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: 8th Circ. Won't Revive $350M Insurance Feud UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Copibec Launches Class Action VERIZON: 9th Cir. Revives Suit over Collection of Personal Data VERIZON: Customers Can Sue Ad Company Over "Zombie" Cookies VOLKSWAGEN: Files Motion to Dismiss 4 Appeals in TDI Settlement WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration for Overdraft Fees Suits WINN-DIXIE STORES: Reply to "Magee" Suit Due Sept. 18 * Cy Pres Only Settlement Can Work in Privacy Class Action Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goldberg Nabs Segal McCambridge Toxic Tort Team ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-NJ Justice Says No Impropriety as Master ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Urged to Rethink Excess Coverage Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Massachusetts Co. Fined for Asbestos Violation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Blames Asbestos for Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Asbestos Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. App. Upholds $9MM Mesothelioma Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Wins $13MM Judgment in Mesothelioma Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Serial Sydney Asbestos Dumper Faces New Charges ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues CBS, et al., Over Failure to Warn ASBESTOS UPDATE: TOSHA Fines GPS for Asbestos Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Asbestos Found at Shopping Center ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman May Have Been Exposed During Construction ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Unaffected by Ambient Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure Puts Six School Staff at Risk ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Asbestos Superfund Site Gets $1.7MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA Mine Workers' Mesothelioma Cases Undiagnosed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man's Lung Cancer Caused by 4520 Corp. Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Death Prompts Search for Co-Workers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Claims St. Louis-based Cos. Failed to Warn ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Urges Summary Judgment for Foster ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Urges Partial Summary Ruling for JCI ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Wins Summary Judgment in "Kivell" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Allied Fluid Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Siemens Industry Junked ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Honeywell Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Armstrong Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Baldor Electric Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. M. Slayen Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Parker-Hannifin Dismissed ********* ACCOUNT SERVICES COLLECTIONS: Faces "Gillespie" Suit in N.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Services Collections Inc. The case is titled as Era Gillespie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Account Services Collections Inc, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02144-D, (N.D. Tex., August 14, 2017). The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to Judge Sidney A Fitzwater.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Crosland Law Seth, Esq. CROSLAND LAW FIRM, PLLC 1848 Norwood Plaza, Suite 205B Hurst, TX 76054 Telephone: (972) 591-6919 Facsimile: (972) 804-0713 Email: seth@croslandlawfirm.com - and - Ari Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com AIC COMMUNICATIONS: St. Louis Judge Awards $32.4MM in Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Patrick, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that federal judge on September 7 awarded $32.4 million to a St. Louis County couple and 3.2 million others who improperly received robocalls in 2012. U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber could have awarded $1.6 billion, or $500 per call, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, but wrote "the amount of damages prescribed by the statute are so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionate to the offense and obviously unreasonable." Webber wrote in his ruling that the $32 million penalty, or $10 per call, "reflects the severity of the offense" and one of the purposes of the TCPA -- to have a "deterrent effect and to account for unquantifiable losses including the invasions of privacy, unwanted interruptions and disruptions at home, and the wasted time spent answering unwanted solicitation calls or unwanted voice messages." The calls went out to promote the "Last Ounce of Courage," a movie about "faith, family and freedom" that opened Sept. 14, 2012. More than 3.2 million of the calls violated the act by going to people who had not consented to the calls, Webber has ruled. Ron and Dorit Golan, of St. Louis County, received two calls that went to voicemail. They are on the Do Not Call registry. They sued in 2012 and came to represent the class of call recipients. Webber ruled during a trial in U.S. District Court in St. Louis last month that Gabriel Joseph III, of Virginia, and his affiliated companies had violated the act, but withheld a ruling on damages. Those companies, AIC Communications LLC and Freeeats.com Inc., do business as ccAdvertising. A jury then found in favor of James R. Leininger, a billionaire Texas doctor, philanthropist and Republican donor who is a part owner of the San Antonio Spurs. Leininger sank $10 million into the marketing of the movie, part of which went to fund the robocall campaign, but jurors found that Leininger did not have the necessary control over the robocall campaign to be held liable for it. Former presidential candidate and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was the voice of the campaign, and testified during the trial that he did not talk to Leininger about it. Huckabee had been dismissed from the suit long before his testimony. At an Aug. 29 hearing, lawyer Teresa Young, Esq. suggested a penalty of 10 cents per call. Joseph believed he had consent to call the households in the campaign and had never had a TCPA violation or complaint, Young told Webber. He also believed that there was 45 seconds of political information "before you ever got to a commercial," meaning the movie promotion. She also said Joseph's two companies were unlikely to have any money, as they are going out of business. Golan lawyer Kevin Carnie Jr. responded that Webber did not have discretion to reduce the $500 per call award, citing other similar court cases. He said the actual harm was not pertinent to the issue, but the greater harm to the public of the proliferation of millions and millions of robocalls. "This practice has to be made unaffordable," he told Webber. Carnie, by phone on September 7, said that he was "pleased" with the verdict. But he also said that the plaintiffs would appeal both Webber's reduction of the $500 per call penalty in the TCPA and jury instructions during the trial concerning Leininger's role in the campaign. "We believe that he personally participated in and authorized the telephone campaign," Carnie said. Young could not immediately be reached for comment. [GN] ALVARADO MANUFACTURING: Faces "Valladares" Suit over Data Theft --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in a federal lawsuit in Chicago, that Alvarado Manufacturing's "intelligent admission control" turnstile system violates Illinois law by collecting fingerprints and other biometric identifiers without consent. The case is captioned, BENITO VALLADARES, individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ALVARADO MANUFACTURING CO., INC., a California corporation, Defendant. Case: 1:17-cv-06052 (N.D. Ill. August 18, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class: Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. William P.N. Kingston, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com eturin@mcgpc.com wkingston@mcgpc.com AMAZON.COM INC: Sued over Defective Eclipse Glasses --------------------------------------------------- Ellen Robinson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in a federal class action in Charleston, S.C., two South Carolinians claim they were partially blinded by watching the Great American Eclipse through defective Solar Eclipse Glasses they bought from Amazon.com. In their August 29 lawsuit, Thomas Corey Payne and Kayla Harris say Amazon did not notify them that the eclipse glasses it sold them were defective. Now, they say, they suffer from central blind spots, impaired vision, discomfort and dizziness. Amazon bought 10 million of the 37 million Solar Eclipse Glasses manufactured by American Paper Optics, according to a July 7 USA Today story cited in the complaint. Two days before the Aug. 21 eclipse, Amazon issued an email warning about the glasses. But Payne, who bought a three-pack of the glasses on Aug. 1, says that Amazon's "email 'recall' was tragically too little, too late." American Paper Optics is not a party to the lawsuit. "(M)any Eclipse Glasses sold by Amazon were sold in packs of 3 and 20, and distributed to individuals who never received a warning email," the complaint states. "Notwithstanding Amazon's woefully inadequate email notification, any and all users of Eclipse Glasses were subjected to unreasonable and foreseeable risks of severe and permanent eye injury due to the negligence of Amazon." Payne and Harris seek class certification and damages. They do not know what size the class may be, but says it can be found through discovery of Amazon's sales records. The total eclipse of Aug. 21 was one of the most viewed in history. Nearly half of America's 323 million people watched it in some way, 20 million of them from the area of totality, according to the lawsuit. Looking directly at the sun can permanently damage the retina and can cause blindness called solar retinopathy. Eclipses are particularly dangerous because the infrared radiation continues, but the pupils of the eye do not contract, due to the darkness. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists reported that symptoms typically show up approximately 12 hours after the viewing event, including blurred vision, central blind spot in one or both eyes, increased sensitivity to light, distorted vision and changes in perception of color, according to the complaint. Short-term issues may include solar keratitis, similar to sunburn on the cornea, which can cause eye pain or light sensitivity within 24 hours. Amazon did not respond to a request comment. Payne and Harris are represented by James Ward Jr., with McGowan, Hood & Felder, in Mt. Pleasant, S.C. In addition to class certification, they seek restitution, an injunction and damages for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, negligent failure to warn, deceptive trade and consumer law violations. The case is captioned, THOMAS COREY PAYNE, and KAYLA HARRIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS, V. AMAZON.COM, INC., DEFENDANT. Case No. 2:17-cv- 02313-PMD (D. S.C.). The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ward Jr., Esq. MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC 321 Wingo Way, Suite 103 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 388-7202 E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com - and - Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq. Ashton Rose Smith, Esq. JONES WARD PLC The Pointe 1205 E. Washington St., Suite 111 Louisville, KN 40206 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 Facsimile: (502) 587-2007 E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com ashton@jonesward.com - and - Steven W. Teppler, Esq. ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A. 2929 Plummer Cove Road Jacksonville, FL 32223 Telephone: (904) 292-1111 Facsimile: (904) 292-1220 E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com - and - Kevin S. Hannon, Esq. THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC 1641 Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 861-8800 Facsimile: (303) 861-8855 E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com - and - Jean Sutton Martin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC 2018 Eastwood Road Suite 225 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 292-6676 E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Must Face Retired Flight Attendants' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Glynis Farrell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Chicago, will allow 16 retired flight attendants to pursue class action claims that they are continually booted from flights after American Airlines unjustifiably downgraded their travel benefits. Cher Thompson et al. say American promised that flight attendants would have the same priority boarding status after retiring from the airline. According to company policy contained in American's Trip Book and published regulations, "a retiree continues to have the same classification of travel in retirement as the employee had immediately prior to retirement," U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman wrote in her on August 16, Opinion and Order. The retired flight attendants say American regularly approached employees to accept early retirement and separation packages in exchange for the same travel benefits they had while employed. They say American also promised retirees that its 2013 merger with US Airways would not affect their post-retirement travel benefits. But as a result of a 2014 downgrade in their lifetime boarding status after the merger, the class claims "they have been routinely and regularly been bumped from flights and have been unable to travel." They say American's Trip Book is a valid and enforceable contract that assures them lifetime flight benefits, and that they relied on the company's promises when accepting early retirement. "The Trip Book contains clear enough language that employees and retirees meeting certain eligibility requirements would believe an offer has been made for them to receive specific travel benefits," Coleman wrote. She found American may have breached the retirees' employment contracts by altering benefits after guaranteeing them for life in the Trip Book and in two letters sent in 2008 by the company's vice president of employee relations to the Association of Professional Flight Attendants. The letters contain language assuring employees who volunteer to retire early that their travel privileges would not change, according to the second amended complaint. Coleman also gave the former flight attendants the green light to pursue allegations of negligent misrepresentation against American, based on claims that certain provisions in the Trip Book do not allow the company to modify their benefits or the meaning of "for life." ANTHEM INC: Feb. 2018 Final Hearing to Approve $115-Mil. Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the largest settlement ever of claims stemming from a data breach received tentative approval from a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., on August 25. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted preliminary approval of a $115 million settlement between health insurance giant Anthem and the 79 million people whose data was compromised after a criminal hacker broke into the company's servers and stole millions of health records. "The court finds that the settlement agreement appears to be the result of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations conducted with the assistance of former U.S. District Judge Layn R. Phillips over the course of nearly three months," Koh wrote in her ruling granting preliminary approval. The lynchpin of the settlement is a requirement that Anthem set up a $115 million fund to help consumers affected by the data breach to pay for at least two years of credit-monitoring services to identify possible identity theft and fraud. "By settling now, the class is able to take advantage of remedies that, as a practical matter, would be unavailable or worth substantially less by the time this case could be litigated to a final judgment," said Eve Cervantez, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. Along with the settlement fund for those who want to enlist credit-monitoring services, the agreement requires Anthem to spend an undisclosed amount to beef up its cybersecurity. While the amount is under seal, court documents indicate Anthem will spend three times more on cybersecurity than what it spent before the breach. The breach, which the company announced in February 2015, resulted in the theft of identifying information of about 79 million people. That information included names, dates of birth, social security numbers and health IDs, leading to widespread concerns that criminals could sell the data on the black market and use it for identity theft and other crimes. Most credit-monitoring services cost anywhere from $9 to $20 per month, but due to the ability to buy the service in bulk, plaintiffs will be able to get cheaper rates, according to court documents. Those who want to retain current credit-monitoring services, or pay for the one of their choosing will be allowed to pursue alternative compensation that could amount to $50 per class member. Additionally, a separate $15 million fund will be established to pay for out-of-pocket expenses of those affected by the breach of their private data, the settlement says. "The court further observes that the settlement agreement is the product of more than two years of litigation, including two rounds of motions to dismiss, extensive fact and expert discovery, and briefing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the parties' motions to exclude expert testimony," Koh wrote. After Anthem announced the breach in 2015, more than 100 lawsuits were filed in various state and federal courts throughout the country, all of which were consolidated in the Northern District of California with Koh presiding over the litigation. While the claims might have diverged slightly from case to case, the premise was uniform: Anthem's cybersecurity efforts were insufficient. "Plaintiffs' case depends, above all, on proving their allegations that the data breach was possible only because Anthem had aggregated 80 million people's private information into a central data warehouse that was not properly secured," the plaintiffs said in their motion for preliminary settlement. The criminal hack is widely thought to have originated in China, but the Chinese government has loudly denied such allegations. A hearing on the final settlement is slated to take place at the federal courthouse in San Jose on Feb. 1, 2018. BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Mortgage Loan Officers, Boswell Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua B. Boswell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America and National Association, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-06120-GW-RAO, (C.D. Cal., August 17, 2017), seeks restitution of unpaid overtime, unpaid commissions, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid rest periods, damages and penalties. The plaintiff was employed from August 2015 until January 2017 as a Mortgage Loan Officer of the defendant. He worked from an office and routinely worked 60 hours a week or more and was paid mostly on a commission basis without overtime premium pursuant to the terms of the Bank of America Retail MLO Sales Incentive Plan. The Plaintiff also alleges illegal forfeiture of wages earned in California in relation to unpaid commissions earned at the time of termination. The Plaintiff also says paychecks are paid as a draw or loan and not paid free and clear. Bank of America is a Delaware corporation doing business as a bank, mortgage lender and financial institution nationwide and within the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, CA 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 BB&T CORPORATION: Court Certifies ERISA Class in "Sims" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Catherine C. Eagles grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned ROBERT SIMS, et al. v. BB&T CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:15-CV-732 (M.D.N.C.). The class is defined as: All current and former participants and beneficiaries of the [Plan] from January 1, 2007 through the date of judgment, who were injured by the conduct alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, excluding the Defendants. The Plaintiffs are current or former participants in the BB&T Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan. They contend that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to the plan in connection with fees and investment options. They assert that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan by causing the Plan to incur excessive administrative and investment fees, providing imprudent investment fund options, failing to appropriately monitor Plan fiduciaries, and engaging in prohibited transactions. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ipEuGWaa BRASSELER USA: Orrington's Bid to Certify Denied w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo denied without prejudice to renewal if mediation is unsuccessful the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled James L. Orrington, II, D.D.S., P.C. v. Brasseler U.S.A. Dental, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00956 (N.D. Ill.). A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ugca6bbn BROOKDALE SENIOR: Sued For Poor Care of Elderly ----------------------------------------------- Barbara Feder Ostrov, writing for California Health Line, reports that twenty residents of an assisted living complex in Palm Springs, Calif., missed their medications in a single day because no medical technician was on duty. A woman in a Paso Robles home for seniors pushed her emergency call button after falling in her room and waited 22 hours on the floor with broken bones until staff members responded. A class-action lawsuit filed last month in a federal district court in Northern California details those incidents and other similar ones, which allegedly occurred in facilities owned by Brookdale Senior Living, the nation's largest assisted living provider. The complaint alleges that inadequate staffing, poor worker training and rising fees are part of a "callous and profit-driven approach" that has had "devastating" consequences for Californians living in Brookdale assisted living homes. Residents, it claims, "are left without assistance for hours after falling, they are given the wrong medications, they are denied clean clothing, showers, and nutritious food, and they are left in their own waste for long periods of time." Relatives of the seniors involved in the lawsuit declined to comment. The California Assisted Living Association, an industry group, also declined to comment. Brookdale spokeswoman Heather Hunter said in an email that the lawsuit is "without merit" and the company will defend itself "vigorously." Tennessee-based Brookdale, which operates 1,121 facilities serving about 100,000 patients in 47 states, has encountered similar complaints elsewhere in the country. A class-action lawsuit filed earlier this year in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., alleges that the company does not adequately staff its assisted living facilities and is not providing the care it promises residents. The plaintiff in that lawsuit, Gloria Runton, claimed the Brookdale home where she lives had assured her she would get personal care services based on an assessment of her individual needs, but that as those needs grew over time, the level of her care did not increase. At the same time, Brookdale nearly tripled her fees, she alleges. The California lawsuit, believed to be the first class-action claim against an assisted living company under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), was filed on behalf of four people currently residing in assisted living homes that Brookdale operates in the state. If the judge certifies the case as a class- action suit, the outcome could affect all residents of Brookdale assisted living facilities in California. The lawsuit cites not only the federal disabilities law but also several California statutes, including ones that protect against unfair business practices and financial abuse of elders. Because the goal is to win the case, good lawyers often file a number of claims, said Stephen Rosenbaum, a lecturer at the University of California-Berkeley's law school and a directing attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance, which is not involved in the lawsuit. "Whether the ADA is the strongest claim is unclear from a strategic standpoint," he said. Rosenbaum said case law has not established exactly how the federal disability law applies to assisted living facilities. It is "ironic" that the attorneys in this case are using the disability law to sue Brookdale, given that the company by definition serves people with some kind of disability, he said. The California lawsuit alleges that some of Brookdale's facilities don't meet federal and state accessibility standards. Some of their bathrooms can't accommodate wheelchairs, and the company doesn't have an evacuation or emergency plan for disabled residents, the suit claims. Of the four plaintiffs named in the complaint, three require wheelchairs. If the case is certified as a class-action lawsuit under the ADA, that would be "big news," said William Goren, a Decatur, Ga.-based attorney and consultant who helps clients comply with the law. That's because of the nature of the law itself, he said. The ADA is designed to address the disabled as individuals whose disabilities can be accommodated in different ways, Goren said. But a class-action lawsuit requires the "class" of plaintiffs to show that they've been injured in the same way. "It's very, very unusual that you could go in and get a class- action certified under the ADA," Goren said. "It can happen, but not often." In California, Brookdale Senior Living runs 89 homes and serves up to 5,000 patients, offering various combinations of independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing. In 2014, the company acquired another large assisted living provider, Emeritus, which expanded its presence in California. But the $2.8 billion deal left publicly traded Brookdale with significant staff turnover, declining occupancy and a shaky stock price. A Chinese real estate conglomerate's recent bid to buy the company reportedly has stalled, creating more uncertainty for Brookdale and the people living in its senior homes. Residents of Brookdale's assisted living facilities don't require the kind of specialized medical care provided in skilled nursing facilities, but they may need help bathing, using the toilet, taking medications, eating or walking. Some residents need walkers or wheelchairs, while others have mild cognitive impairments or dementia. Seniors who require less care and can cook their own meals often choose independent living homes, which Brookdale also operates. Like many assisted living companies, Brookdale typically charges monthly room and board fees, plus separate charges for additional care, such as help with medications. Its average monthly rate for assisted living, including rent, food and some personal care services, is about $4,000, according to the company's website. Both the California and Florida lawsuits claim that to keep its occupancy levels up, Brookdale accepted assisted living residents who might have required higher levels of care, then failed to provide enough staff to meet their needs. The consequences of leaving residents unsupervised can be severe. In one case, a wheelchair-bound resident of the Brookdale assisted living facility in Elk Grove, Calif., rolled herself out an open door and fell off a curb, breaking her neck, according to an investigation by the California Department of Social Services, which regulates assisted living facilities. The April 2 incident merited a civil penalty, still to be determined, according to the agency's investigator. That episode was not mentioned in the lawsuit. Tony Chicotel, a staff attorney at California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, which is not involved in the suit, said inadequate staffing is a problem at many assisted living facilities. Assisted living salespeople tell seniors they can meet all their current and future needs, Chicotel said. "But . . . the facility will only staff based on revenue they're getting . . . at least at the big facilities." The bottom line, he said, is that residents "don't get the care they need." [GN] BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Clark's Bid for Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered a memorandum opinion and order in the lawsuit captioned ELIZABETH CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BUMBO INTERNATIONAL TRUST, Case No. 1:15-cv-02725 (N.D. Ill.): -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and -- granting the Defendant's motion for leave to file a surreply. A status hearing was set for September 14, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. The putative class action is brought against Bumbo for statutory consumer fraud and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff, Elizabeth Clark, an Illinois citizen, alleges that Bumbo deceptively marketed and advertised its Bumbo floor seat for babies stating, among other things, that the floor seat stabilizes the child into slight hip flexion, placing the pelvis in a slight anterior pelvic tilt which facilitates lumbar extension. Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of "[a]ll consumers in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia who visited www.bumbo.com and subsequently purchased the Bumbo Floor Seat within the applicable statute of limitations of the respective Class States, for personal use until the date Defendant removed the quote from www.bumbo.com " Judge Alonso opines that the Plaintiff's treatment of the predominance requirement is superficial, and the Court agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff fails to meet her burden under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pTlOzi0g BURNS NATIONAL: Cunningham Sues over Repossession of Vehicle ------------------------------------------------------------ JELANI CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BURNS NATIONAL, LLC and DOES 1 through 30, Case No. BC671846, (Cal. Sup. Ct., August 14, 2017), seeks damages and penalties for violations of California's Collateral Recovery Act and Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff purchased a 2015 KIA Optima pursuant to a retail installment sale contract with the contract of dealership assigned to Flagship Credit Acceptance, LLC. As an incident to the contract, Flagship Credit Acceptance, LLC hired Burns National as an independent contractor to locate and repossess the vehicle and in turn Burns National hired Motion Repossessors, Inc., as its agent to conduct the physical taking of the vehicle. According to the complaint, although Motion Repossessors, Inc. is a licensed California repossession agency, it had no dealings with Flagship Credit Acceptance. Motion Repossessors took possession of the Plaintiff's vehicle on behalf of Burns National. The plaintiff paid $1,590 to Flagship to reinstate his contract and get the vehicle back. A portion of the paid amount by the Plaintiff was paid by Flagship to Burns National for repossession fees while Burns National paid a portion of it to Motion Repossessors. Burns National retained a profit remaining from the repossession fee and it was not permitted to do as an unlicensed repossession agency in California, the complaint says. The defendant is an unlicensed vehicle repossessor and who wrongfully deprived the plaintiff and other similarly situated persons of their possession of their vehicles by repossessing them without any present right to do so. Defendant's business acts and practices constitute fraudulent business practices that are likely to deceive the public and affected consumers. Defendant's use of such deception may preclude consumers from exercising legal rights to which they are entitled.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Block, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. BLOCK 433 North Camden Drive, Suite 600 Telephone: (310) 887-1440 Facsimile: (310) 496-1420 Email: brandon@bblocklaw.com - and - Alexander B. Trueblood, Esq. TRUEBLOOD LAW FIRM 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 443-4139 Facsimile: (310) 943-2255 CANADA: Plaintiffs in 5 National Class Suits Team Up vs AF ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in five separate class actions have agreed to work together to take Canada to court seeking policy changes and redress for systemic sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination in the Canadian Armed Forces. The class actions were filed in Ottawa, Toronto, Quebec City, Halifax, and Victoria. Now that all five plaintiffs have agreed to combine their resources to work together, current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces truly have "coast to coast" representation. Controversy over the Canadian Armed Forces' procedures and programs in relation to sexual harassment and sexual assault has intensified in recent years. Statistics Canada reported in November 2016 that 4.8% of women in the Canadian Armed Forces had reported being sexually assaulted in the past 12 months. Among those serving in the Primary Reserve, 8.2% of female members reported to having been victims of sexual assault in the past 12 months. Finally, more than one-quarter (27.3%) of women reported having been victims of sexual assault at least once since joining the Canadian Armed Forces. In order to address these issues, class actions were filed across Canada seeking change on behalf of those who endured sexual assault, harassment, and gender-based discrimination in the Canadian Armed Forces. Now, the plaintiffs in these class actions have entered into an agreement to prosecute the cases together. The plaintiffs in class actions are represented by Koskie Minsky LLP in Toronto, Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l. in Ottawa, Quessy Henry St-Hilaire, avocats in Quebec City, Wagners - - A Serious Injury Law Firm, in Halifax, and Acheson Sweeney Foley Sahota LLP in Victoria. The class action filed in Victoria, British Columbia, was the most recent lawsuit to join the consortium. "The Statistics Canada numbers are staggering," said Nicola Peffers, the plaintiff in that class action. "Among working Canadians, 0.9% reported being victims of sexual assault in any situation. Why are the numbers almost five to ten times higher in the military? How many victims must there be in order for Canada to take action?" The motions for certification, which will decide if the cases can proceed as class actions will be heard in the Federal Court the week of July 9, 2018. Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost class action, pension, trade union, and litigation firms. Its class actions group has been a leader in class actions since 1992 and has prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area. Koskie Minsky LLP was counsel to the survivors of former residents of Huronia Regional Centre and 14 other residential facilities for people with disabilities against the Province of Ontario, wherein the Province agreed to pay survivors over $103.6 million and to provide an apology to former residents for the harm they sustained. Koskie Minsky LLP was also counsel in Cloud v. Canada, the first Indian residential schools class action certified in Canada, which resulted in a $4 billion pan-Canadian settlement. Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l., is an Ottawa- based law firm specializing in labour/employment, human rights, and public law, with involvement in class action litigation. RavenLaw has extensive experience in addressing systemic gender- based discrimination. The firm was counsel in the historic $3.2 billion pay equity win for federal public service employees, the $150 million pay equity award against Canada Post at the Supreme Court of Canada, and numerous other pay equity cases, including most recently the $45 million pay equity settlement at Statistical Survey Operations. RavenLaw has been appointed as amicus curiae by the Supreme Court of Canada and has argued leading cases in the area of human rights and constitutional law. Wagners, based in Halifax, is a leading class actions firm in Atlantic Canada and has been involved in class action litigation on a local and national basis since 2004. Wagners acts as class counsel representing plaintiffs in a diverse array of provincial and national class actions involving pharmaceuticals, defective medical devices, pathology errors, product liability, privacy breaches, institutional abuse and environmental contamination. In the realm of institutional abuse class actions, Wagners successfully represented former residents of the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children concerning decades of abuse in a class action that settled for $34 million. Wagners also currently represents former students who suffered sexual, physical, and emotional abuse while attending province-run Schools for the Deaf. Quessy Henry St.-Hilaire, avocats, based in Quebec City, serves diverse clientele in many practice areas, including insurance, administrative law and corporate law. The cooperation and the complementarity skills of the independent lawyers at Quessy Henry St.-Hilaire, avocats allow clients to benefit from their collective experience. Acheson Sweeney Foley Sahota LLP is a leading Victoria-based personal injury and class action law firm. For more than 35 years, Acheson Law has represented individuals who have been harmed by motor vehicle collisions, slip and falls, medical negligence, defective products, and rights violations. Lawyers from the firm contributed to drafting the BC Class Procedures Act, and filed the first two class action lawsuits in the province. The firm has continually achieved top results for plaintiffs in individual and class actions, including a $50,000,000 class action settlement for persons injured by silicone gel breast implants, and a $13,000,000 individual settlement in 2012, which at that time was 1.5 times the previous high for the province of British Columbia. [GN] CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Lugo" Suit in District of New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management Services. The case is titled as Wendy Lugo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Capital Management Services LP, LVNV Funding LLC and Jone Does 1 to 25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06204-SDW-LDW, (D.N.J., August 16, 2017). The case is assigned to Judge Susan D. Wigenton.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com CENTRAL FUMIGATION DEPARTMENT: Faces "Morales" Wage-and-Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Alfonso Ventura Morales, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. Central Fumigation Department, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and Roberto Rivera, the Defendants, Case No. 60487145, (Fla. Cir., August 16, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and or minimum wages including liquidates damages, declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants Central Fumigation Department and its corporate officer Roberto Rivera allegedly committed violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages. The plaintiff's complaint states that he was employed with the defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately 2012 through on or about February 2, 2016. The defendants failed to compensate the plaintiff the required overtime and or minimum wages at a rate of one and a half times the plaintiff's regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours within a single work week. Plaintiff states that during his employment, he performed approximate 50 hours of overtime for which the defendants failed to pay. An approximately $24,187.50 in unpaid unliquidated overtime wages plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages is owed to the plaintiff. Further, the defendant never posted any notice to inform the employees of their federal rights to overtime and or minimum wages as required by the FLSA and Federal law.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rember, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com CITGO PETROLEUM: Settles TCPA Class Action ------------------------------------------ An $8 million settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit claiming that CITGO Petroleum Corporation ("CITGO") sent text messages to wireless telephone numbers without consent of the recipients in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. CITGO denies the allegations in the lawsuit and the Court has not decided who is right. The Settlement includes all persons in the United States who received one or more text messages sent by or on behalf of CITGO in August, October and November 2016. CITGO has agreed to pay $8 million to create a fund that will be used to pay individuals who submit valid Claims, attorneys' fees, a Service Award to the Class Representative, and costs and expenses of the litigation. CITGO has also agreed to pay up to $300,000 of Settlement Administration and Notice Administration costs. The cash payments from the Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Settlement Class members who submit a valid Claim. Only one Claim is allowed per Settlement Class Member. Class Members can get a payment by filing a Claim Form online at www.citgoTCPAsettlement.com or downloading a Claim Form from the Settlement website, completing it, and submitting it via email to claimsubmission@citgoTCPAsettlement.com or by U.S. mail to the Claims Administrator at CITGO TCPA Settlement Administrator, PO Box 3967, Portland, OR 97208-3967. You may also call the Claims Administrator at 888-457-6608 to request a Claim Form. The deadline to file a Claim online or via email is 11:59 p.m. CST on December 14, 2017. If you send in a Claim Form by regular mail, it must be postmarked on or before December 14, 2017. Class Members who do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, must exclude themselves by October 30, 2017. Class Members who do not exclude themselves, will release any claims they may have, as more fully described in the Settlement Agreement, available at the Settlement website. Class Members may object to the Settlement by October 30, 2017, by timely and strictly complying with the objection procedures detailed in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Long Form Notice available at www.citgoTCPAsettlement.com explains how to exclude or object. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on November 29, 2017 to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund and for a Service Award of $5,000 to the Class Representative. Class Members may appear at the hearing, either by themselves or through an attorney, but don't have to. [GN] CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fernandez Sues over Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yves Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., Galaxy Portfolios LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv.06276-SDW-SCM, (D.N.J., August 19, 2017), contends that the defendants' policy and practice to send written communication to collect debt is false, deceptive, misleading, threatening, unfair or unconscionable, and falsely represents the character or amount of debt. The Plaintiff seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees and expenses for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The class action stems from the financial obligation entered by the Plaintiff with Washington Mutual which was purchased by Galaxy and later referred to Convergent when the obligation was past due. A letter was sent to the plaintiff in connection with the collection of the WaMu obligation. However, the letter did not itemize or breakdown the amount of the debt by principal, interest, fees and other charges. Further, Convergent has not held and did not obtain a license under authority of the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act and New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act authorizing it to make consumer loans, or to buy, discount or endorse notes or receive interest. Galaxy is prohibited from attempting to collect on the WaMu obligation since it is without the appropriate license.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Waldrup Moves for Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Waldrup, Williams, Reaster and Murphy ask the Court to certify for class treatment the action styled BARBARA WALDRUP, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-08833-CAS-AGR (C.D. Cal.), which is consolidated with ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, BECKIE REASTER, REBECCA MURPHY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-04166-CAS-AGR. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives and appoint their counsel as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on December 4, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. Copies of the Notices of Motion in both cases are available at no charge at: * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fITzClu8 * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1Um0N7PM The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Alberstone, Esq. Roland Tellis, Esq. Mark Pifko, Esq. Evan Zucker, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com rtellis@baronbudd.com mpifko@baronbudd.com ezucker@baronbudd.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com - and - Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com CREDENCE RESOURCE: Koch Says Debt Collection Unlawful ----------------------------------------------------- Barbara A. Koch, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Credence Resource Management LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01981-JSM-AEP, (M.D. Fla., August 21, 2017), seeks damages and to enjoin the defendant over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff alleges the defendant utilized an automatic telephone dialing system to place telephone calls to plaintiff's cellular telephone number without consent, and engaged in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse the plaintiff in connection with the collection of consumer debts. Defendant did so by repeatedly dialing the plaintiff's cellular telephone number for the purpose of attempting to collect a debt that the plaintiff did not owe. As a result of the violations of the defendant, the plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Credence Resource Management is a debt collection company based in Dallas, Texas.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com Email: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 322-3912 Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS: Unlawfully Collects Debts, Dominguez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Dominguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc., Allgate Financial LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-06277-KSH-CLW, (D.N.J., August 19, 2017), seeks damages for the defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The plaintiff entered into a financial obligation to GE Capital which obligation was in default and purchased by Allgate Financial. Allgate Financial then referred the GE Capital obligation to Credit Corp. As a consequence, a letter of collection was caused to be delivered to the plaintiff in connection with the GE Capital debt. However, the collection letter did not itemize or breakdown the amount of the debt by principal, interest, fees and other charges. Credit Corp also has not held and did not obtain a license issued by the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act and New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance. The complaint contends that the defendants' policy and practice to send written communication is false, deceptive, misleading, threatening, unfair or unconscionable and falsely represents the character or amount of debt. The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated consumers state they suffered damages and other harm as a direct result of the defendants' actions, conduct, omissions and violations of the FDCPA.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com CURLY'S FOODS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit With Workers -------------------------------------------------------- KTiv reports that a settlement has been reached between a Sioux City company, and its workers, who said the company didn't pay them for the time it took to put on, and take off, their protective clothing. Court documents show Curly's Foods, and its parent company Smithfield Foods, have agreed to pay $5,000 to each of the five named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit. The rest of the $625,000 settlement is to be paid to another 460 class members, who worked at the plant in the past, or work there now. Curly's Foods Sioux City production facility produces cooked meats for many national restaurants and grocery stores. [GN] DELAWARE NORTH ISLANDIA: Faces "Sofia" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delaware North Islandia Properties LLC. The case is titled as Daniel M. Sofia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Delaware North Islandia Properties LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04898-ADS-AYS, (E.D.N.Y., August 21, 2017). The case is assigned to Judge Arthur D. Spatt.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C. 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Telephone: (516) 783-9662 Facsimile: (646) 435-4376 Email: James@civilrightsNY.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces Garnett Suit over Food Stamp Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- Britain Eikin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that low-income residents sued the District of Columbia in a federal class action in Washington, on August 28, claiming problems in its food stamp program leave them hungry and without vital assistance to feed their families. Lead plaintiff Shonice Garnett, three others and safety-net nonprofit Bread for the City say the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services is slow to process applications, to notify recipients when it's time to recertify their eligibility, or to give them a hearing before revoking their benefits, all in violation of federal law. The Department of Human Services and its director Laura Zeilinger oversee the federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program aka SNAP, or food stamps. Problems in administering the program were exacerbated when the city rolled out a new computer program last year before conducting a live pilot study, and despite warnings about the risks of doing so, the complaint states. In a March report this year, the Food and Nutrition Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned the D.C. Human Services about proceeding with the new system, saying it could result in "reduced program access, worker backlogs, delayed application processing, and untimely benefit issuance," according to the 30- page lawsuit. Chinh Q. Le, lead counsel with the Legal Aid Society in Washington, said that's exactly what happened. "We're finding that our clients are having to go to the agency two, three, four, five times to straighten out issues," Le said in an interview. "They're getting the runaround because our clients are met with long lines and confused workers who can't find their records, saying that they either didn't apply or don't have a record of their application." The National Center for Law and Economic Justice in New York and attorneys from Washington-based Hogan Lovells joined the Legal Aid Society as co-counsel. Under the new system, the time needed for Human Services to process applications more than quadrupled, from 20 to 90 minutes. The agency was late in processing nearly 70 percent of applications between October and December last year. And more than 90 percent of the expedited applications for those in dire need were approved late, according to the complaint. According to federal law, eligible families and individuals should get food stamps within 30 days of submitting their applications. If benefits are reduced or eliminated, the city must notify residents beforehand so they may reapply or appeal. When benefits are improperly cut off or processed late, Le said, his clients must find another way to squeak by. "One of the challenges of even getting folks to step up and serve as plaintiffs is that they have so many more pressing needs and challenges to try to get food on the table for themselves and their families," he said. Some of the Legal Aid Society's clients are homeless and unemployed, including lead plaintiff Garnett, who lives in a shelter and has no income. She was told on July 26 that her application had been received, but has not yet been able to get an Electronic Benefit Transfer card, or EBT. Le said people such as Garnett rely on food pantries when problems arise with processing applications, but problems with the district's food stamp program are stressing food pantries, too. Bread for the City, which runs a food pantry program, saw a jump in demand for its food distributions after the Department of Human Services implemented the new system. "Across all wards in the District, 38 percent more households received emergency food packages from Bread during the period of October 2016 through May 2017, as compared to the same period the prior year," the lawsuit states. Other D.C. residents, such as plaintiff Linda Murph, have part- time jobs or supplemental income but must find ways to fill in the gaps. "I think oftentimes it's cutting into savings; it's borrowing from family and friends. It's just being resourceful," Le said. "Our clients are extremely resourceful, and they've made it as far as they have because they know how to make ends meet despite the challenges they face." Murph reapplied for benefits in April, but Human Services has not yet processed her application and she has not received food stamps since May, according to the complaint. The Food and Nutrition Service found that Human Services failed to send denial notices in 67 percent of cases, the complaint states. In a single week the system failed to generate nearly 1,400 notices: 12 percent of notices for that week. At the beginning of July, a backlog of 1,750 notices needed to be sent out, the complaint states. Three hundred of those notices were to inform people such as plaintiff Tracey Ross of the need to recertify their eligibility. These problems are continuing, and Ross never received her notice of expiration, which deprived her of the ability to recertify and continue receiving benefits. Le said Legal Aid Services and other advocacy groups have told Human Services of the problems their clients face, and decided to file the lawsuit after those efforts failed to produce change. The legal group has testified before the D.C. City Council and written a policy paper with the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute about the challenges faced by the people they serve when dealing with Human Services. The group's relationship with the district has deteriorated, according to Le, who said the district "hasn't been as forthcoming and solicitous" of their concerns as it once was. "My hope for this lawsuit is that the district will not spend a whole lot of time challenging it, but will instead try to work with us to come to a solution that will help all the residents of D.C.," Le said. The Department of Human Services could not be reached for comment after business hours on August 28. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The case is captioned, SHONICE G. GARNETT, 810 5th Street NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20001, RICHARD MESSICK, JR., 1665 Lamont Street NW, Apt 4, Washington, DC 20010, LINDA MURPH, 1006 47th Street, NE, Washington, DC 20019, TRACEY ROSS, 4309 3rd Street SE, Apt 302, Washington, DC 20032, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and BREAD FOR THE CITY, 1525 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, Plaintiffs, v. LAURA ZEILINGER, in her official capacity as Director of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, c/o DC Office of the Attorney General 441 4th Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, Defendant, Case 1:17-cv-01757(D.D.C., August 28, 2017). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Chinh Q. Le, Esq. Jennifer Mezey, Esq. Chelsea Sharon, Esq. LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1331 H Street NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202-628-1161 Fax: 202-727-2132 E-mail: cle@legalaiddc.org jmezey@legalaiddc.org csharon@legalaiddc.org - and - Marc Cohan, Esq. Mary R. Mannix, Esq. Travis W. England, Esq. Katharine Deabler-Meadows, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE 275 7th Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001 Tel: 212-633-6967 Fax: 212-633-6371 E-mail: cohan@nclej.org - and - Peter R. Bisio, Esq. Lance Y. Murashige, Esq. Emily Goldman, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202-637-5600 Fax: 202-637-5910 E-mail: peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Garnett Seeks Certification of Two Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Individually Named Plaintiffs Shonice G. Garnett, Richard Messick, Jr., Linda Murph, and Tracey Ross of the lawsuit captioned SHONICE G. GARNETT, et al. v. LAURA ZEILINGER, Case No. 1:17-cv-01757 (D.D.C.), move for certification of two classes: 1. All District of Columbia residents, since June 1, 2016: (1) who have applied, are applying, or will apply for SNAP benefits through an initial or recertification application; and (2) who have had or will have the processing of such application delayed beyond the timeframes mandated by law. 2. All District of Columbia SNAP recipients, since June 1, 2016: (1) who have been or will be required to submit a recertification application to maintain SNAP benefits; (2) as to whom Defendant has failed or will fail to issue notice of the need to recertify; and (3) who have been or will be terminated from participation in SNAP due to Defendant's failure to issue such notice. Laura Zeilinger is the Director of the Department of Human Services for the District of Columbia. The Named Plaintiffs also ask that they be appointed Class representatives as follows: Shonice G. Garnett, Richard Messick, Jr., and Linda Murph for Class One; and Tracey Ross for Class Two. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ESpEvfN4 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chinh Q. Le, Esq. Jennifer Mezey, Esq. Chelsea Sharon, Esq. LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1331 H Street NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 628-1161 Facsimile: (202) 727-2132 E-mail: cle@legalaiddc.org jmezey@legalaiddc.org csharon@legalaiddc.org - and - Marc Cohan, Esq. Mary R. Mannix, Esq. Travis W. England, Esq. Katharine Deabler-Meadows, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE 275 7th Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 633-6967 Facsimile: (212) 633-6371 E-mail: cohan@nclej.org mannix@nclej.org deabler@nclej.org. - and - Peter R. Bisio, Esq. Lance Y. Murashige, Esq. Emily Goldman, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 E-mail: peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com lance.murashige@hoganlovells.com emily.goldman@hoganlovells.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Siddiqi's Bid to Certify Entered and Continued ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on August 28, 2017, in the case styled Shabib Siddiqi v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-06126 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted; -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification entered and continued generally; and -- Notice of motion date of August 29, 2017, is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=atBBLx1k ENHANCED RECOVERY: Tachera Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Tachera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02200-JAD-PAL, (D. Nev., August 17, 2017), seeks damages for the defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Nevada consumers brings the class suit for the defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. According to the complaint, Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act arose from the plaintiff's Spring debt obligation which the defendant collects and attempts to collect with the use of false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of the debt.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert M. Tzall, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT M. TZALL 7735 Commercial Way, Suite 100 Henderson, NV 89011 Telephone: (702) 666-0233 Email: robert@tzalllegal.com - and - Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6253 Email: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com Website: www.MarcusZelman.com ENVOY AIR: Schroeder' Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald has taken under submission the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned K. Schroeder v. Envoy Air, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-04911- MWF-KS (C.D. Cal.). According to the civil minutes, the Court has heard oral argument from counsel and taken the matter under submission. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rpVdJBKK The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Alan Harris, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. HARRIS AND RUBLE 655 N. Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: HarrisA@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael G. McGuinness, Esq. Andrew Lichtenstein, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 E-mail: mmcguinness@omm.com alichtenstein@omm.com EQUIFAX: 2 Oregon Residents File Class Action Over Negligence ------------------------------------------------------------- Maxine Bernstein, writing for Oregon Live, reports that two Oregon residents have filed a class-action suit against the consumer credit reporting agency Equifax on the same day it announced that hackers had gained access to its company data and potentially compromised sensitive information from more than 140 million people. Mary McHill, of Portland, and Brook Reinhard, of Eugene, filed the suit late September 8, contending the Atlanta-based company was negligent in failing to adequately protect their credit and personal information, including their social security numbers, birth dates, home addresses, driver's license information and credit card numbers. The complaint contends the company should have spent the money necessary to protect against cyberattacks but failed to use adequate safeguards to protect their consumers' personal information. The suit seeks compensation to ensure every consumer harmed by the data breach will not suffer losses for the cost of repairing and monitoring their credit. Attorneys for McHill and Reinhard estimate that about half of Oregon's population -- or 2.9 million people -- were impacted by Equifax data breach, based on Equifax' consumer database. The plaintiffs want the company to account for how their personal information was accessed, and a court order requiring Equifax to preserve all documents and information pertinent to this case. The lawsuit was filed late September 8 in U.S. District Court in Portland by attorney Michael Fuller, the same day Equifax alerted its customers to the significant breach. The company announced that "criminals'' exploited a U.S. website to access files between mid-May and July of this year, obtaining consumers' names, social security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and in some cases, drivers' license numbers. Equifax discovered the hack July 29, but waited until September 8 to warn consumers. The company declined to comment on that delay or anything else beyond its published statement, according to The Associated Press. It's not unusual for U.S. authorities to ask a company hit in a major hack to delay public notice so that investigators can pursue the perpetrators. "This is clearly a disappointing event for our company, and one that strikes at the heart of who we are and what we do," said Richard Smith, Equifax chief executive officer, in a statement on September 8. "I apologize to consumers and our business customers for the concern and frustration this causes." The company provided a website for consumers to check if their information was compromised, but Fuller cautioned users that their access of the site could prevent them from taking the company to court as the terms and conditions for the site's use suggest consumers must agree to arbitration. [GN] EQUIFAX: AG Schneiderman Issues Statement on Arbitration Clause --------------------------------------------------------------- Following conversations with the Attorney General's office, Equifax has updated the language on its website to make explicitly clear that no consumer will be required to waive his/her legal right to a class action lawsuit as a condition for enrolling in the company's free credit monitoring and identify theft protection products. The language on Equifax's website has been updated to the following: To confirm, enrolling in the free credit file monitoring and identity theft protection products that Equifax is offering as part of this cybersecurity incident does not prohibit consumers from taking legal action. Equifax has already removed that language from the Terms of Use on the site. The Terms of Use on http://www.equifax.comdo not apply to the TrustedID Premier product being offered to consumers as a result of the cybersecurity incident. Again, to be as clear as possible, Equifax will not apply any arbitration clause or class action waiver against consumers for claims related to the free products offered in response to the cybersecurity incident or for claims related to the cybersecurity incident itself. Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman said, "The Equifax breach potentially exposed sensitive personal information for over eight million New Yorkers. The victims of this breach shouldn't also have to worry that they've waived their legal rights simply because they were trying to protect themselves. That's why my office reached out to Equifax last week about the terms of use. We'll continue to keep a close eye on the situation, as we get to the bottom of how and why this massive hack occurred." Attorney General Schneiderman announced that his office launched a formal investigation into the breach, and issued a number of consumer alerts to protect those impacted. EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Hadjimarkos" Suit in W. Dist. of Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The case is styled as Sarah Brown Hadjimarkos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00695 (W.D. Wis., September 11, 2017). Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments and consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Michael Marco, Esq. Smith Marco, PC 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 361-1690 Fax: (888) 418-1277 Email: dmarco@smithmarco.com EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bahnmaier" Suit in N.D. of Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The case is styled as Mikayla Dawn Bahnmaier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00512-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla., September 11, 2017). Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments and consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D Wells, Esq. Federman& Sherwood 10205 N PENNSYLVANIA AVE OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73120 Tel: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: jdw@federmanlaw.com - and - William Bernard Federman, Esq. Federman & Sherwood 10205 N PENNSYLVANIA AVE OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73120 Tel: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Cole" Suit in Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The case is styled as Philip Cole, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-11712 (D. Mass., September 11, 2017). Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments and consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 338-9400 Fax: (617) 507-3456 Email: nfo@mass-legal.com FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Veytsman" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FirstSource Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Arthur Veytsman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FirstSource Advantage, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06215- JSR, (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2017). The case is assigned to Judge Jed S. Rakoff.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Salim Katach, Esq. MOULINOS AND ASSOCIATES 150 East 58th Street New York, NY 10155 Telephone: (347) 415-2711 Email: skatach@svhllp.com FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Overtime Pay Miscalculated, Preston et al. Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Preston, Eric, Davis, Joseph Patterson, John Rando, Jason Tatarewitz and Ronnie D. Barrett, Jr., for themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-02184-TLW, (D. S.C., August 16, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The complaint also alleges breach of contract in violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs raised their concerns about the incorrect calculation of their overtime pay and/or non- payment for overtime hours worked by the defendant. The suit says the plaintiffs were intimidated and coerced to continue working under the unlawful conditions, and the miscalculations of their overtime pay continued. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of the defendant alleges that they are entitled to back wages at the rate of one-and-one-half times the regular rate for all overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week pursuant to the provision of the FLSA. The regular hourly rate or overtime rate was wrongfully excluded by the defendant in calculating their compensable income. Further, the defendant required the plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees to work "off the clock" and did not pay all service rendered for the benefit of the defendant.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy L. Gaffney, Esq. GAFFNEY LEWIS & EDWARDS, LLC 3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400 Columbia, SC 29204 Telephone: (803) 790-8838 Facsimile: (803) 790-8841 Email: agaffney@glelawfirm.com - and - David B. Yarborough, Jr., Esq. William E. Applegate, IV, Esq. Christopher J. Bryant, Esq. YARBOROUGH APPLEGATE LLC 291 East Bay Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 972-0150 Facsimile: (843) 277-6691 Email: david@yarboroughapplegate.com Email: william@yarboroughapplegate.com Email: chris@yarboroughapplegate.com FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Emissions Defect Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Emily Zantow, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Detroit, ruled on August 15, that Ford must face a class-action claim that it was aware of defects in its evaporative emissions-control systems that caused vehicles to stall while in motion, but dismissed other claims against the auto giant. Ford moved to dismiss the federal class action filed against by lead plaintiff Jon Rivera, who alleges the company knowingly sold him a defective 2013 Ford Focus SE. On August 15, U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith dismissed Rivera's claims of breach of express warranty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and fraud. However, the judge allowed his claim for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, or FDUTPA, to proceed. Rivera purchased the vehicle, brand new, from a Ford dealer in Florida in 2013 and says he began to experience problems approximately three and a half years later. "Rivera began experiencing erratic idling in his vehicle. This issue worsened; in one incident, the vehicle began to stall while traveling 50 miles per hour. Rivera also noticed that the vehicle's fuel gauge was erratic, with fuel levels changing from a quarter tank full to three-quarters full in an instant," the ruling states. He claims he took the car to a Ford technician who told him he needed to replace the car's fuel vapor valve, fuel tank and fuel pump, with a repair quote of more than $1,900. The dealership allegedly told Rivera that it was aware of the problem with the Ford Focus' evaporative emissions-control system, or EVAP, but that any repairs would not be covered under the factory warranty. The EVAP system is designed specifically to limit fuel emissions produced in the fuel tank from being released into the atmosphere. Vapors emitted from a vehicle's fuel tank are sent to a canister containing charcoal that absorbs the fuel for storage purposes. When the car is running, those fuel vapors are funneled to the engine to be purged and therefore prevented from being released into the atmosphere. The car's purge valve is at the center of the dispute. The valve regulates how much fuel vapor enters the engine by opening or closing, controlled by an electronically operated solenoid. The solenoid, or cylindrical wire coil, opens the purge valve when the vehicle is running and completely warmed up but shuts when the engine is off, meaning no fuel vapors should penetrate the engine. "When the purge valve becomes stuck in the open position, like with Rivera's and the rest of the putative class members' vehicles, suction is created when the vehicle's engine is running," according to Judge Goldsmith's opinion. "As a result, in addition to fuel vapors, raw fuel is sucked through the EVAP canister, through the purge valve, and directly into the engine. This raw fuel causes the engines in the class vehicles to abruptly hesitate and stall while driving." Rivera filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of himself and others in a proposed class of owners of 2012 to 2015 Ford Focus vehicles allegedly sold with the defective systems. He says that, like him, other members have reported loss of engine power when traveling over 45 miles per hour. He argues Ford technicians have said the defective valve has also caused fuel tanks to collapse due to raw fuel leaving the tank rapidly. Judge Goldsmith agreed with Rivera's claim that Ford's alleged omission about the defective purge valve misled customers, finding he has sufficiently pleaded a claim under the FDUTPA. "In his complaint, Rivera alleges that Ford knew of the defect through a combination of records of consumer complaints, dealership repair records, [National Highway Safety and Traffic Safety Administration] records, warranty and postwarranty claims, and [Technical Service Bulletins]. Courts have held that a manufacturer's knowledge of a latent defect may be inferred when such complaints and records exist," Goldsmith wrote in the 19-page ruling. But the judge also found that Rivera's warranty claim fails because the terms of Ford's express warranty were not "substantively unconscionable." "Rivera's claim of procedural unconscionability rests on whether Ford had presale knowledge of the defective purge valve," Goldsmith said. "Even assuming presale knowledge was sufficiently pleaded, such knowledge, standing alone, is insufficient to establish procedural unconscionability." Judge Goldsmith also dismissed Rivera's unjust enrichment claim because it was based on the express warranty. In addition, "The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing did not apply to override the terms of the warranty to require Ford to make repairs to Rivera's vehicle in October 2016, three years and five months after he purchased his vehicle," he wrote. Goldsmith dismissed Rivera's fraud claims as well. "Rivera does not make any allegations that Ford disclosed certain facts regarding the EVAP system at any time before, during, or after the sale. As a result, Ford only had a duty to disclose the defect with the EVAP system if it was a fiduciary or in another relationship of trust or confidence with Rivera," the judge wrote. "Because there was no duty to disclose, Rivera has not pleaded a claim of fraud under Florida law." Leaving Rivera's FDUTPA claim against the auto giant intact, Goldsmith noted that Rivera sufficiently pleaded Ford's knowledge of the defective EVAP system at the time of sale. Ford did not immediately respond on August 16, to an email request for comment on the ruling. FRONTLINE ASSET: Collection Practices Unfair, "Ferreira" Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Jader Ferreira, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Frontline Asset Strategies LLC, LVNV Funding LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 06278-JLL-JAD, (D.N.J., August 20, 2017), seeks damages and declaratory relief arising from defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff entered into a financial obligation to Credit One which was purchased by LVNV and the obligation was in default. LVNV referred the Credit One obligation to Frontline for purposes of collections and a letter was sent to plaintiff in connection with the collection of the Credit One obligation. The alleged letter did not itemize or breakdown the amount of the debt by principal, interest, fees and other charges. The alleged letter did not itemize or breakdown the amount of the debt by principal, interest, fees and other charges. Further, Frontline has not held and did not obtain a license under authority of the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act and New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance. Without the required license, LVNV was prohibited from attempting to collect on the Credit One obligation. The complaint contends that the defendants' policy and practice to send written communication is false, deceptive, misleading, threatening, unfair or unconscionable and falsely represents the character or amount of debt. The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated consumers suffered damages and other harm as a direct result of the defendants actions, conduct, omissions and violations of the FDCPA.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com FUTURE INCOME: Faces "Underwood" Suit in C. Dist. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Future Income Payments, LLC. The case is styled as John Underwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Future Income Payments, LLC, Pensions, Annuities and Settlements, LLC, Cash Flow Investment Partners, LLC and Scott A. Kohn, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01570 (C.D. Cal., September 11, 2017). Future Income Payments, LLC leads the country in creative pension advance options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R Krinsk, Esq. Finkelstein &Krinsk LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92101-3593 Tel: (619) 238-1333 Fax: (619) 238-5425 Email: jrk@classactionlaw.com GALIZ RESEARCH: Violates Labor Laws, "Gomez" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Jose Reinaldo Pinero Gomez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. Galiz Research, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company and LUIS PEDRAZA, the Defendants, Case No. 60485565, (Fla. Cir., August 16, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and or minimum wages including liquidated damages. Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt research coordinator with defendant from approximately August 16, 2016 through on or about May 12, 2017. He seeks to recover unpaid wages accumulated from the date of hire. The complaint states that the defendants failed to compensate the plaintiff the required overtime and or minimum wages at a rate of one and a half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours within a single work week. From on or about July or August 16, 2016 through on or about May 12, 2017, the defendant owed to the plaintiff approximately $4,560 in unpaid unliquidated overtime wages plus an additional amount for the liquidated damages, totaling to $9,120. The Complaint says the Plaintiff and defendants were engaged in an implied agreement whereby the plaintiff would be employed by the defendants and that plaintiff would be properly paid as provided and not in violation of the laws of the United States and the State of Florida. However, the defendants failed to compensate the plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of the defendant the required overtime and or minimum wages.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rember, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com GRANT COUNTY, IN: Timbs Seeks to Certify Class of Car Owners ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TYSON TIMBS, on his own behalf, and on behalf of a Class of those similarly situated v. THE GRANT COUNTY PROSECUTOR, JAMES LUTTRULL, in his official capacity and individual capacity, THE GRANT COUNTY SHERRIFF, REGGIE NEVELS, in his official capacity and individual capacity, and THE MARION POLICE CHIEF, ANGELA HALEY in her official capacity and individual capacity, Case No. 1:17-cv-00372-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), asks the Court to certify the proposed class defined as: All persons who own automobiles that are being held pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-24-1-1(a)(1), by the Grant County Prosecutor's Office, the Grant County Sherriff, the Marion Police Department, or any agent of those entities. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FeTc7Aoe The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Cardella, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JEFF CARDELLA, LLC 333 N. Alabama St. # 357 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 695-7700 Facsimile: (317) 454-1334 E-mail: jeffcardella@cardellalawoffice.com H & M HENNES & MAURITZ: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06100-PAE, (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2017). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. BRONSON LIPSKY LLP 630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 Facsimile: (212) 444-1030 Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com HEARTLAND HEALTHCARE: Rangel and Romano Sue over ERISA Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- SANTOS A. RANGEL, and ANTHONY ROMANO, individually and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HEARTLAND HEALTHCARE FUND, BRUCE WERNING, DAVID FOY, DAVID ARGUBRIGHT, STEVEN TONDI, GREG MULHERIN and DANIEL F. AUSSEM, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-50244, (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2017), seeks to redress fiduciary violations of the defendants in violation of a Trust Agreement and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs are participants in the Heartland Healthcare Fund and both are employees of Raynor Garage Door. Heartland Healthcare Fund receives contributions from employers and employees by way of Collective Bargaining Agreements negotiated by union with individual employers and Employer Associations. Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated members of the Employer Associations assign their rights to the Employer Associations to represent their interests in collective bargaining with the Union. The Union is divided into three regions which are the Central, Western and Southern. Members of the Union in the Western Region such as the plaintiffs can work for any employer that has a CBA with the Union and once the member establishes initial eligibility with the Fund is entitled to participate in the Fund and receive benefits provided that the contributing employer is covered by a CBA that allows for contributions to the Fund. Initially, the minimum contribution rate or required contribution rate is $1,150 to achieve eligibility. However, in January of 2017, the Trustees created shop required contribution and non-shop required contribution categories. Raynor Garage Door where the plaintiffs work is categorized as shop required contribution. The defendants have set four required contribution amounts for Raynor Garage Door employees in 2017 based on the annual review and have threatened to set a higher required contribution amount within five months on or before January 1, 2018. But, the Trust Agreement provides that it cannot be amended in any which would conflict with any CBA that set contributions to the Fund. Common questions for the class suit includes whether or not the defendants violate the terms of the Trust Agreement by charging Raynor Garage Door employees a higher required contribution, whether or not the Trustee breach their fiduciary duties by charging employees of Raynor Garage Door a higher required contribution in contrary to the Trust Agreement and whether or not the Fund misappropriate the additional contribution amounts paid by Raynor Garage Door employees. Heartland Healthcare Fund is a multi-employer welfare fund that receives contributions pursuant to collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters with various individual employers and employer associations.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond J. Sanguinetti, Esq. RATHJE & WOODWARD, LLC 300 East Roosevelt Road, Suite 300 Wheaton, IL 60187 Telephone: (630) 668-8500 HOUSTON, TX: Law Against Homeless Blocked Temporarily ----------------------------------------------------- Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a Houston ordinance that bars homeless people from sleeping in tents on public property may violate their rights against cruel and unusual punishment, a federal judge in Houston, ruled on August 22, blocking the law with a temporary restraining order. Though people found in violation of the public-camping ban can be arrested and fined up to $500, Houston police have issued only 20 citations since the law took effect in May. HPD has advised its officers not to arrest or ticket anyone unless they've been offered a bed at a homeless shelter and declined or not responded to that offer. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal class action the day after the ordinance went on the books, claiming the law unconstitutionally targets the homeless. The law prohibits homeless people from setting up tents or temporary shelters in public places, from using camp stoves or grills, and from keeping more personal property than could fit in a container 3 feet high, 3 feet wide and 3 feet deep, though most medical equipment is exempt. HPD officers recently cited several people living in a camp under a highway overpass near downtown, called the Wheeler encampment, warning them that they could be ticketed and arrested if they don't stop camping there, which moved the ACLU to file an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 17. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt sided with the ACLU on August 22 and temporarily blocked the ordinance. "Criminalizing the status of an individual has long been prohibited by the Constitution. Simply because the behavior of a person is considered undesirable, yet harmless, does not license the government to criminalize and/or punish such behavior," he wrote. Marc Eichenbaum is Houston's point man for its homeless outreach programs. He said in an affidavit that through collaboration with more than 100 organizations, Houston has housed more than 11,000 homeless people in less than six years. "One of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Eugene Stroman signed a lease to his apartment a little over a week ago. The city's goal is to try to help as many of the homeless people of Houston to get off the dirt and under a roof -- to find housing," Eichenbaum said in the Aug. 18 affidavit. Stroman is one of three lead plaintiffs. He was living with his wife in a Houston homeless camp in May and making a few bucks repairing bikes with spare parts he kept next to his tent, according to the class action. Eichenbaum said the city has spent thousands of dollars cleaning up the Wheeler encampment and another camp under the same freeway near the Houston Astros' Minute Maid Park, and has collected 16 tons of "waste" at the sites. "As there is no running water or toilet facilities in this area, the homeless use buckets and sometime defecate in these areas," his filing states. Eichenbaum emphasized the ban is focused on homeless people living in tents because trash accumulates and attracts rats in their encampments. "The ordinance does not prohibit people from sleeping on the streets. It does not prohibit people from having blankets or sleeping bags to shelter themselves from the elements," his affidavit states. Eichenbaum said the city has even offered to store people's things, without charge, while they stay in shelters, which only let people bring in a minimal amount of personal property due to a lack of space. The Star of Hope runs a 320-bed men's shelter and a 274-bed shelter for single women, mothers and children in Houston. Its public relations director Scott Arthur said its shelters have been full for the last two years with people sometimes sleeping on the floor. Founded by a Baptist minister in 1907, the Star of Hope welcome homeless people who have never been to their shelters at all hours, Arthur said, but it enforces a strict schedule for returnees. "If they've been in our shelter they know that we do have a schedule where they have to be in the shelters by 1 p.m. in the afternoon, they have to get a bed ticket around 8 a.m., they know the process," he said an interview. The Salvation Army runs three homeless shelters in Houston: A men's shelter that can house 136 men, a women's shelter that accepts 20 women each day starting at 3 p.m. on a first-come first-serve basis, and a family shelter that puts families in rooms, none of which are available right now. The Salvation Army doesn't let people sleep on the floor in its Houston shelters, its employees said. The Star of Hope and Salvation Army confirmed the ACLU's claims that their five Houston emergency shelters are usually full, leaving some with no choice but to sleep on the streets. Judge Hoyt said in his order that an injunction is needed to stop the city from ticketing people just because they are homeless. "The evidence is conclusive that they are involuntarily in public, harmlessly attempting to shelter themselves -- an act they cannot realistically forgo, and that is integral to their status as unsheltered homeless individuals. Enforcement of the city's ban against the plaintiffs may, therefore, cause them irreparable harm by violating their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment due to their status of 'homelessness,'" he wrote in the five-page order. Stroman called the injunction "a good thing" in a statement released on August 22, by the ACLU. "We're not hurting anybody. We're just out here trying to survive without being harassed by the police. You shouldn't be able to arrest someone for being somewhere when they have no place else to go," he said. Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said the city is disappointed with the temporary injunction, but hopeful Hoyt will recognize that the ordinance is in the city's best interest. "The intent of the ordinance is to take our most vulnerable Houstonians from the streets and place them in permanent supportive housing. I think we can all agree that no one deserves to live in an environment that has been deemed a public health hazard. It is our hope that the court will ultimately conclude that the city of Houston has the right to manage public space by regulating what can be erected there," he said in a statement. ILLINOIS, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Rutherford" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SAMUEK RUTHERFORD v. JAMES DIMAS, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-04194-JES (C.D. Ill.), moves for class certification and appointment of class counsel. James T. Dimas is the secretary of the Department of Human Services in the state of Illinois. Mr. Rutherford contends that he is also seeking certification of recently filed identical complaints regarding the totality of facts, circumstances and constitutional violations associated with the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (from prosecution to conditions of imprisonment). The cases have been filed in the District Court by civil detainees held by the Illinois Department of Human Services, Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, all of which assert the same claims and defendants. He asserts that there are approximately 150-200 additional Rushville TDF residents intending to file a complaint depending on scanner availability. The Plaintiff appears pro se. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9AfudAN5 ILLINOIS, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Sundling" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JOSEPH SUNDLING v. JAMES DIMAS, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-04224-JES (C.D. Ill.), moves for class certification and appointment of class counsel. James T. Dimas is the secretary of the Department of Human Services in the state of Illinois. Mr. Sundling contends that he is also seeking certification of recently filed identical complaints regarding the totality of facts, circumstances and constitutional violations associated with the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (from prosecution to conditions of imprisonment). The cases have been filed in the District Court by civil detainees held by the Illinois Department of Human Services, Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, all of which assert the same claims and defendants. He asserts that there are approximately 150-200 additional Rushville TDF residents intending to file a complaint depending on scanner availability. The Plaintiff appears pro se. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n3wYa5nV INDIANA: Judge Says Civil Forfeiture of Vehicles Illegal -------------------------------------------------------- Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that though Attorney General Jeff Sessions is increasing use of civil forfeiture to seize money and property from people not convicted of a crime, a federal judge in Indianapolis, ruled that Indiana's law on seizure and forfeiture of vehicles is unconstitutional because it violates due process. "We plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures," Sessions said on July 17. "No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime." Civil forfeitures, however, allow the government to take money and property from people who have not been convicted of a crime, or even charged with one. In the Indiana case, Indianapolis police arrested Leroy Washington in September 2016 and charged him with selling marijuana. They towed his car and held it for forfeiture. In November that year, Washington demanded the return of his car and filed a federal class action against the police, the mayor and the county prosecutor. He challenged the constitutionality of the Indiana law that allows police to seize and hold a vehicle for three to six months without a hearing or judicial oversight. Indianapolis officials argued that "the Constitution does not require any procedure prior to the actual forfeiture proceeding." But on Aug. 18, Chief U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson granted Washington summary judgment, finding that the Indiana law violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, and enjoined the state from enforcing it. Washington has regained possession of his car, but Magnus-Stinson found him a proper representative of the class because he "has continued to diligently pursue this case." She certified the class and ruled that the case is not moot due to Washington's reclamation of the vehicle. "Defendants have not indicated any intention to cease enforcement of the statute, and defendants do not dispute that 169 vehicles have been seized for forfeiture between Nov. 2, 2016 and Feb. 13, 2017," Magnus-Stinson wrote. She noted that the statute does not allow the vehicle owner to claim the property via replevin. "It is evident to this court that a three- to six-month deprivation is a lengthy one, and could cause significant hardship to the individual whose vehicle is seized," the judge wrote. She added that the lack of an interim remedy, such as retrieval of the vehicle after posting bond, "particularly burdens individuals who lack the financial resources to secure another vehicle during the pendency of proceedings, or who are unable to access reliable public transportation." Magnus-Stinson stated that "robust procedural safeguards" are important due to the government's "direct pecuniary interest" in the result of forfeiture proceedings. "The property may be sold in a public sale, with the proceeds divided, pursuant to the statute, between the seizing law enforcement agency and the common school fund," she ruled. In granting a permanent injunction, Magnus-Stinson said, "this court will not attempt a constitutional rewrite of the statute." INDIANAPOLIS, IN: Faces "Young" Suit over Homeless' Rights ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, Maurice Young, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. City of Indianapolis, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02818-TWP-MJD, (S.D. Ind., August 17, 2017), stems from the recent emergency declaration of the City of Indianapolis prohibiting the homeless persons such as the plaintiff to stand on the public sidewalks that go under the bridges. Homeless persons could not sleep, sit, stand or even stop under the four overpasses. However, the non- homeless persons are allowed to congregate under the bridges without restriction. The complaint says the declared emergency violates due process clause and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Falk, Esq. Gavin M. Rose, Esq. Jan P. Mensz, Esq. ACLU of INDIANA 11031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 635-4059 Facsimile: (317) 635-4105 Email: kfalk@aclu-in.org Email: grose@aclu-in.org Email: jmensz@aclu-in.org * * * Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a homeless man represented by the American Civil Liberties Union sued Indianapolis on August 17, over the city's recent declaration of an emergency and prohibition on lying on the public sidewalk or congregating under certain underpasses. On Aug. 4, the city of Indianapolis allegedly distributed a notice around the city and under four underpasses where homeless people tend to congregate declaring an emergency. The notice also stated that all belongings had to be cleared from the underpasses within four days, according to a lawsuit filed on August 17, in Indianapolis federal court by lead plaintiff Maurice Young. Approximately 67 homeless people regularly slept under these underpasses, the complaint states, until city personnel physically removed them and their possessions on Aug. 8. Since then, Indianapolis police officers have allegedly informed homeless persons standing or sitting under the subject overpasses that they are not allowed to congregate there due to the declared emergency. Young, a homeless man, says he was told by police that he could not sit under the railroad bridges, but claims that other non- homeless persons have congregated under the same overpasses without police interference. His class-action lawsuit alleges that the homeless ban violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution. He is represented by attorneys with the ACLU of Indiana. "Maurice Young, who is frequently in the Indianapolis downtown area, would like to be able to stand or sit on these sidewalks, without in any way obstructing pedestrian or other traffic, to rest and obtain shelter from the elements," the complaint states. Young asserts that the city's use of the term "emergency" is so vague that it cannot support the infringement of homeless persons' right to sit or stand on public city sidewalks. "He is now prohibited from doing so inasmuch as the City of Indianapolis has prohibited homeless persons from even stopping in these areas because of its declaration of an emergency," the complaint continues. Young is represented by Kenneth Falk, Gavin Rose and Jan Mensz with the ACLU of Indiana. A spokesperson for the city of Indianapolis did not immediately respond on August 17, to an email request for comment sent after business hours. The ACLU's Falk said in a statement that, "The Supreme Court has repeatedly invalidated attempts to prohibit persons from gathering for innocent purposes." "The right to do so does not depend on a person's housing status. The Constitution guarantees everyone equal protection under the law," he said. JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces "Alatortev" Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class suit has been filed against Jetblue Airways Corp. The case is titled as Igor A. Alatortev, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Jetblue Airways Corp., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04859-WHO, (N.D. Cal., August 29, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. William H. Orrick.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David Raymond Ongaro, Esq ONGARO PC 50 California Street, Suite 3325 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3900 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 Email: dongaro@ongaropc.com KREISLER MANUFACTURING: Bid to Dismiss "Kahn" Granted ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned ALAN KAHN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL D. STERN, EDWARD A. STERN, JOSEPH P. DALY, JOHN W. POLING and JEFFREY P. BACHER, Defendants, C.A. No. 12498-VCG (Del. Ch.), arises from the sale of a small aerospace manufacturing company, Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation, and purported insider side-deals in connection with the sale, along with alleged disclosure deficiencies to stockholders regarding the sales process. Plaintiff, Alan Kahn, a stockholder of the Company, initiated the action via a Verified Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff did not seek to block the Merger or request any other emergency or expedited relief. The Defendants moved to dismiss the initial complain. The Plaintiff then filed a Verified Amended Class Action Complaint. The Defendants again moved to dismiss. The Complaint pleads one count against all the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. The Complaint states three grounds for its sole count. First, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly engineering and/or approving a sales process designed to benefit the particular selfish interests of Company insiders rather than engage in an open process reasonably designed to maximize stockholder value. Next, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly competing for merger consideration or permitting other insiders to compete for merger consideration by securing or approving lucrative deals for Micheal Stern and Edward Stern, all of which resulted in a lower Merger price. Finally, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly withholding and/or [misrepresenting] material information from stockholders. Plaintiff argues that Daly is not independent with regard to the Merger, such that he was unable to bring his business judgment to bear on behalf of the Company, that argument is unavailing as well. In order to successfully plead a lack of independence, a Plaintiff must plead facts that, if true, overcome the presumption of a director's faithfulness to her fiduciary duties. The Court of Chancery of Delaware finds the Complaint lacking and fails to raise a reasonable doubt that Daly was unable to objectively make a business decision concerning the Merger. While the Complaint states that "Daly was not considered independent [presumably by his fellow directors] for purposes of the Merger,"114that is simply a conclusion asserted in the Complaint devoid of any factual support. The Plaintiff asserts in briefing that in approving the Merger the Board took action that lacked rational corporate purpose and should be deemed to be the product of bad faith. The Complaint falls short of pleading facts with respect to Edward's benefits, however, the Court said. Necessary details to reach the Plaintiff's desired inference, that no good-faith ground existed to approve the Merger with these benefits included, are wholly lacking. Such a pleading would include, for example, details about the nature and materiality of the benefits provided to Edward Stern in his amended Employment Agreement. The Complaint simply states he obtained better benefits upon his desired termination. Without more, I cannot infer that the benefits were unearned, material in light of the merger consideration, or otherwise were so far beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment that it seems essentially inexplicable on any ground other than bad faith. The Court finds that the facts pled in regard to the Side Deals fail to rise to such a level that it may reasonably infer bad faith on the part of the majority of the Director Defendants in approving the Merger. The Plaintiff argues that, despite the elaborate explanation of the Side Deals described above, the Information Statement omits the why, that is, the business purpose for the Side Deals, and omits the play-by-play of the negotiation of the Side Deals. Such information, no doubt, would be of interest to stockholders. Even assuming its materiality, however, to my mind the disclosures, made or omitted, fall short of implying bad faith. The directors recommended a merger that included bonuses to executives and an employment agreement, post-close, for one of them. Both the existence and the operation of these Side Deals were disclosed in detail. To the extent the Plaintiff's theory is that the Board was trying to cover up the Side Deals to discourage appraisal demands, in light of the ten percent appraisal out, the detailed disclosures belie that intent. There is simply nothing, in light of the description of the Side Deals in the Information Statement, that suggests a cover-up or is otherwise redolent of bad faith on the part of the directors. The Defendants' Motion is granted. A full-text copy of the Court of Chancery's August 28, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yaccrrovfrom Leagle.com. Larry R. Wood, Jr. -- LWood@BlankRome.com -- David A. Dorey -- Dorey@BlankRome.com -- Adam V. Orlacchio -- Orlacchio@BlankRome.com -- of BLANK ROME LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants. Jessica Zeldin -- zeldin@rmgglaw.com -- of ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: James S. Notis -- mgardy@gardylaw.com -- Jennifer Sarnelli -- jsarnelli@gmail.com -- of GARDY & NOTIS, LLP, New York, New York; Harold B. Obstfeld, of HAROLD B. OBSTFELD, P.C., New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 100 Park Ave.20th Fl.New York, NY 10017-5510 LAMB WESTON: "Albright" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri Court --------------------------------------------------------- The venue of the case styled as Nancy Albright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in Missouri, the Plaintiff, v. Lamb Weston, Inc., the Defendant, was removed from the St. Louis City court, Case No. 1722-CC10848, on August 21, 2017, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:17-cv-02281-NCC (E.D. Mo.). The case is assigned to District Judge Henry Edward Autrey for all further proceedings.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC 8816 Manchester Road St. Louis, MO 63144 Tel: (314) 258-0212 Email: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com - and - Stuart Lee Cochran, Esq. STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN 12720 Hillcrest Rd. Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Tel: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Email: scochran@scochranlaw.com Defendant is represented by: Robert J. Bassett, Esq. WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC 100 N. Broadway, Suite 2100 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 345-5000 Facsimile: (314) 345-5055 Email: rbassett@wvslaw.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Lopez Moves to Certify Class of Claims Handlers --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits titled TRINIDAD LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-05576-BRO-JC (C.D. Cal.), and MARISELA BEAS, GREGORY RUTOWSKI, and PAMELA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION; SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-05748 BRO (JCx) (C.D. Cal.), move to certify a class and a subclass: -- The "Class" consists of all persons who are, have been, or will be employed during the "Class Period" by Defendants in the State of California, as an exempt non-management claims handler, including SIU investigators. The "Class Period" is April 24, 2010, which is four years prior to the filing of this action. The Class excludes: (1) Fast Path Property Loss Specialists who were classified as nonexempt; (2) employees who were part of the putative class in the Braun litigation (No. CIV 13-00607) but only for those periods that each such employee worked for the Safeco claims department, and (3) members of the class that settled in Liberty Mutual Overtime Cases, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding ("JCCP") Case No. 4234 ("the Harris litigation") who did not continue working for Defendants in exempt positions within the Class Definition during the Class Period. The Class Definition specifically includes those members of the class who settled in the Harris litigation (Liberty Mutual Overtime Cases, JCCP No. 4234) and remained employed by Liberty Mutual in exempt positions within the putative Class definition and during the putative Class Period and after the effective date of the Harris release. -- The Waiting Time Penalties Subclass consists of: All Class Members who are former employees of Defendants and, having not received all wages due to them upon resignation or termination within the period prescribed under California law, are eligible for waiting time penalties. The proposed class action arises from the Defendants' alleged uniform policy of misclassifying the proposed class consisting of California-based claims handlers and SIU investigators as administratively exempt under California's Labor Code, which denied the proposed class overtime compensation and meal and rest periods. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to bar the Defendants from submitting testimony contradicting testimony of the seventeen 30(b)(6) deponents the Defendants designated on supervision. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives and to appoint their counsel as class counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on January 22, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IV7t5A6S The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allan A. Shenoi, Esq. Daniel J. Koes, Esq. Nneka C. Egbujiobi, Esq. SHENOI KOES LLP 175 South Lake Avenue, Suite 202 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 792-2300 Facsimile: (626) 792-2311 E-mail: ashenoi@shenoikoes.com dkoes@shenoikoes.com negbujiobi@shenoikoes.com - and - Benjamin Schonbrun, Esq. Michael D. Seplow, Esq. Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq. Colleen M. Mullen, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP 11543 W. Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 Facsimile: (310) 399-7040 E-mail: bschonbrun@sshhlaw.com mseplow@sshhlaw.com amcglaze@sshhlaw.com cmullen@sshhlaw.com - and - Michael S. Rapkin, Esq. Scott B. Rapkin, Esq. RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP 11543 W. Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 319-5465 Facsimile: (310) 319-5355 E-mail: msrapkin@gmail.com scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com - and - V. James DeSimone, Esq. V. JAMES DESIMONE LAW 13160 Mindanao Way, Suite 280 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Telephone: (310) 693-5561 E-mail: vjdesimone@gmail.com LLEWELLYN PHILLIP: Car Wash Workers Underpaid, "Joseph" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS JOSEPH, individually and for all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LLEWELLYN PHILLIP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-04800-DLI-RER, (E.D.N.Y., August 16, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, spread of hours compensation, compensation for meal breaks and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed as a porter and superintendent by the defendant's car wash business from 2002 to July 2017. Plaintiff and similarly situated persons were regularly required to perform work in excess of 40 hours per week and plaintiff states he never received an overtime compensation of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay during his term of employment. He also never received one 30-minute lunch period per work day and minimum wages as required by law. Plaintiff further alleges that the defendant failed to post or keep posted a notice explaining the minimum wage and overtime pay rights as required and provided by law. Plaintiff says there are more than 50 similarly situated former and currently hourly employees who are or were employees of the defendant who are or have been underpaid. The defendant unlawfully withheld all overtime compensation from the plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees from approximately 2002 through 2017.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Naresh M Gehi, Esq. GEHI & ASSOCIATES 118-21 Queens Boulevard, Suite 409 Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-5999 LMCHH PCP: Kusnick and Delaney Appeal in WARN Act Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Barbara Kusnick and Rose Hunter Delaney filed on August 17 an appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling in their class action lawsuit against LMCHH PCP LLC et al. The appeal was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans. The appellate case is titled as, Barbara Kusnick and Rose Hunter Delaney, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Appellants, v. LMCHH PCP LLC, Louisiana Medical Center and Heart Hospital LLC, MedCare Investment Funds, CCG of Louisiana, LLC and Cardiovascular Care Group, Inc., the Appellees, Case No. 2:17-cv-07939-KDE-JVM, (E.D. La., August 22, 2017). The appellate case is assigned to Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. The Complaint seeks remedies for LMCHH PCP, LLC, Louisiana Medical Center and Heart Hospital, LLC, CCG of Louisiana, LLC, and Medcare Investment Funds' alleged failure to provide at least 60 days' advance written notice of the terminations as required by the WARN Act and adds claims against the Non-Debtor Defendants, among other claims. On February 24, 2017, the King Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed an almost identical class action adversary proceeding against the Defendants, minus Medcare Investment Funds, for violation of the WARN Act and the recovery of damages in the amount of 60 days' back pay and ERISA benefits, among other claims. In July 2017, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Kusnick Plaintiffs' Motion and appointed Outten & Golden, LLP as Interim Lead Counsel.[BN] Appellants are represented by: Benjamin Warren Kadden, Esq. Christopher Todd Caplinger, Esq. Meredith S. Grabill, Esq. Stewart Foster Peck, Esq. LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD 60l Poydras St. Suite 2775 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 568-1990 Email: bkadden@lawla.com Email: ccaplinger@lawla.com Email: mgrabill@lawla.com Email: speck@lawla.com Appellees are represented by: Elizabeth Jones Futrell, Esq. Mark A. Mintz, Esq. JONES WALKER 201 St. Charles Ave., 49th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 582-8260 Email: efutrell@joneswalker.com Email: mmintz@joneswalker.com - and - Michael Allen Crawford, Esq. Thomas R. Peak, Esq. Elizabeth Jones Futrell, Esq. TAYLOR, PORTER, BROOKS & PHILLIPS LP 450 Laurel Street, 8th Floor (70801) P. O. Box 2471 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Telephone: (225) 387-3221 Email: mike.crawford@taylorporter.com - and - Jan Marie Hayden, Esq. Benjamin Warren Kadden, Esq. BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3600 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 566-8645 Facsimile: (504) 299-3399 Email: jhayden@bakerdonelson.com LYCHEE HOUSE: "Dai" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage and OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- LIPING DAI, RUGUO DONG and GUO YI WANG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LYCHEE HOUSE INC., doing business as Lychee House, GUO PING CHEN, HONG SHENG CHENG, also known as Hong Sheng Chen, XIAN YONG ZENG, Leo "Doe" and John Does 1 to 5, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06197-AT, (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and of the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs contend that the defendants: -- refuse to pay them for the statutory minimum wage in the lawful amount for hours worked; -- refuse to pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate for all their hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek; -- fail to pay the spread-of-hours pay for every day that an employee works in excess of ten hours; -- fail to provide meal periods for every day of work and provide no adequate and accurate written records reflecting the actual hours worked and wages earned; -- did not provide notice to each employee on their first day of their employment or at the time of hire, of the terms and conditions of employment related to rate of pay, regular pay cycle and rate of overtime and there was no detailed pay stubs provided every pay day; and -- willfully file a fraudulent information return. Plaintiffs demand the right to examine in person or by attorney the minutes of the proceedings of the shareholders and records of shareholders of the defendant to recover wages owed to them.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Johny Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com M3 USA CORP: Comprehensive Health Amends Bid to Certify TCPA Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OF THE PALM BEACHES, INC., and DR. ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v. M3 USA CORPORATION, Case No. 9:16- cv-80967-BB (S.D. Fla.), file with the Court their amended motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs propose certification of this class: The named plaintiffs and each person (1) sent one or more telephone facsimile messages from "M3 Global Research" inviting participation in an "online survey" for payment or compensation by logging into a "survey link" of "http://www.m3globalresearch.com/myinvite"or "http://www.mdlinx.com/myinvite,"and (2) whose fax number was added to the WestFax removal list for M3 after June 1, 2012. M3 USA Corporation has sent millions of alleged advertisements by facsimile to thousands of medical providers across the country, the Plaintiffs state. The Plaintiffs allege claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and for conversion. The Plaintiffs assert they seek class certification only to resolve the TCPA claim. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives and to appoint their counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cmpnXF4o The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Daniel J. Cohen, Esq. Jonathan B. Piper, Esq. James M. Smith, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5501 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com danieljaycohen209@gmail.com jon@classlawyers.com jim@classlawyers.com MARYLAND: Dismissal CP Violation Claims Affirmed ------------------------------------------------ "A criminal prosecution may not proceed against a defendant who is not competent to stand trial. For that reason, a defendant may not be continued in pretrial detention unless the government is taking steps to provide treatment to restore the defendant to competence or to have the defendant civilly committed. Maryland law provides for a trial court to determine whether a defendant is competent, is dangerous to self or others, and, if incompetent, has the potential to be restored to competence. If these criteria are met, the trial court may commit the defendant to a mental health facility designated by Appellee Maryland Department of Health1 ("MDH") for appropriate treatment to restore the defendant to competence. Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article ("CP"), Section 3-104 et seq.," the Court of Appeals of Maryland wrote in an opinion dated August 28, 2017, in the case captioned Fredia Powell, Et Al., v. Maryland Department of Health, Et Al., No. 77, September Term 2016 (Md. App.). The case concerns implementation of the law within constitutional parameters. MDH and its head, Appellee Secretary of Health, have adopted a policy on admission to State psychiatric hospitals to manage the demand for the limited beds available at those facilities. That policy has resulted in the creation of a waiting list for admission to State psychiatric hospitals -- a list that has included criminal defendants who have been found incompetent to stand trial and committed for treatment, including the four Appellants in this case. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City -- at least in the four instances spotlighted in the case -- has adopted a practice of requiring admission of a defendant to a hospital within one day of the issuance of the commitment order. In this case, the Circuit Court found each of the Appellants -- defendants in separate criminal cases -- to be incompetent to stand trial and dangerous. The court committed each of them to a State psychiatric facility pursuant to the statute and ordered their admission within one day of the commitment order. When MDH failed to admit them by that deadline, they collectively brought this action challenging the MDH policy on statutory and constitutional grounds. The Court of Appeals holds that the statute itself does not set a deadline for admission to a psychiatric hospital. Nor does it authorize a circuit court to do so. Accordingly, a delay in admitting a criminal defendant by a deadline set forth in a commitment order does not violate the statute, although it may violate the commitment order. Nevertheless, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, that delay may violate the due process guarantee of the Maryland Declaration of Rights unless the delay is reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case. The Court of Appeals holds that failure by MDH to comply with a deadline for admission to a psychiatric hospital set forth in a commitment order under CP Section 3-106(b) may violate the order, but is not a violation of the statute itself. Accordingly, Count One of the Appellants' complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted and was properly dismissed by the Circuit Court. To the extent that Count Two of the complaint challenges the MDH policy as violating on its face the guarantee of substantive due process in Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, it also fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To the extent that Count Two alleges that the MDH policy violates due process as that policy was applied to the Appellants, it does state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Whether that claim has merit depends on the particular circumstances of each case. Justice Getty, dissenting, pointed out that, here Appellants had already obtained the relief they sought prior to the trial court's grant of MDH's motion to dismiss and, consequently, their claims are moot. Justice Getty would decline to apply the exception for review of moot claims that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." In his view, a remand to the trial court to conduct a further inquiry into Appellants' surviving due process claim would not resolve Appellants' rights in the event that they are once again committed to MDH for inpatient treatment. Nor would such an inquiry provide relief to other defendants found incompetent who have faced delays in admission to Perkins, or provide direction to other trial courts faced with similar situations. Moreover, the Majority's holding suggests that a trial court has the authority to issue a deadline for the admission of a defendant to an MDH facility to prevent a violation of the defendant's substantive due process rights. Justice Getty would hold that a trial court lacks the authority to impose such a deadline without, at a minimum, conducting an inquiry and making findings of fact that such a deadline is necessary to prevent a violation of a defendant's substantive due process rights. Furthermore, Justice Getty would hold that trial courts should generally defer to MDH policy and refrain from imposing such deadlines unless there are extraordinary circumstances that necessitate a rapid or immediate admission to inpatient care. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' August 28, 2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y82lwp8ffrom Leagle.com. MAURY COBB: Faces "Palacios" Suit in District of New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maury Cobb Attorney At Law, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is titled Jorge Palacios, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Maury Cobb Attorney At Law, LLC and John Does 1-25 the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv- 06118-PGS-LHG, (D.N.J., August 14, 2017). The case is assigned to Judge Peter G. Sheridan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com MCDONALDS CORP: Class Suits Filed over Illinois Soda Tax -------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, consumers took their outrage over Cook County's new sweetened-beverage tax to court just a week after it took effect, accusing McDonald's, 7- Eleven and Walgreens of applying the tax to unsweetened drinks and overtaxing sodas. Cook County's new tax on sugary beverages went into effect Aug. 2 and has already spawned a rash of lawsuits against retailers who have allegedly slapped the tax on unsweetened drinks as well. The county's sweetened-beverage tax ordinance imposes a tax of a penny-per-ounce on sugary drinks like soda, sweetened coffee and tea, and energy drinks. It does not apply to 100 percent juice drinks, unsweetened sparkling water or tea, or bottled water. Yvan Wojtecki filed a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's Corp. on August 8, in Cook County Circuit Court, claiming the fast-food restaurant applied the soda tax to the pre-tax price of his drink, so he was overcharged 2 cents. He seeks punitive damages equal to at least one percent of the annual revenue of Cook County McDonald's restaurants where the violations occurred. In a separate class action filed late on August 4, Vince De Leon says he purchased a case of Dasani Tropical Pineapple Sparkling Water from Walgreens and was charged under the ordinance, even though the product is clearly labeled as unsweetened. He demands a refund, and at least $50,000 in damages. And Kelly Tarrant sued 7-Eleven on August 9, also in Cook County, after she bought a Big Gulp iced coffee without adding any sugar, but was charged a sweetened-beverage tax of 28 cents. When Tarrant complained to the manager about the added tax, she was allegedly told that "the tax is programmed in the 7-Elevan store information system and that the system automatically charges the sweetened beverage tax to all beverages purchased in Gulp cups, regardless of whether the beverage is subject to the sweetened beverage tax." She wants a refund of the improperly levied tax for herself, and all others who were also wrongfully charged. The tax is expected to bring in $17 million a month for the cash- strapped county, which is home to Chicago, the nation's third most populous city. While public health was cited as the purpose of the new ordinance governing the tax, county officials admit the money it will generate is crucial to their operating budget this year. Retailers sued to block the tax ahead of its scheduled effective date of July 1, forcing the county to lay off over 400 employees due to lacking funds while a temporary restraining order was in effect. County Board President Toni Preckwinkle said a total of 1,100 jobs could be lost if the tax could not be collected. Illinois Retail Merchants Association Vice President Tanya Triche Dawood told DNAInfo Chicago that her organization is working with businesses to work out the kinks and correctly apply the tax. "I know that they're doing the best job that they can, but, as you can imagine, with all the thousands of products that can qualify there will probably be some mistakes made," Dawood said. Walgreens spokesperson Phil Caruso declined to comment on the lawsuit. The two other accused retailers did not immediately respond on August 9, to a request for comment. MIDAS PROPERTY: Underpays Construction Workers, "Reyes" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danilo Mesa Reyes and Yordy Silverio on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Midas Property Management Corp. and David Vericha, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06252, (S.D.N.Y., August 17, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, overtime and damages. Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated current and former employees of the defendants that they are entitled to (a) compensation from the defendants for statutory minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, (b) unpaid overtime work, and (c) liquidated damages. The plaintiffs were employed as construction workers of the defendants and during their term of employment worked for more than 40 hours per week. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants did not provide a time clock, sign-in sheet or any other method for employees to track their work time. The failure of the defendants to pay them their overtime hours was willful and lacked a good faith basis, the lawsuit says. Further, there were no written notices and complete weekly records providing the information required by law.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, New York 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 Email: michael@samuelandstein.com NATIONS RECOVERY CENTER: Faces "Gomez" Suit over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Gomez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nations Recovery Center, Inc; LVNV Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 06279-JLL-JAD, (D.N.J., August 21, 2017), seeks damages including interest, attorneys' fees and expenses against the defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff brings the class action on behalf of himself and all Passaic County, New Jersey consumers and their successors in interest who were sent debt collection letters or notices from the defendants which are in violation of the FDCPA. The plaintiff entered into a financial obligation to Citibank which debt was in default and purchased by LVNV. LVNV referred the Citibank obligation to Nations Recovery for collections. Defendants caused to be delivered to plaintiff a letter in connection with the collection of the Citibank obligation. The letter or notice to the plaintiff did not itemize or breakdown the amount of the debt by principal, interest, fees and other charges. Nations Recovery has not held and did not obtain a license under authority of the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act and of the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com NEBRASKA: Corrections Department Sued over Overcrowding in Jails ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Wheeler, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a class action filed in Nebraska federal court early on August 16, wants the Nebraska Department of Corrections and state parole board to address several prison issues including overcrowding, inadequate health care and a lack of accommodation for disabled prisoners. "Nebraska's prison system has an overcrowding crisis," said Danielle Conrad, executive director of the ACLU of Nebraska, in a statement. "The overcrowding exacerbates already severe problems that threaten the lives and health of its prisoners. The lack of appropriate mental and physical health care hurts prisoners while inside, and upon release hampers their re-entry into society. In order to protect the constitutional rights and well-being of incarcerated Nebraskans we need reform to the Nebraska state prison system at all levels." Citing violations of the Eighth Amendment and federal Americans with Disabilities laws, the complaint states that "Nebraska state prisons are in a state of chaos that endangers the health, safety, and lives of prisoners and staff alike on a daily basis. For over 20 years, Nebraska state prisons have been overcrowded, under- resourced, and understaffed. The result is a dangerous system in perpetual crisis." Currently at 159 percent of capacity, Nebraska prisons have been above the emergency capacity level for over a decade, according to the ACLU statement. As a consequence, prisoners lack access to adequate health care, are held in extreme isolation, exposed to violence and refused accommodations for disabilities. Incidents that spurred the class action include a prisoner who was left to die alone in his cell when his calls for help during a heart attack received no response, and an instance from earlier this year when a prisoner was killed by his inmate after the two were placed together in an isolation cell designed to hold a single occupant. Suicide rates in Nebraska corrections facilities are also 30 percent higher than the national average for state prisons. Plaintiff Hannah Sabata, a 24-year-old woman being held at the Correctional Center for Women in York, says she has suffered through repeated lapses in prescription medications she requires to treat schizophrenia and HIV. Another, a minor whose initials are R.P., says he is held in his cell for 23 hours a day despite his psychiatric disabilities and has been placed in shackles so frequently that his wrists and ankles are scarred. Michael Gunther is 62 years old and says he lost his sight because corrections failed to provide adequate treatment of his diabetes. Gunther, who has trouble walking because of his complications, is currently at risk of amputation. He says he sometimes goes without eating because he can't navigate his way to a dining area in another building without help and staff have "tripped him and put objects in his path," according to the complaint. "The crisis in Nebraska prisons threatens the health, safety, and lives of both prisoners and staff," said David Fathi, director of the ACLU National Prison Project, in a statement. Conrad, also with the ACLU, added, "Nebraska should immediately declare an emergency. Public safety is threatened every day." The deteriorating condition of Nebraska's corrections system has become a big story locally in recent years, as its problems have spilled into the community. Two riots rocked state penitentiaries in the last two years, the 90-page complaint notes, with multiple staff injuries and four prisoner deaths occurring during these eruptions. A scandal over widespread errors in sentencing calculations and the high-profile case of Nikko Jenkins has further eroded public faith in corrections. Jenkins murdered four people within days of his release from prison, with negligent parole supervision and improper sentence calculations playing a role as well, according to the complaint. Authorities set Jenkins free despite a lengthy history of violence both while incarcerated and while free in society, and had spent much of the two years before his release in solitary confinement while his mental state deteriorated. "Despite these events, repeated warnings from prison staff, multiple reports by outside consultants, and recommendations from the Nebraska Legislature, defendants have failed to take effective action to address these long-standing and well-known deficiencies," the complaint asserts, demanding an order compelling the state to address its issues. This past April, ACLU Nebraska publicized a letter to Gov. Pete Ricketts, a Republican, demanding he take "immediate action to remedy to the violations of law" and threatening litigation if no steps were taken. Making good on its threats, the ACLU notes that "there has been no meaningful action taken to address the overcrowded and unsafe conditions in Nebraska state prisons" since its April letter. In a statement issued on August 16, Ricketts pushed back against the notion that his administration and corrections officials have been inactive. "Over the past few years, all three branches of state government have made justice reinvestment and corrections reform a top priority. Together, we have invested millions of taxpayer dollars to protect public safety and expand state prisons. This litigation from the ACLU threatens public safety by seeking the early release of dangerous criminals and could endanger our corrections officers by further limiting the tools they have to manage the inmate population," he said. Corrections director Scott R. Frakes declined to comment on the lawsuit. But in April, he responded to the ACLU's demand by publicizing a letter of his own saying the department was making progress under his watch. "Thanks to a collaborative and comprehensive approach including all three branches of government we are on the road to reducing our prison population," Frakes said at the time. Eleven current prisoners filed the lawsuit, and class certification is requested on behalf of all current and future prisoners in Nebraska. David Fathi of the National Prison Project of the ACLU in Washington, Michael W. Bien of Rosen Bien, Christopher M. Young of DLA Piper, Amy A. Miller of ACLU of Nebraska, Robert E. McEwen of Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law and Debra Patkin of the National Association of the Deaf all signed the complaint. Along with the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and its director Scott R. Frakes, defendants include director of health services for corrections Harbans Deol and Nebraska Board of Parole and its acting administrator Julie Micek. NESTLE: Poland Spring Water "a Colossal Fraud," Patane Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Nestle's marketing and sales of Poland Spring water has been "a colossal fraud perpetrated against American consumers," 11 people claim in a federal class action in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Filing their suit on August 15, in Connecticut, where Nestle is based, the lead plaintiffs are from the Nutmeg State as well as New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. They say they would not have paid a premium for the water had they known it did not actually come from eight purported natural springs in Maine. Rather than being "100% Natural Spring Water," the "products all contain ordinary groundwater that defendant collects from wells it drilled in saturated plains or valleys where the water table is within a few feet of the earth's surface," lead plaintiff Mark J. Patane says in the complaint. "The vast bulk of that groundwater is collected from Maine's most populous counties in southwestern Maine, only a short distance from the New Hampshire border," the complaint continues. As required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, all bottled spring water must be collected either at the source of a naturally occurring spring or from a well that draws from a natural spring. "In hydrogeological parlance, all such well water must be 'hydraulically connected' to a genuine spring," the complaint states. But the class says that's not the case for defendant Nestle Waters North America's eight sites in Maine. Reacting to the lawsuit, a spokeswoman for Nestle Waters North America held true to the company's slogan. "The claims made in the lawsuit are without merit and an obvious attempt to manipulate the legal system for personal gain," the spokeswoman said in a statement. "Poland Spring is 100% spring water. It meets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations defining spring water, all state regulations governing spring classification for standards of identity, as well as all federal and state regulations governing spring water collection, good manufacturing practices, product quality and labeling. We remain highly confident in our legal position." Patane claims that if the eight sites used to bottle water did contain a spring, and the Connecticut-based company bottles 1 billion gallons a year, the spring would have to flow at an average rate of 245 gallons per minute: more forcefully than a 2-inch-diameter fire hose at 40 pounds per square inch. "Such a spring would be plainly visible -- more like a geyser than a spring -- and undoubtedly well known," plaintiffs' attorney Craig Raabe says in the 325-page complaint. "Yet there is no photographic proof that even one such spring -- much less eight -- exists on or near defendant's sites in Maine." The plaintiffs say the famous Poland Spring in Poland Spring, Maine, ran dry nearly 50 years ago -- decades before Nestle Waters bought the Poland Spring brand name. The "spring" Nestle claims exists in Poland Spring is at the bottom of a lake. "It has never been proven to exist, and the evidence that defendant itself filed with Maine regulators shows it does not exist," the complaint states. "Because the Poland Spring is not a source of its products, defendant's use of the 'Poland Spring' brand name is unlawful." The class claims Nestle has gone so far as to fake the existence of springs on its sites "by causing well water to flow artificially through pipes or plastic tubes into wetlands that contain no genuine springs." "Artificial man-made 'springs' do not satisfy FDA standards," the complaint states. "Genuine springs must have a 'natural orifice' through which water 'flows naturally' to the surface, without human assistance. By faking the existence of springs, defendant is defrauding its consumers," according to the complaint. Even worse, the class claims, are the conditions surrounding groundwater-collection sites. "Unknown to the general public, one or more wells at each of defendant's six largest volume groundwater collection sites in Maine -- which in recent years have collectively supplied up to 99 percent of the water in Poland Spring Water products -- are near a present or former human waste dump, refuse pit, landfill, ash pile, salt mound, farm where pesticides were previously used, fish hatchery or toxic petroleum dump site," the complaint states. "While Poland Spring Water products are not frequently contaminated because defendant disinfects -- and in some cases has purified -- the groundwater it collects, Poland Spring Water labels are misleading under FDA rules because, in addition to falsely advertising that the bottles contain '100% Natural Spring Water' purportedly sourced from natural springs, the labels depict pristine scenes of water flowing down a verdant hillside or a forest pond to convey an image of natural purity when, in fact, the vast bulk of the water is drawn from wells in low-lying populated areas near potential sources of contamination. The labels are also deceptive to the extent defendant purifies the water. If consumers knew where defendant's wells were actually located, rather than being misled by defendant's falsely reassuring labels depicting pristine scenes, and knew the extent to which defendant treated or purified the water, they would not buy, or would not pay premium prices for, Poland Spring Water products." None of this appears to have damaged sales. Poland Spring Water revenue nationwide was about $400 million in 2007 and has ranged from $300 million to $900 million annually for each of the past nine years. The plaintiffs call it marketing fraud, which enables Nestle to sell its water more cheaply than competitors in the spring-water market, but charge more than those in the purified-water market. They seek class certification, an injunction and at least $5 million in damages for false advertising, breach of contract, deceptive labeling and consumer-law violations. Attorney Raabe is with Izard, Kindall and Raabe of West Hartford. Co-counsel from New Jersey, New York and California also signed the complaint. In California, the federal government faces a suit for information on Nestle's permit to pump millions of gallons of water from Strawberry Creek in San Bernardino National Forest. Nestle pays just $524 a year for the permit, which it uses to sell Arrowhead and Pure Life bottled water. NY EDUCATION DEPT: Doesn't Pay OT to Custodians, Fernandes Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALCINDO FERNANDES, AGUSTIN PALU, JUAN PUIG, and JOSE RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK and NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06136, (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs for defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York State Department of Labor regulations. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons are or were formerly employed by the defendants as cleaners, firepersons, handypersons, stationary engineers classified particularly as Custodians. On or about August 12, 2016, the NYC School Support Services took over the direct management of the school custodians' payroll and from that point forward the plaintiffs began receiving the correct overtime premium rate of 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 hours per week regardless of whether these hours were performed during weekdays or weekends. But prior to August 12, 2016, the plaintiffs were not paid with their overtime pay. The complaint says that prior to or at least until August 12, 2017, there are at least 200 employees that the defendants unlawfully failed to pay overtime at a rate of 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian L. Greben, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN 316 Great Neck Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 304-5357 OTTER PRODUCTS: iPhone Waterproof Case Doesn't Work, Aikman Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Madelaine Aikman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC, LifeProof, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00937902-CU-BT-CXC, (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., August 16, 2017), seeks injunction and monetary relief including damages for defendants' product misrepresentations. According to the Complaint, the plaintiff purchased a waterproof phone case described as LifeProof NUUD for her iPhone 6s Plus. The plaintiff purchase the phone case despite several types of phone cases at various prices due to the representations of the product on the package as waterproof. The plaintiff had used and believed that the LifeProof NUUD phone case would adequately protect her phone from damage and paid a price greater than the prices of other similar phone cases. The plaintiff herself water test the phone case and brought the phone with her vacation. She used her phone to take pictures in the Lazy River and noticed water accumulation in the phone case. Her new phone was damaged and she noticed sporadic flashing of the LCD screen. The plaintiff contacted the defendant and stated that they would replace the NUUD phone case but would not reimburse for the water damage caused to the phone. The plaintiff for herself and on behalf of others similarly situated consumers of Otter's LifeProof NUUD phone case, allege that the defendants made negligent misrepresentations that the product is waterproof when in fact it would not protect the phones from water damage. As a result of the intentional misrepresentation, the plaintiff and others similarly situated consumers were damaged. Furthermore, the defendants have breached their express warranties when in fact the phone cases fails to conform to the promises and affirmations of fact made by defendants. Defendants are aware of the defect and chose not to cure it.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: R. Duane Westrup, Esq. Alexander Farkas, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WESTRUP & ASSOCIATES APC 444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1614 Long Beach, CA 90802-4524 Telephone: (562) 432-2551 Facsimile: (562) 435-4856 Email: jveloff@westrupassociates.com Email: afarkas@westrupassociates.com PANDORA MEDIA: Fails to Pay Indie Musicians, "Cupolo" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Rich Cupolo, John Emanuele and Bryan Eich, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated copyright holders, the Plaintiffs, v. Pandora Media Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-06304-WHP, (S.D.N.Y., August 20, 2017), seeks damages for alleged copyright infringement. The plaintiffs intend to represent a putative class comprised of independent artists seeking to remedy from the defendant's systematic infringement of their copyright musical recordings or their copyrighted musical works and from defendant's deliberate scheme to withhold royalties owed to plaintiffs and the putative class. The Plaintiffs tell the Court were not aware that their recordings were included in the defendant's premium subscription interactive music streaming service. The mere act of reproducing the plaintiffs' and the putative class' musical compositions and making them available in defendant's library without first serving an NOI constitutes an infringement of plaintiffs' and the putative class' rights under the law. Further, the defendant makes the musical composition available or distributes the composition before a publishing license is obtained which is a copyright infringement itself under the law which may not be cured after the fact of attempting to obtain a compulsory license. The plaintiffs also contend that they and the putative class did not received a monthly or annual royalty pay for the defendant's premium subscription interactive music streaming service.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Garbarini, Esq. GARBARINI FITZGERALD PC 250 Park Avenue 7th Floor New York, New York 10177 Telephone: (212) 300-5358 Facsimile: (347) 218-9478 PELLA CORP: "Opalka" Suit over Defective Windows Moved to D. S.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Venue of the case titled, Stanislav Opalka, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pella Corporation, the Defendant, was transferred from the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 2:17-cv-05184 (N.D. Ill.), to the District of South Carolina, Case No. 2:17-cv-02207 (D. S.C.), on August 22, 2017. The Illinois case was filed July 13, 2017. The Illinois case has been terminated following the Transfer. The lawsuit alleges that the defendant failed to disclose to purchasers that its Windows products are defective in material and workmanship as a result of the design and manufacturing practices of the defendant. As a result of the defect, there is a high probability that those Windows will fail and likely already have developed wood rot. The complaint explains that the wood rot will progress to the sills, frames and adjoining structure unless repaired and replaced before the rot progresses to those components. The result of the defective design does not become visible upon ordinary inspection until after years after installation. The complaint also relates that, in spite of the defendant's knowledge of the defect, it uses a limited warranty to profit from the premium price charged for defective windows. The defendant has been aware but did not disclose to the market on the substantial risk with their Windows product and would deny claims stating that the Windows had no defects. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff and other similarly situated persons have been damaged as a result of defendant's negligence, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and breach of express warranty. The Defendant's concealment of the defect is in violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment are also allege in the complaint.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence Buehler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER 17W220 22nd St. Suite 410 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Telephone: (331) 225-2123 Facsimile: (630) 333-0333 - and - Kent A. Heitzinger, Esq. KENT A. HEITZINGER & ASSOCIATES 1056 Gage St #200 Winnetka, IL 60093 Telephone: (847) 446-2430 PETMED EXPRESS: October 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of PetMed Express, Inc. (Nasdaq:PETS) ("PetMed" or the "Company") securities during the period between May 8, 2017 and August 23, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until October 24, 2017 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in PetMed securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was marketing dangerous and addictive animal drugs to humans, was vulnerable to potential civil and criminal liability, and could be halted from advertising by Google. According to the complaint, following an August 23, 2017 research report alleging that the Company was aggressively marketing dangerous painkillers to human opiate and drug users, which could capture the attention of regulators, the value of PetMed shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in PetMed securities purchased on or after May 8, 2017 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415- 6616. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. Charles J. Piven Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Tel: 410-415-6616 E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN] PFIZER: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Lipitor & Effexor Antitrust Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Third Circuit breathed new life on August 21, into antitrust lawsuits against four pharmaceuticals giants concerning the delayed entry to the market of generic versions of Lipitor and Effexor XR. Rite Aid, Walgreens and various labor unions are at the helm of the multidistrict litigation in New Jersey. As direct purchasers and end payors of various pharmaceuticals, the plaintiffs accused Pfizer, Ranbaxy and others of entering into reverse-payment settlement agreements that delayed the enforcement of Lipitor and Effexor XR patents. Reverse-settlement payments require the company holding the patent to pay the alleged infringer in return for the infringer's agreement not to produce the patented item. In the cases at hand, Ranbaxy and Teva allegedly accepted such payments to delay introduction of a generic version of Lipitor or Effexor XR. Though a federal judge in Philadephia, dismissed the claims at an early stage, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit in Philadelphia reversed on August 23. The ruling turns on the plausibility of the allegations, which the federal appeals court found compelling. A spokeswoman for Pfizer said they were "disappointed" in the result. "We believe that plaintiffs' claims were appropriately dismissed by the District Court and that the procurement and enforcement of our patents -- including settlements we and our subsidiary Wyeth agreed to -- were proper, lawful and in line with the Supreme Court's decision in FTC v. Actavis," Pfizer representative Allyanna Anglim said in an email. She said the company would continue "evaluate our legal options." As part of the Pfizer reverse settlement, the company agreed to release the Accupril charges against Ranbaxy, which could have been worth millions if it succeeded in exchange for Ranbaxy's agreement to delay the introduction of generic Lipitor. "The alleged reverse payment here was 'large' enough to permit a plausible inference that Pfizer possessed the power to bring about an unjustified anticompetitive harm through its patents and had serious doubts about the ability of those patents to lawfully prevent competition," U.S. Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote for the court. With regard to Effexor XR and the settlement between Wyeth and Teva Pharmaceuticals, Teva agreed to pay royalties to Wyeth and postpone the introduction of the antidepressant. Postponing the generic version was worth more than $500 million, according to the ruling. The appeals court found that plaintiffs in the Effexor XR case "could proceed to prove their claim through 'the traditional rule- of-reason approach.'" POCATELLO, ID: State Supreme Court Ruling Could Cost Millions ------------------------------------------------------------- Shelbie Harris, writing for Idaho State Journal, reports that in what looms as a possible devastating financial blow, the city of Pocatello could be on the hook for nearly $30 million following a state Supreme Court ruling this week, according to an attorney involved in the case. The state's highest court on September 7 reversed an earlier decision by district Judge Stephen S. Dunn and in doing so cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit that if successful would require the city to refund nearly $30 million in revenue acquired from illegally collected water and sewer fees, said Nathan Olsen, an Idaho Falls attorney who's representing the individuals suing the city. "The city is aware of the decision and staff are reviewing it as well as any implications for the city," responded Logan McDougall, spokesman for the city of Pocatello. "At this time, the city does not have a comment on the pending litigation." Opposed to increasing city property taxes because of the many exemptions given by the state, then-Pocatello Mayor Roger Chase penned a letter to the Idaho Attorney General's Office in 2006 requesting information about imposing a new rate of return fee for citizens paying water and sewer fees. Despite the attorney general's opinion that the new rate of return fee would not be an appropriate method of obtaining additional revenue, the city implemented the PILOT, or Payment In Lieu Of Taxes, program. The illegally collected fees went into a general reserve fund for the city as opposed to the water and sewer department fund and were collected in contradiction to Idaho law, the Idaho Supreme Court as well as Dunn ruled. The Building Contractors Association filed suit against Pocatello in December 2011 challenging the legality of the PILOT program and in 2013 Judge Dunn ruled that the city could no longer collect the inappropriate fee that in essence was a disguised tax. Dunn's decision reduced most Pocatellans' monthly water and sewer bills by approximately 10 percent. However, Dunn ruled that the city should not be required to retroactively refund the illegally collected water and sewer fees to fee-paying Pocatello residents. In 2014, the Hill Vu Mobile Home Park and Pocatello resident Ed Quinn filed a lawsuit seeking a refund of the PILOT payments they had made to the city during the time it was collecting those PILOT fees. "An interesting part of this decision is that once the judge found out that what the city of Pocatello was doing was wrong, (city officials) convinced the district court that as long as they weren't doing it anymore the city shouldn't have to pay the money back," said Olsen, who's representing Quinn and the mobile home park. "I've been involved in a number of (state) Supreme Court cases and this is a strongly worded opinion by Justice (Daniel) Eismann." Justice Eismann faulted the city of Pocatello for charging the excess fees and cited a long list of cases on how government fees must be related to the cost of services provided and "cannot be assessed purely as a revenue-generating scheme." According to Eismann, Judge Dunn was wrong for ruling that the recovery of the illegally collected PILOT fees was barred by Idaho law. "These are issues that really have their origin before the American Revolution," Olsen said. "This whole concept that governments cannot collect more than what they're entitled to and they have to use what they collect on its intended purposes." Olsen continued, "These are some fundamental constitutional principles. I mean, the Boston Tea Party was over this same issue." Olsen said the class-action lawsuit he plans to file will attempt to collect the money Pocatello residents were illegally charged by the city and return it to them. "We know how much they took illegally under the program and it's closer to $30 million," Olsen said. "How much we have a claim for is yet to be determined but it's a pretty sizeable figure." Justice Eismann put the figure at about $4 million. Chase said it would be difficult for the city to come up with the money, but he doesn't believe that the city acquired anything near the $30 million figure Olsen mentioned. "The idea there for the fee was that new construction coming into town would have to pay a hookup fee for connecting to water and sewer," Chase said. "We wanted to find another revenue base to stray away from property taxes." Chase continued, "With that amount of money (nearly $30 million) they must be figuring in interest or something because we never made that much money from the fee." The Idaho Supreme Court has sent the case back to Dunn with a recommendation that he rules in favor of Quinn and the mobile home park regarding their lawsuit. If the city is ordered to pay back the illegal fees it collected in Olsen's estimated amount of nearly $30 million, it's unclear how the city would be able to afford to do so. Once a class-action lawsuit is filed, citizens who paid the PILOT fee would receive notification of the lawsuit and the potential to obtain their respective refunds. Considering the city's annual budget is just more than $118 million for fiscal year 2018, a nearly $30 million hit could have serious implications. The city plans to make a large financial contribution to the public-private partnership to construct the Northgate Interchange that will connect Siphon Road and Olympus Drive to Interstate 15 north of Pocatello and Chubbuck. The question looms whether a class-action lawsuit costing the city of Pocatello many millions of dollars could impact the city's commitment to the interchange project. With the case now back in Dunn's hands -- and the state Supreme Court recommending he rule the city pay back those Pocatellans who paid the illegal fees -- Olsen is confident about the outcome. "We have the greenlight now to come back with the remand to determine how much was improperly taken and then require the city to repay the fees," Olsen said. "I have worked on this issue for more than 10 years and it has been one heck of a struggle but definitely worth it." [GN] PPI INC: Underpays Poker Dealers, "Rosenberg" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Rosenberg, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PPI, Inc. doing business as Isle Casino Racing Pompano Park, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17- 015827, (Fla. Cir., August 18, 2017), seeks to recover compensation and other relief under the Florida Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff brings the class action to recover compensation and damages owed to her and all other similarly situated employees of the defendant. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked as poker dealers at defendant's casino and were tipped employees. The complaint says the defendant failed to comply with the tip-credit requirements pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Act. As a result, the defendant must compensate the plaintiff and other similarly situated with at least minimum wage. The defendant willfully refused to properly compensate the plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for the minimum wage in violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Chad E. Levy, Esq. David Cozad, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway South Pointe I, Suite 588 Sunrise, FL 33323 Telephone: (954) 763-5722 Facsimile: (954) 763-5723 Email: chad@levylevylaw.com Email: assistant@levylevylaw.com QUARTER AT A TIME: Faces "Watson" Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quarter at a Time, LLC. The case is titled as Veronia Watson, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quarter at A Time LLC and Does 1 to 100, the Defendant, Case No. 34-2017- 00217570-CU-OE-GDS, (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty, August 16, 2017).[BN] QUINTIS: Hit With CA Over Losses of More than $120 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Woodwill and Ben Wilmont, writing for the Australian, reports that embattled sandalwood grower Quintis has been hit with a shareholder class action by Sydney-based firm Bannister Law which claims that investors in the company, whose shares have been suspended for nearly four months, have suffered losses of more than $120 million. Quintis has been locked in talks with note holders owed $US250m ($315m) on a recapitalisation plan but its efforts could be complicated by the spectre of the legal action that is being funded by JustKapital. The company was hit by credit downgrades this month after failing to make interest payments but has agreed a conditional forbearance agreement with a majority of noteholders, led by US fund manager BlackRock, until March. The class action claims that shareholders were hit by losses due to inadequate disclosure obligations ahead of the company's 77.5c share price plunge in May. The company was already facing skittish investors after a controversial report in March by Californian hedge fund Glaucus Research, which claimed the company was a worthless Ponzi scheme. Bannister Law solicitor Milan Cakic said more than 100 shareholders had already registered for the class action, which centres on Quintis' alleged failure to disclose that Nestle subsidiary Galderma terminated a long-term supply contract with it in mid-December but it did not disclose the move until early May. Mr Cakic noted that the 158 million shares traded between December 16 last year and May 10 may be argued to have suffered losses of 77.5 cents apiece. On that basis the quantum of losses could exceed $122m. The class action alleges that the announcement of Galderma's contract termination triggered the share price fall. Quintis shares were suspended from trading on May 15, and the company has since relied on waivers from noteholders to survive. In June, Quintis said the termination of the contract with Galderma was not considered to be price sensitive information because "the supply agreement with Galderma did not contain fixed or minimum quantities of supply and therefore Galderma had no obligation to acquire Quintis' oil". It said that oil sales to Galderma contributed 1.5 per cent to total sales revenue in fiscal 2014 and 2.5 per cent of total sales revenue in fiscal 2015. This meant that "volumes and monetary value" of the sale of East Indian sandalwood oil to Galderma were "not in themselves material" and not receiving subsequent orders was not "in itself" price sensitive information, it added. But lead plaintiff on the class action, Andrew Wyma, said he bought shares in Quintis based on the company's reports. "At its peak, my shares were worth more than $20,000. Now they're down to just over $7,000 and are still frozen in the trading halt. It's not looking promising," he said. "I assessed Quintis as a value stock based on external sources as well as the company's reports -- which I thought I could trust. A spokesman for Quintus told The Australian the company was yet to be notified by Bannister Law that the class action had been lodged. [GN] QUORN FOODS: Agrees to Change Labels to Reveal Main Ingredient -------------------------------------------------------------- Coral Beach, writing for Food Safety News, reports that described by critics as being made from "vat-grown fungus," Quorn Foods Inc. products are getting new labels prominently declaring they contain mold. The new label language is part of a class action settlement agreement between the company and a woman who filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of herself and anyone else in the United States who bought the products from Jan. 26, 2012, through Dec. 14, 2016. A final hearing on the class action lawsuit before U.S. District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee on Sept. 1 sealed the language for the warning labels and cash reimbursements for consumers who bought the Quorn products. In her orders, the judge made it clear that the settlement does not pre-empt or prohibit civil cases, pending or to be filed, by people who suffered physical repercussions from eating the Quorn "Chick'n" or "Turk'y" or other meat-free products containing "mycoprotein." One such case was filed in 2015 by the parents of an 11-year-old California boy who died June 19, 2013, the morning after he ate a Quorn "Turk'y Burger" his mother prepared for supper. The boy was allergic to mold, but his parents had no idea that Quorn's trademarked term "mycoprotein" was the corporation's label shorthand for its website statement: "we take a natural nutritious fungus from the soil and ferment it to produce a dough called Mycoprotein(TM)." Now, all Quorn products containing mycoprotein -- which makes up more than 50 percent of the ingredients in some of the products -- will have to carry the following statement, including the parenthetical material: "Mycoprotein is a mold (member of the fungi family). There have been rare cases of allergic reactions to products that contain mycoprotein." The judge's order requiring the label language is partly the result of work by the nonprofit watchdog organization the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI.) The center was not a party to the class action lawsuit in federal court, but it did file documents in the case indicating it would fight any settlement that did not include requirements for warning labels. "CSPI withdrew its objections after Quorn agreed to additional material labeling changes; the court then approved the settlement," the organization's leadership said in a news release on September 6. "Consumers deserve to know that Quorn comes from mold, which sometimes causes serious gastrointestinal and breathing problems," CSPI litigation director Maia Kats said in the release. "The labeling improvements we've negotiated with Quorn will help consumers understand what 'mycoprotein' is and that it sometimes does trigger adverse reactions." The settlement In terms of class actions in the federal court system, Birbrower v. Quorn Foods Inc. was resolved quickly. California resident Kimberly Birbrower filed the case in state court in January 2016. Within a month it was moved to federal court. In January this year Birbrower, representing the consumer class, and Quorn reached a settlement agreement. CSPI filed its intent to oppose that agreement in March. The parties agreed on a revised settlement, including the mandatory warning label, this summer and CSPI terminated its objection Aug. 23. In addition to changing its labels, Quorn has to pay up to $1.35 million in legal fees incurred by Birbrower. The corporation must also set up "an initial non-refundable settlement fund" of $2.5 million to begin reimbursing consumers for the estimated $120 million they spent on Quorn products. Following is the settlement language approved by the judge: "First, the Settlement provides Quorn will now uniformly disclose on its packages that its products contain mold in the Allergy Warning, and the Allergy Warning will be prominently placed at or near the top of the back or side-labels of all Quorn Products. "Second, Quorn will no longer represent or imply its products are made of 'mushrooms, truffles or morels.' "Third, Quorn will provide a full refund to all Class Members who purchased Quorn Products in the U.S. during the Class Period if they have an itemized receipt proving they purchased the product(s). There are no limitations on the aggregate refund amount to the Class, nor are there limitations on the total refund amount for any individual Class Member. So long as they provide itemized receipts showing how much they paid for Quorn Products during the Class Period, the Class Member will receive a full refund for that amount. Based on confirmatory discovery, Plaintiff estimates the Class paid approximately $120,000,000 for Quorn Products during the Class Period. "Fourth, for those Class Members who do not have itemized receipts, they may receive an alternative remedy of "$5 Per Month" for each month during the Class Period in which they claim to have purchased Quorn Product(s), up to a cap of $40 per year for each year of the five-year Class Period, for a maximum possible refund of $200. To be eligible for this remedy, such Class Members will simply be required to verify under oath they purchased Quorn Products during the months they claim and submit a credit or debit card statement, or a non-itemized receipt, showing they made purchases at a store that sold Quorn Products during those months (the "Alternative Proof of Purchase Documents"). For example, if they have a credit card statement showing they made purchases at a Whole Foods or WalMart during the Class Period (two stores that sold Quorn Products), then such Class Members will receive $5 for each month they claim to have purchased Quorn Products at such stores, up to a cap of $40 per year for each year of the five-year Class Period, for a maximum possible refund of $200. Based on the confirmatory discovery, the average retail price of a Quorn product is between $4.00 and $4.75 and Quorn's most loyal customers purchase approximately eight (8) products per year for a total of approximately $41. Thus, this alternative "$5 Per Month" remedy will likely provide close to full refunds for most Class Members even with the annual $40 caps. "Fifth, while the release includes all claims relating to the allegations in this lawsuit, it does not include any claims for personal injuries for those customers who may have suffered adverse reactions from mold allergies after consuming Quorn Products. "Sixth, the Settlement provides that Quorn will separately pay for all attorneys' fees and costs, incentive awards and claims administrations costs approved by the Court, and such payments will not in any way reduce the monetary benefits available to the Class." The background The CSPI raised concerns about Quorn's unique main ingredient in the early 2000s and asked the Food and Drug Administration to remove the products from the marketplace. Since its initial request to FDA, the CSPI has received approximately 2,500 reports from consumers of adverse reactions to Quorn products. In addition to the California boy, a death in Sweden is attributed to Quorn. "Some consumers have reported adverse reactions after eating Quorn, including vomiting, diarrhea, and, in rarer cases, life- threatening anaphylactic reactions," according to CSPI. The organization had been monitoring the non-meat products since they were introduced in the United Kingdom in 1993. Now owned by Philippines-based Monde Nissin Corp., Quorn was launched by Marlow Foods Ltd. Labels on the non-meat products in the U.S. and other countries previously provided a bit of linguistics, presented in parentheses, and botany: "Quorn [insert specific product name here] are made with mycoprotein ("myco" is Greek for "fungi") and are completely meatless and soy- free. There are believed to be over 600,000 varieties of fungi in the world, many of which are among the most sought after foods like varieties of mushroom, truffles, and morels." In the U.S. legal actions against Quorn, consumers said they were misled by the company's label claims. They said in their complaints that they thought "mycoprotein" was made from "mushrooms, truffles and morels." [GN] RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL: "Vigueras" Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled, Manuel Vigueras, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Red Robin International, Inc., doing business as Red Robin Burger Spirts Emporiums, the Defendant, was removed on August 17, 2017, from the Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2017 00931770-CU-OE-CXC, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:17-cv-01422-JVS-DFM. The case is now assigned to Judge James V. Selna.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James R Hawkins, Esq. Christina M Lucio, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS LAW OFFICES APLC 9880 Research Drive Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com Email: christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com Defendant is represented by: Sean Francis Daley, Esq. Lonnie Domonic Giamela, Esq. FISHER AND PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: sdaley@fisherphillips.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Unlawfully Collects Debt, "Burgos" Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ SAMMY BURGOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.; LVNV FUNDING, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17- cv-06121-PGS-TJB, (D.N.J., August 14, 2017), seeks damages and declaratory relief arising from defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation to Chase Bank USA, N.A. primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The debt was purchased by or sold to LVNV and LVNV referred the Chase obligation to Resurgent for the purpose of collections. The obligation was in default at the time it was purchased by LVNV and at the time it was referred to Resurgent. Resurgent sent the Plaintiff a collection letter. The letter did not itemize or breakdown the amount of the debt by principal, interest, fees and other charges. In addition, the letter did not inform the plaintiff that the amount of the debt included an amount for interest, amount for costs and fees. The complaint says Resurgent and LVNV did not have the appropriate license under the New Jersey Finance Licensing Act. Therefore, it was prohibited from attempting to collect on the debt. The complaint contends that plaintiff and others similarly situated persons have a right to receive the proper letter notices as mandated by the Fair Debt Collection Practices. The defendants' attempt to collect the debt without first obtaining the necessary license under the New Jersey law also violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com RIVAS METALS DESIGN: Faces "Arroyo" Wage-and-Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Luis Enrique Arroyo, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. Rivas Metals Design Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and Osmin Rivas, the Defendants, Case No. 60502444, (Fla. Cir., August 16, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime or minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and obtain declaratory relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants Rivas Metals Design and its corporate officer Osmin Rivas allegedly committed violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages. The plaintiff was employed with the defendants as a non-exempt helper from approximately July 11, 2017 through on or about July 25, 2017. Throughout his employment, the defendant failed to compensate him the required overtime and or minimum wages at a rate of one and a half times the plaintiff's regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours within a single work week. The defendant owed to the plaintiff approximately $162.50 unpaid unliqudated overtime wages plus an additional equal amount of liquidated damages. The suit says the defendant knew and showed reckless disregard of the provisions of the FLSA concerning the unpaid wages since the commencement of plaintiff's employment. Also, the defendants never posted any notice to inform the employees of their federal rights to overtime and or minimum wages as required by the FLSA and Federal Law.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rember, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com RUBY TEQUILA: Hot With Class Action Over Back Wages --------------------------------------------------- Ben Egel, writing for Lubboc Avalanche Journal, reports that former Ruby Tequila's employees file class action lawsuit for back wages Sixty-three former Ruby Tequila's Mexican Kitchen employees filed a joint class-action lawsuit on September 7 morning to recover back wages from their ex-employers. The lawsuit lists Richard Kevin Foote, his company Fired Up Holdings Co., Magdalena Baier -- Foote's business partner -- R Tequila Acquisition, Chalak Mitras Group and Gurdev and Rajeev Singh Gill as co-defendants. Chalak Mitras, a Dallas-based investment group, sold the four Ruby Tequila's locations to Fired Up Holdings in May, two months before the Tex-Mex eatery abruptly closed. When Ruby Tequila's was shuttered in July, the lawsuit alleges, several employees lost their homes and remain barred from collecting unemployment benefits. Though 63 plaintiffs at the Lubbock and Amarillo Ruby Tequila's had been identified as of September 7 , Young &Newsom partner Jeremi Young -- working on the case beside Blackburn &Brown partner Jeff Blackburn -- said more than 400 employees at the various restaurants owned by Fired Up Holdings had been affected by the company's implosion. Fired Up Holdings owned Twisted Spigot restaurants in El Paso and Lubbock and had planned to open one on Interstate 40 in Amarillo. Blackburn said the Ruby Tequila's closures, along with Foote's previous restaurant failures, including the closure of Bennigan's in Amarillo two months after its purchase, were not accidents. "Foote is not just some hapless guy who can't seem to get a restaurant going," Blackburn said. The plaintiffs are arguing Foote, Chalak Mitras and the other defendants violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by not giving advance notice of mass layoffs and not following the required steps to help former employees find new work. Blackburn and Young have yet to identify the damages they seek but will ask for at least 60 days of wages and benefits for all employees. For Jeffrey Tate, one of the seven named plaintiffs in the suit and a former dishwasher at a Lubbock Ruby Tequila's, that means more than $3,000. It's why he protested "We can't let (Foote) get away with this. He's done it before and he's still able to go into business and open restaurants," Tate said. "He came here and messed with the wrong people." Chalak Mitras and Fired Up Holdings representatives could not be reached for comment. Young said he has represented more than 10,000 employees over the past 15 years of practice. In that time, he said, no other case matched up to this. "I have never, ever in my career seen something as blatant as what's happened at these Ruby Tequila's locations. I've never had an employer walk in, shut down their entire operation, not pay employees for weeks and sometimes months of pay . . . on this scale that we know has been viable for many years," Young said. "This is a widespread catastrophe that is striking the lives of many people." [GN] SAN JACINTO, TX: Potts Law Firm Sues on Behalf of Flood Victims --------------------------------------------------------------- Potts Law Firm, a Houston-based law firm, filed a class action on September 6, 2017, in the Harris County District Court seeking to represent all individuals and businesses recently affected by the San Jacinto River Authority's handling of "controlled release" of water from Lake Conroe on August 27, 2017. As a result of the release, it is estimated that thousands of homeowners and business owners' properties were flooded who had previously escaped flooding from Hurricane Harvey itself. The lawsuit styled Thomas E. and Beth F. Ross, et.al. v. San Jacinto River Authority, et al., consists of two subclasses for (1) All Texas residential property owners who experienced flood waters at their property on or after Monday, August 28, 2017, in the area downstream of Lake Conroe affected by the rising waters of the San Jacinto River as a result of San Jacinto River Authority's decision to release water from Lake Conroe; and (2) All Texas commercial property owners who experienced flood waters at their property on or after Monday, August 28, 2017, in the area downstream of Lake Conroe affected by the rising waters of the San Jacinto River as a result of San Jacinto River Authority's decision to release water from Lake Conroe. Plaintiffs owned property that was not flooding after Hurricane Harvey sat over Harris and Montgomery Counties on Saturday, August 26, 2017 and Sunday, August 27, 2017, but only began flooding on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 when the San Jacinto River Authority released water from Lake Conroe. After the release, Plaintiffs' property took on several feet of flood water. The suit seeks damages for the government's intentional taking of properties by flooding and seeks recovery for the repair costs to such properties, diminution in value of the properties, lost income or business income to the properties' owners, and any consequential loss of the flooding. Inverse condemnation occurs when the government takes private property but fails to pay the compensation required by Section 17, Article 1 of the Texas Constitution. Similar lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and a class action was certified by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. "In the devastating aftermath of the flooding, Potts Law Firm stands ready to support our clients, our employees, and our community at this most challenging time", said Derek H. Potts, National Managing Partner in Houston. "This case is particularly important to us since it directly impacted so many friends, neighbors, and family members." Widely recognized for their expertise in complex litigation and trials, Potts Law Firm has obtained record-setting verdicts and settlements on behalf of clients in state and federal courts across the country. The attorneys with Potts Law Firm are dedicated to fighting for the rights of victims of flood and wind catastrophes. About Potts Law Firm Potts Law Firm diligently pursues a variety of complex litigation and mass tort matters, from complex pharmaceutical cases to challenging eminent domain claims. The firm's team of highly competent attorneys have experience in many different areas complex litigation. Believing that every detail of a case matters, firm attorneys work tirelessly to pursue just compensation, regardless of the obstacles faced. For more information, visit www.potts-law.com [GN] SHAMROCK FOODS: Faces "Ruiz" Suit in Central District California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shamrock Foods Company. The case is styled as Mario Ruiz, Raul Guerrero and Robert Torres, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Shamrock Foods Company, an Arizona Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06017-SVW-AFM, (C.D. Cal., August 14, 2017). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq. Aashish Y Desai, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM PC 3200 Bristol Street Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 Email: adrianne@desai-law.com Email: aashish@desai-law.com SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Faces Suit over NJ Superfund Site Cleanup ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class of Gibbsboro, New Jersey, residents brought a federal complaint in Camden, N.J., against the Sherwin-Williams Co. to have it clean up a Superfund site that is sickening people with cancer and various diseases. The case is, BRAD LAFFERTY, CHRISTEN LAFFERTY, BRAD LAFFERTY AND CHRISTEN LAFFERTY, in their capacity of Guardians Ad Litem of their minor daughter, EL, a minor, CORRINE PROCAJLO, SANDRA KEA TING LAUREN PROCAJLO, MICHAEL DIGIOVANNI, SPENCER POPE, LISA DIGIOVANNI, GINA TARTAGLIA, ANTHONY TARTAGLIA, SCOTT LITTLEFIELD, KRISTEN LITTLEFIELD SCOTT AND KRISTEN LITTLEFIELD in their capacity of Guardians Ad Litem of their minor daughter, LL, a minor, DAWN D'ORAZIO, AND GINA HYNDMAN, in their individual capacity and on behalf of others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS V. THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY, INC, AND JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:17-cv-06321-JHR-AMD (D. N.J., August 22, 2017). Attorney for plaintiffs: Craig R. Mitnick, Esq. MITNICK LAW OFFICE, LLC 35 Kings Highway East Haddonfield, NJ 08033 SHOWTIME NETWORKS: Faces Suits over Mayweather-McGregor Fight ------------------------------------------------------------- Joss Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in state and federal court, Showtime faces bicoastal class actions from fight fans who say say their $99 broadcast of the Mayweather- McGregor fight was shakier than the unlucky Irishman on August 26. Pitting the undefeated boxer Floyd Mayweather against the charismatic ultimate fighter Conor McGregor, the weekend showdown was estimated in advance to make more than $1 billion, breaking previous records for pay-per-view fights. Mayweather held on to his title, but one federal class action in Portland, Oregon, against Showtime Networks says the viewing experience was ruined by "grainy video, error screens, buffer events, and stalls." Zack Bartel, the lead plaintiff in that case, estimates the Oregon class alone to consist of thousands of jilted viewers, "based on the historic nature of the fight and the record-breaking demand to watch it." In addition to the Bartel case, Showtime faces a class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court from Dean and Keefe Ferrandini. A New Yorker named Victor Mallh filed a federal class action as well, in the state's Southern District. A fourth class action was filed in Las Vegas Federal Court. The Ferrandinis note that the process of logging on to stream the broadcast took hours, and the title match "was well underway" by the time the application finally started to work. "Instead of enjoying the match they had paid for, Plaintiffs spent the majority of the evening frustrated and on the phone trying to get through to customer service," the complaint states. Mallh's complaint in New York notes that hundreds of viewers were inundating Showtime's support account on Twitter with refund inquiries when the network "issued a sanitized and misleading announcement." "Due to high demand, we have reports of scattered outages from various cable and satellite provides and the online offering," Showtime Sports said in a statement. "We will delay the start of the main event slightly to allow for systems to get on track. We do not expect a lengthy delay." Representatives for Showtime have not responded to a request for comment. The network is a subsidiary of CBS Corporation. Represented by Orin Kurtz of Grady & Notis, Mallh seeks treble damages for breach of contract, fraud and other claims. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Denise Cote. Hrag Kouyoumijan of Seven Hill Law represents the class in Los Angeles, and Michael Fuller of Olsen Daines represents the Portland class. All three class actions report that, as of their filing, none of the plaintiffs had received refunds from Showtime. Media reports indicate that Showtime is directing upset customers to their internet/cable providers first, but will handle complaints from anyone who bought the fight through Showtimeppv.com and the ShowtimePPV app. According to content-security vendor Irdeto, Saturday's fight reportedly yielded 239 illegal live-streamed rebroadcasts online, reaching more than 2.9 million viewers worldwide. With 532 movie theaters around the country showing the fight as well, it even made into this weekend's box office Top 10. SNA CONCRETE: Faces "Fabre" Suit in E.D. of New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against S.N.A. Concrete Pumping Corp. The case is styled as Alan Fabre, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S.N.A. Concrete Pumping Corp., P & L Pumping Inc. and Paul Leal, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05303 (E.D. N.Y., September 11, 2017). S.N.A. Concrete Pumping Corp. is in the Concrete Pumping business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SNY LEE: Barajas et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emilio Barajas, Eugenio Espino Barros, Osmar Cardona, Jose Maria Guillen and Oscar Meneses, the Plaintiffs, v. SNY Lee Inc. doing business as NYS Lee Inc., doing business as Skinny's Cantina, SJL 2 Inc. doing business as Kavala, Shih Yu Lee and Shih Nien Lee, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04873-SJ-PK, (E.D.N.Y., August 18, 2017), seeks monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief to redress Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and other supporting regulations. Defendants were employers of plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees. The complaint says the defendants: -- did not post a work schedule reflecting the plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees' scheduled hours of work, and -- failed to keep full and accurate records of plaintiffs hours and wages in order to avoid liability for their wage violations as required by the FLSA. The defendants knowingly, intentionally and willfully failed to pay plaintiff and other similarly situated employees the minimum hourly rate, overtime pay and spread of hours pay under the FLSA and NYLL for all hours worked.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Hope Pordy, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON LLP 1700 Broadway, 21st Floor New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 765-2100 Facsimile: (212) 765-8954 Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com SOTHEBYS HOLDINGS: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sothebys Holdings. The case is titled as Lawrence Young, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sothebys Holdings, Sothebys International Realty Affiliates LLC, Sothebys International Realty, Inc. and Sothebys Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06264-KPF, (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2017). The case is assigned to Judge Katherine Polk Failla.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. BRONSON LIPSKY LLP 630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 Facsimile: (212) 444-1030 Email: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com SPOKEO INC: Must Defend Against Class Suit, 9th Cir. Says --------------------------------------------------------- Nick Mccann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the Ninth Circuit ruled on August 15, that online data aggregator Spokeo must face a class action lawsuit from a man who says the website displayed inaccurate information about him: falsely calling him wealthy and well-educated. Virginia resident Thomas Robins sued Spokeo in 2010, claiming the site falsely described him as wealthy and well-educated, which he feared would affect his job search because companies might reject him as overqualified. Robins' profile on Spokeo had his age wrong, and falsely said he was married with children and had a graduate degree, according to his lawsuit. He sued the company in Los Angeles Federal Court, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. U.S. District Judge Otis Wright dismissed for lack of standing, and also dismissed an amended complaint, finding Robins did not show he had suffered any actual harm. A Ninth Circuit panel revived the case in 2014. "The statutory cause of action does not require a showing of actual harm when a plaintiff sues for willful violations," Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote then. "When, as here, the statutory cause of action does not require proof of actual damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the statutory right without suffering actual damages." The U.S. Supreme Court last year reversed the Ninth Circuit, with Justice Samuel Alito writing for the 6-2 majority that a "bare procedural violation" of a credit reporting statute is not enough to show injury. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent that Robins was harmed by the inaccuracies on the Spokeo page, which created the impression that he was overqualified for work. "Robins would not qualify, the Court observes, if he alleged a 'bare' procedural violation . . . one that results in no harm, for example, 'an incorrect zip code,'" Ginsburg wrote. "Far from an incorrect zip code, Robins complains of misinformation about his education, family situation, and economic status, inaccurate representations that could affect his fortune in the job market." On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit ruled on August 15 that Robins had standing to sue Spokeo under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Because the Spokeo page had already been published, Robins alleged injuries that were "concrete" enough to establish standing, according to the unanimous three-member panel. Writing for the court, O'Scannlain noted that the Supreme Court "gave little guidance as to what varieties of misinformation should fall into the harmless category, beyond the example of an erroneous zip code." "It does not take much imagination to understand how inaccurate reports on such a broad range of material facts about Robins's life could be deemed a real harm," O'Scannlain wrote, reversing and remanding. Robins' attorney Jay Edelson called it a "terrific decision" on Twitter, and told The Consumerist that "litigants need not show 'additional injury' beyond what Congress has articulated." Spokeo was disappointed, saying in a statement that it agreed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's prior observation that "the class . . . is not going to be certified." Spokeo vowed to continue the fight at the district court. Cases like Robins' are "the kinds of no-injury class actions that many companies face and that can stifle innovation," Spokeo said in the statement. Ninth Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber and Carlos T. Bea joined O'Scannlain on the panel. STATE FARM: Mitchell Moves for Certification of Liability Class --------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LORINE MITCHELL v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-01299-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), moves for an order certifying an issues class. The Rule 23(b)(3) liability class is defined as: All persons and legal entities, insured under a State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm") property insurance policy coverage form other than property form FE-3650 Actual Cash Value Endorsement or similar property form which expressly permits the depreciation of labor, and who received an "actual cash value" ("ACV") payment from State Farm for direct physical loss to a dwelling or other structure located in the State of Mississippi, and in which the cost of labor was withheld in whole or in part (or as described by State Farm as "depreciated") as reflected within an Xactimate estimate used by State Farm to calculate the corresponding ACV payment. The proposed class includes any policyholder who received no ACV payment from State Farm solely because the withholding of labor depreciation caused the value of the claim to drop below the applicable deductible. The proposed class excludes any person or entities whose applicable suit limitation clause for ACV claims within their respective State Farm's policy had expired at the time of the filing of the Complaint in the instant action, but includes any person or entity so affected through the date of final disposition of this matter. Ms. Mitchell also asks that she be appointed class representative, and that her counsel be appointed as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X0mHtcmS The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. David C. Linder, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 30 East Seventh St., Suite 2800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 E-mail: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com dlinder@larsonking.com - and - G. Patrick Murphy, Esq. MURPHY AND MURPHY, LLC 3415 Office Park Drive, Suite D Marion, IL 62959 Telephone: (618) 248-3236 E-mail: patrick@murphymurphyllc.com - and - J. Brandon McWherter, Esq. GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: bmcwherter@gilbertfirm.com - and - David McMullan, Jr., Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com SUGAR FACTORY: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. of New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugar Factory, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Andrews, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Sugar Factory, LLC doing business as: Sugar Factory and Sugar Factory the Row, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05311 (E.D. N.Y., September 11, 2017). Sugar Factory, LLC is engaged in retail store and on-line retail store featuring candy, confections, ice cream, baked goods, and delicatessen goods; retail store and on-line retail store services featuring candy, confections, ice cream, baked goods, and delicatessen goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com TACO CHIC: Corvalan Seeks to Certify Class of Servers Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARCOS CORVALAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TACO CHIC, LLC d/b/a Tacology, a Florida limited liability company, and ALBERTO CINTA, an individual, Case No. 1:17-cv-22538-JLK (S.D. Fla.), moves the Court for an order certifying collective action and authorizing notice to all class members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The "216(b) Class Members" are: All persons who worked for Defendants as servers within the three years preceding this lawsuit and who, as a result of Defendants' policy of requiring servers to share tips with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips and to work without being paid an hourly wage, earned less than the applicable minimum and/or overtime wage for one or more weeks. Specifically, Mr. Corvalan alleges that he and other 216(b) Class Members were (1) forced to participate in a non-transparent tip pool or tip-share, in which tips were believed to have been shared with non-tipped employees such as management and/or owners; and were (2) paid below the minimum and overtime wage for tipped employees. The Plaintiff and 216(b) Class Members were employees of Taco Chic, doing business as Tacology, a Florida limited liability company, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jcz5WyJr The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Rene Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq. Geoffrey Travis, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 347-7337 Facsimile: (305) 347-7837 E-mail: rllorens@shutts.com gtravis@shutts.com TACO CHIC: Corvalan Seeks to Certify Servers Class Under Rule 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MARCOS CORVALAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TACO CHIC, LLC d/b/a Tacology, a Florida limited liability company, and ALBERTO CINTA, an individual, Case No. 1:17-cv-22538-JLK (S.D. Fla.), moves the Court for an order certifying a Rule 23 Class Action pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Amendment, and authorizing notice to all class members. Mr. Corvalan seeks class-action certification of this class: All persons who worked for Defendants as servers within the five years preceding this lawsuit and who, as a result of Defendants' policy of requiring servers to share tips with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips and to work without being paid an hourly wage, earned less than the Florida minimum wage for one or more weeks. Specifically, Mr. Corvalan alleges that he and Rule 23 Class Members were forced to participate in a mandatory and illegal tip- sharing scheme in which tipped employees shared their tips with non-tipped employees and were paid below the minimum and overtime wage for tipped employees. The Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class Members were employees of Taco Chic doing business as Tacology, a Florida limited liability company, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PII4QVwP The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com TOKYO ELECTRIC: Army Exposed to Radiation, "Burbach" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Burbach, Nolan R Allen, Andrew Anderson et al., individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Tokyo Electric Power Company Inc. also known as TEPCO, General Electric and Does 5 through 200, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01671-DMS-KSC, (S.D. Cal., August 18, 2017), seeks damages due to the release of radioisotopes from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of members of the armed forces, their dependents and support personnel. They allege that the defendants were negligent when all of them were exposed during the mission known as "Operation Tomodachi". The plaintiffs state that they suffered injuries, losses, damages and caused harms due to defendants' conduct including the negligently designed and maintained GE Boiling Water Reactors situated at Fukushima Daiichi which contain numerous design and manufacturing defects. The harms include illnesses such as leukemia, ulcers, gall bladder removals, brain cancer, brain tumors, testicular cancer, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, thyroid illnesses, stomach ailments, birth defects, death and a host of other complaints unusual in such young adults and victims. The plaintiffs seek judgment requiring the defendants to establish a fund in an amount not less than $5 billion as to each defendant available, to advance and pay all costs and expenses for each of the plaintiffs.[BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul C. Garner, Esq. Charles A. Bonner, Esq. A. Cabral Bonner, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER 475 Gate Five Rd., Suite 212 Sausalito, CA 94965 Telephone: (415) 331-3070 Facsimile: (415) 331-2738 Email: pcg@garnerlaw.com Email: cbonner799@aol.com Email: cabral@bonnerlaw.com - and - John R. Edwards, Esq. Catharine E. Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS KIRBY 3201 Glenwood Ave. Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 780-5400 Facsimile: (919) 800-3099 TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Lacks Standing to Collect Debts, Jackson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Jackson, Connie Feldhahn, Dorothy Kyllonen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Transworld Systems Inc. and Shermeta Law Group PLLC and Weltman, Weinberg & Reis C. LPA, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-12725- GAD-APP, (E.D. Mich., August 20, 2017), seeks damages and injunctive relief based upon defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, The Regulation of Collection Practices Act and the Michigan Occupation Code. The Plaintiffs contend that the defendants filed debt collection lawsuits throughout the state of Michigan without the proper ownership of debts or chain of title of ownership of debts to have standing to sue Michigan consumers. TSI is a collector of private student loan debts for vast network of Education Trusts titled as National Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust (NCSLT) that employs collection law firms through the State of Michigan to file collection lawsuits. According to the complaint, TSI is collecting a defaulted student loans through collection lawsuits filed by defendants Shermeta and Weltman at its own direction even though there is no proof or chain of title from the original lender of the student loans. There has no standing or any minimum proof necessary to take the case to completion or trial at the time the lawsuits are filed by the defendants. TSI along with the collection law firms all know they cannot make out a prima facie case demonstrating the existence or ownership of any of the education debts at the very beginning of the lawsuit against Michigan consumers.[BN] Transworld Systems Inc. is a debt collector that services and collects large portfolios of defaulted student loans through its own employees and Michigan law firms.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Parker, Esq. BRIAN P. PARKER PC 4301 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 180-208 West Bloomfield, MI 48323 Tel: (248) 342-9583 Fax: (248) 659-1733 Email: brianparker@collectionstopper.com UBER TECH: Mejia Sues in Florida over Ban on Guns ------------------------------------------------- Alex Pickett, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that on a rainy afternoon in June, Mary Ann Krivda pulled her four-door sedan into a St. Petersburg, Florida parking lot. Krivda, who began driving for the ride-sharing service Uber four months ago, saw her passenger, an elderly woman with a walker, standing under a tree. Krivda, 53, stepped out of the car to help the woman into the backseat and attempted to put the walker in the trunk. But the walker would not fit. "I said, 'Ma'am, this walker is not going to fit,'" Krivda recalls. "I offered to drive her under the awning of the building to wait for another ride, but I couldn't drive down the road with my trunk open and the walker falling out." The woman refused, berated Krivda and wouldn't get out of the car, she claims. "I said, 'Ma'am, you do understand you are holding me against my will?'" Krivda says. "So, I called the police to get her out." The woman ended up leaving on her own before police arrived, Krivda says, but the experience unsettled her. "I was basically carjacked by a woman with a walker," she says. "Just because it's an older lady with a walker doesn't mean it can't be an older lady with a walker and a gun or knife." If you spend enough time with an Uber driver, you're bound to hear tales of irate or unruly passengers. That uneasiness has led one South Florida driver to challenge Uber's policy prohibiting weapons. Jose Mejia filed a federal class-action lawsuit in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., against Uber, alleging its no-firearms policy violates Florida law. The complaint, filed on August 11, in Fort Lauderdale federal court, cites the Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act, passed by the Florida Legislature in 2008. The law allows legal gun owners to keep firearms in their vehicles on their employer's property and bans any employment discrimination based on gun ownership. According to the complaint, Mejia holds a permit to carry a concealed weapon and he wants the option to carry his firearm while shuttling people around the state. "You may or may not agree with the Second Amendment, but it is not up to Uber to unilaterally decide drivers' constitutional rights or their rights under this law," said Mejia's attorney, Elizabeth Beck of Miami-based Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers. A spokeswoman for Uber declined to comment on the lawsuit and referred Courthouse News to the firearms prohibition policy listed on its website. "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," the policy states. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app. Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to Uber." Uber banned drivers and passengers from carrying firearms in 2015 after a Chicago driver shot a suspected gunman who fired into a group of people in Logan Square. In the past, Uber has attempted to skirt some employment laws by claiming drivers are independent contractors and not actual employees. However, Mejia's attorney points to language in the 2008 Florida statute that specifically covers independent contractors and volunteers. "You don't even have to be paid to be covered by this law," Beck said. Uber has fired Florida drivers who violated the weapons ban -- or, as the company puts it, restricted the driver's use of the app. In 2015, a retired New York Police Department officer driving in Clearwater, Fla. shot a passenger in the foot after the man allegedly attempted to choke him. Uber fired him days later. Across the bay in Tampa, Uber driver Robert Addington says drunks are more of a problem than robbers. "I've never had any rides where I've felt threatened," he said. "I had a woman spit on my car once. Every now and again, you have a bad apple, but nothing that has been physically violent." The 48-year-old recalled one passenger in Tampa's trendy SoHo district who puked in his car. "Luckily, I happened to have a five-gallon bucket in the car," he said. "I always told myself I would never drive at night, because I didn't want to deal with the drunks. But one night I took an Uber myself at 2 a.m. and noticed the surge pricing." The extra money persuaded Addington to drive weekends from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. for a few months. "You can choose who you pick up," he explaieds. "Sometimes you can't choose where you are dropping off, but I'm not worried about it. I don't carry a weapon or cash. My car is insured. If they were to rob me, there's not much to get." Krivda, the Uber driver from St. Petersburg, does not work late nights, but sympathizes with some Uber drivers' fears. "I can understand where people would be concerned," she said. "If someone can get into your car with a concealed weapon, there's no reason you should not be able to carry a concealed weapon, too." "It's your car and anything can happen," she added. Mejia's lawsuit seeks to represent a class of Florida Uber drivers with a concealed-carry license. He wants a judge to declare that the ride-sharing company's policy against firearms violates the 2008 Florida law. The case is captioned, JOSE MEJIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Case 0:17- cv-61617-BB(S.D. Fla., August 11, 2017). The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared H. Beck, Esq. Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq. Beverly Virues, Esq. BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS Corporate Park at Kendall 12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205 Miami, FL 33186 Telephone: (305) 234-2060 Facsimile: (786) 664-3334 E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com elizabeth@beckandlee.com beverly@beckandlee.com - and - Antonino G. Hernandez, Esq. ANTONINO G. HERNANDEZ, P.A. 4 SE 1st St., 2nd Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 282-3698 Facsimile: (786) 513-7748 E-mail: hern8491@bellsouth.net UBER TECH: Embedded Terms of Service Link Valid, 2nd Cir. Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel W. Staples, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that reviving Uber's bid to arbitrate price-fixing claims, the Second Circuit found on August 16, that the company's embedding of terms of service in a hyperlink did not render them unreasonably inconspicuous. "Turning to the interface at issue in this case, we conclude that the design of the screen and language used render the notice provided reasonable as a matter of California law," U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote for a three-judge panel. The interface at issue is one that all cellphone users confront when they open an account with Uber Technologies. At a payment screen Chin called "uncluttered," there is a key warning about Uber's terms of service and privacy policy. "The entire screen is visible at once, and the user does not need to scroll beyond what is immediately visible to find notice of the Terms of Service," the opinion states. "Although the sentence is in a small font, the dark print contrasts with the bright white background, and the hyperlinks are in blue and underlined." Chin added that the link by which Uber embedded its Terms of Service should not be considered in a vacuum. "Many apps . . . require potential users to sign up for an account to access the app's services," the opinion states. "Accordingly, when considering the perspective of a reasonable smartphone user, we need not presume that the user has never before encountered an app or entered into a contract using a smartphone. Moreover, a reasonably prudent smartphone user knows that text that is highlighted in blue and underlined is hyperlinked to another webpage where additional information will be found." Lead plaintiff Spencer Meyer filed the underlying complaint in 2014 against Uber Technologies and the ride-sharing company's then-CEO Travis Kalanick. He claims that Uber's surge pricing amounts to price fixing, and a federal judge in New York initially kept the class action on track when Uber moved to compel arbitration. Though the lower court said Meyer did not have reasonably conspicuous notice of the Terms of Service, the Second Circuit was unanimous in reversing that decision on August 17. Meyer's attorney, Brian Feldman with the Rochester, N.Y., firm Harter Secrest & Emery, emphasized that the battle on arbitration is not over. "This ruling does not grant defendants the right to throw this case into arbitration," Feldman said in a statement. "The defense waived that right. We look forward to pressing ahead with the litigation." Uber's attorney meanwhile cheered the Second Circuit victory. "The Second Circuit's powerful and commonsense opinion will serve to protect online contracting and strengthen commerce nationwide," said Theodore Boutrous, of the Los Angeles firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. "We are thrilled with the decision." The lawsuit against San Francisco-based Uber is one of a number of high-profile problems confronting the tech company. Under fire for sexual harassment and bias accusations by female staff, Kalanick resigned as CEO in June after a shareholder revolt. Judge Chin cited a 2015 study by the Pew Research Center in laying out the traits of average smartphone users. Nearly two-thirds of American adults owned a smartphone that year, and that number is one that had almost doubled since 2011, Pew found. Chin noted that consumers use their smartphones for everything from dating to banking, and that as much as 89 percent of surveyed smartphone users reported using the internet on their phones. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: 8th Circ. Won't Revive $350M Insurance Feud --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that the Eighth Circuit on September 7 refused to revive UnitedHealth Group Inc.'s battle with its excess insurers over coverage for its $350 million class action settlement with the American Medical Association and others, holding that the health system didn't provide enough evidence to determine how much of the deal was for covered damages. U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the District of Minnesota had ruled in fall 2014 that UnitedHealth failed to show how the settlement sum was divided between two proposed class actions: one involving antitrust claims by the American Medical Association and another over Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims filed by Rodney Malchow, who said his child was denied vital cancer treatment by a UnitedHealth subsidiary. As a result, the district judge said UnitedHealth's excess carriers Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Co., First Specialty Insurance Corp. and Starr Excess Liability Insurance International Ltd. didn't have to pick up the tab for any part of the settlement. The judge had previously dismissed a fourth excess insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Co., from the litigation after concluding that UnitedHealth didn't provide that carrier adequate notice. UnitedHealth appealed, but a panel of the Eighth Circuit declined to disturb the district court's holdings in September 7's published opinion. With respect to allocation, the panel agreed with the lower court that the health system hadn't set forth enough admissible evidence for a jury to be able to decipher what portion of the underlying settlement was attributable to the potentially covered AMA action, as opposed to the noncovered Malchow suit. "Allocation required either contemporaneous evidence of valuation or expert testimony on relative value to provide a reasonable foundation for a jury's decision," Circuit Judge Steven Colloton wrote for the panel. "Without more evidence about the relative value of the claims, a reasonable jury could only speculate as to how the settlement should be allocated." In the underlying suits, doctors and health plan subscribers claimed they were underpaid or received inadequate health claims reimbursements from December 1998 through December 2000. The actions blamed the reimbursement shortfalls on UnitedHealth's use of Ingenix, an in-house database of customary rates used to calculate out-of-network reimbursements that the suits say had routinely lowballed reimbursements. UnitedHealth resolved the suits in a $350 million lump-sum settlement in 2009. The health insurance giant first brought suit against primary insurer Lexington Insurance Co. and excess insurer Columbia Casualty Co. in 2005, seeking coverage for its litigation costs. Four years later, UnitedHealth filed an amended complaint that added claims against several "managed care liability" insurers, including National Union, Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., American Alternative Insurance Corp., Executive Risk Specialty Insurance, First Specialty Insurance, Starr Excess Liability Insurance, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. and Steadfast Insurance Co. After UnitedHealth broke the litigation into pieces and settled with several insurers, four defendants remained: National Union, Executive Risk, First Specialty and Starr Excess. In April 2013, Judge Schiltz ruled in favor of National Union based on UnitedHealth's failure to provide sufficient notice of the underlying claims. Then, in September 2014, the three remaining excess insurers prevailed after the district judge found UnitedHealth hadn't presented enough evidence for a jury to make an informed determination of how the settlement sum should be allocated between the AMA and Malchow actions. As a preliminary matter, the Eighth Circuit panel rejected UnitedHealth's argument that it only had to show that the settlement resulted in a covered loss of an "unspecified amount" exceeding $95 million -- the point at which coverage under the lowest-level excess policy at issue is triggered. Instead, for UnitedHealth to beat summary judgment, it was required to present a "nonspeculative" basis for the settlement to be allocated between covered and noncovered claims, which it didn't do, the panel said. UnitedHealth said that a jury could properly allocate the settlement amount based on pre-settlement rulings in the AMA and Malchow cases, plus the contents of the health system's excess policies and testimony by its expert, James Halverson. While Judge Schiltz allowed Halverson, an antitrust expert, to testify about the value of the claims in the AMA action, the judge said Halverson wasn't qualified to weigh in on the value of UnitedHealth's settlement of Malchow's ERISA claims. The Eighth Circuit panel said the lower court's decision on that point was sound. "Without analyzing the Malchow suit, Halverson could not provide an expert opinion about its value," Judge Colloton wrote. "And without knowing the value of the Malchow suit, Halverson could not testify as to the relative value of the AMA suit compared to the Malchow suit." The appellate panel also pointed out that UnitedHealth chose to assert the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine to block any inquiry into its own representatives' contemporaneous assessments of the settlement's valuation, and failed to put forth another expert to testify regarding how much of the settlement should be allocated to the Malchow action. "On the record that was presented, the district court properly concluded that UnitedHealth failed to present sufficient evidence to submit the issue to a jury," Judge Colloton wrote. In addition, the panel found that UnitedHealth had waived its ability to challenge the district judge's rejection of its claim for $35 million in defense costs in the AMA suit by failing to raise an objection in the lower court. Based on its conclusions, the panel said National Union's upper- level excess policies aren't implicated and, therefore, it doesn't have to address UnitedHealth's arguments on the notice issue. An attorney for Executive Risk and First Specialty declined comment, while representatives for UnitedHealth, Starr Excess and National Union did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Circuit Judges James B. Loken, Lavenski R. Smith and Steven M. Colloton sat on the appellate panel. UnitedHealth is represented by its own Matthew Mackinnon Shors; by David B. Goodwin, Esq. -- dgoodwin@cov.com -- and Michael S. Greenberg, Esq. -- mgreenberg@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling LLP; and by Margaret S. Brownell, Esq. -- margo.brownell@maslon.com -- Erica Holzer, Esq. -- erica.holzer@maslon.com -- Michael C. McCarthy, Esq. -- mike.mccarthy@maslon.com -- and William Zane Pentelovitch, Esq. -- bill.pentelovitch@maslon.com -- of Maslon LLP. Executive Risk and First Specialty are represented by Ronald Paltin Schiller, Esq. -- rschiller@hangley.com -- Robert L. Ebby, Esq. -- rebby@hangley.com -- and Bonnie M. Hoffman, Esq. -- bhoffman@hangley.com -- of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller. Starr Excess and National Union are represented by David P. Pearson, Esq. -- dpearson@winthrop.com -- Thomas Henry Boyd, Esq. -- tboyd@winthrop.com -- and Brent A. Lorentz, Esq. -- blorentz@winthrop.com -- of Winthrop & Weinstine PA. The case is UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Executive Risk Specialty Insurance et al., case number 15-1076, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. [GN] UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Copibec Launches Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Copibec is publishing in the newspapers Le Monde, Le Devoir, The Gazette and ActuaLittE, the notice to members which publication was ordered by the Quebec Superior Court on August 21st, 2017. To read the notice, you can visit www.copibec.ca/en/legal-notice. In February 2017, Copibec obtained the right to launch a class action against UniversitE Laval, located in Quebec City, on behalf of authors, publishers and collective management organizations from all over the world, with a claim of over $ 10 million. This amount is claimed in lieu of damages for the reproduction, without authorization, of thousands of works' extracts, sold in coursepacks or made available to students, in more than 900 courses every year, and that for the fourth consecutive year. This public notice has also been shared worldwide on the websites of a dozen of associations of authors, publishers and collective management organizations. Copibec's president, Daniele Simpson, emphasizes that all Quebec universities, except Laval, have negotiated with Copibec, last June, the renewal of the blanket licenses that cover the reproduction of protected material, for the period 2017-2021. Authors and publishers are hoping that the new rector of UniversitE Laval will join the position of the other Quebec universities and will take the decision needed to end the litigation between UniversitE Laval to Copibec, rather than maintaining a policy that systematically violates copyright. The decision rendered by Judge Phelan from the Federal Court in the Access Copyright v. York University case in favor of rightsholders and the renegotiation of Copibec's University Licence both offer an enabling environment to UniversitE Laval to abandon its policy on fair dealing. The ball is now in the university's court and without a courageous decision from its administration, the class action will follow its course and the hearing could be scheduled in 2018. The attorney representing the group, Daniel Payette, recalls that authors and publishers whose work has been reproduced without the proper authorization do not have to take any action to participate. They are automatically included in the class action. They can stay informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings on this dedicated website: www.copibec.ca/en/class-action-against-universite-laval [GN] VERIZON: 9th Cir. Revives Suit over Collection of Personal Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Verizon customers who accused an online ad company of using "zombie cookies" to collect personal data through their smartphones will have a second chance to sue the company as a class, the Ninth Circuit ruled. A three-judge appeals panel granted the subscribers' petition to overturn a federal judge's order staying their proposed class action and compelling arbitration between the lead plaintiff and Verizon over Turn Inc.'s alleged conduct, ruling that the lower court had "committed clear error." "We are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed," the per curiam opinion said. A class of Verizon customers from New York sued Turn in the Northern District of California in 2015, claiming the company used "zombie cookies" to monitor their online behavior through their mobile devices. Advertisers use bits of data called cookies to gather web information about users that can be used in targeted advertising. A user can delete a cookie, but lead plaintiff Anthony Henson said Turn's "zombie cookies" evaded detection and could not be deleted. When a person deleted Turn's cookies, the company recreated them, he claimed. Last year, U.S. District Judge Jeffery White granted Turn's motion to stay the class action and compel arbitration, finding the claims against Turn were "inextricably intertwined" with a Verizon customer agreement that includes an arbitration clause. The plaintiffs had argued Turn's motion to compel arbitration should be denied because Turn was not a party to the agreement. But White found arbitration must be compelled when claims "arise directly" from a provision of a contract that requires arbitration to settle disputes. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with White, finding the plaintiffs' claims aren't based on the customer agreement. Instead, their complaint was "replete with allegations of wrongdoing against Turn that have nothing to do with the customer agreement," the court wrote, including that Turn collected data about Verizon users without their knowledge and bypassed their phones' privacy controls in order to transmit their information to Turn. "None of these allegations rely on the customer agreement or attempt to seek any benefit from its terms," the panel wrote in its 16-page opinion. Nimish Desai, a partner with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco who represents the plaintiffs, said that he and his clients were pleased with the decision. "We are looking forward to litigating these claims on behalf of the plaintiffs and the proposed class," he said in an email. To arrive at its conclusion, the panel relied on the third factor in Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, decided by the Ninth Circuit in 1977. The factor considers whether a trial court's order is wrong as a matter of law. The panel found that White had erred by granting Turn's motion to compel arbitration under New York's equitable estoppel doctrine. Instead, White should have applied the equitable estoppel doctrine of California -- where Turn was sued -- to determine whether Turn, as a nonsignatory to the customer agreement, can compel arbitration. Under California law, Henson would have to arbitrate if his claims relied on the customer agreement, or if the claims were founded in or intertwined with the agreement, according to the Ninth Circuit's opinion. "The district court committed clear error by applying New York's equitable estoppel doctrine, rather than California's, and by failing to apply California law correctly," the panel wrote. The panel found that three of the five Bauman factors weighed in favor of granting the petition. Michael Rubin of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in San Francisco represents Turn. He could not be reached for comment. Digital marketing tech company Amobee acquired Turn this past April, according to an announcement on Amobee's website. Representatives for Amobee and Verizon did not return requests for comment. Circuit Judges William Fletcher and Richard Tallman and U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver, sitting by designation from the District of Arizona, made up the Ninth Circuit panel. VERIZON: Customers Can Sue Ad Company Over "Zombie" Cookies ----------------------------------------------------------- Jon Brodkin, writing for Ars Technica, reports that the online advertising company at the center of Verizon's "zombie" cookie controversy cannot avoid a proposed class action lawsuit filed by Verizon Wireless customers, a federal appeals court ruled this week. Turn, Inc. is an online advertising clearinghouse that allegedly attached un-deletable tracking cookies to Verizon customer identifiers to collect and send their Web browsing and usage data to Turn's servers. Verizon customers Anthony Henson and William Cintron filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Turn on behalf of all Verizon customers in New York, but the company argued that the customers should be forced into arbitration. Previously, the US District Court in Northern California granted Turn's motion to compel arbitration. But a panel of three judges at the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously overturned that ruling on September 5. "Turn attempts to invoke the arbitration agreement between Henson and Verizon to compel arbitration, but Henson and Turn do not have an arbitration agreement with each other," judges wrote this week. Verizon's agreement with customers requires them to arbitrate disputes, but "Turn is not a signatory to the Customer Agreement and does not otherwise have an arbitration agreement with Henson," the ruling said. The judges vacated the district court order that granted Turn's motion to stay the lawsuit and compel arbitration, and they ordered Turn to "bear all costs of appeal." Tracking cookies respawned after deletion ProPublica reported in January 2015 that Turn was "taking advantage of a hidden undeletable number that Verizon uses to monitor customers' habits on their smartphones and tablets. Turn uses the Verizon number to respawn tracking cookies that users have deleted." Shortly after that, Verizon said it would offer customers a way to opt out from having their devices tracked by the hidden identifiers, and Turn said it would stop using tracking cookies that can't be deleted. In March 2016, Verizon agreed to pay a $1.35 million fine and give users more control over "supercookies" in a settlement with the Federal Communications Commission. Verizon's use of the zombie cookies violated a net neutrality rule that requires Internet providers to disclose accurate information about network management practices to consumers, the FCC said. But the class action is all about Turn's actions rather than Verizon's. This played a role in the judges' decision this week. Besides the fact that the arbitration clause doesn't apply to Turn, the lawsuit's claims against Turn were not even based on the customer agreement with Verizon, judges wrote: Henson's complaint is replete with allegations of wrongdoing against Turn that have nothing to do with the Customer Agreement. Among other allegations, Henson claims that Turn violated Verizon users' "reasonable expectations of privacy by creating zombie cookies that users could neither detect nor delete, and which monitored user behavior well beyond web browsing"; that Turn acted "to disable the standard privacy controls employed by individuals (such as deleting or blocking cookies)"; that Turn "used Class members' personal, private, and confidential data for commercial gain without their knowledge or consent"; and that Turn consistently altered users' mobile devices by "circumventing privacy controls in said devices and causing said devices to transmit information to Turn to which Turn was not entitled." None of these allegations rely on the Customer Agreement or attempt to seek any benefit from its terms. Henson also did not allege that Verizon colluded with Turn. "On the contrary, Henson alleges that 'Turn conducted its practices in secret' and acted without Verizon's knowledge, consent, or approval," the judges wrote. "Indeed, Henson claims that Verizon publicly rebuked Turn's alleged practices upon discovering them." A separate business agreement between Turn and Verizon stipulated that the two companies were "independent of each other" and not acting in any sort of partnership or joint venture. The arbitration clause in Verizon's contract with customers thus wouldn't apply to disputes between Verizon customers and Turn, the appeals court ruled. There was also a dispute over whether California or New York law should apply to the arbitration question. Turn argued that a New York law bound the parties to a choice-of-law provision in the customer agreement. But a choice-of-law clause is "a contractual right and generally may not be invoked by one who is not a party to the contract in which it appears," judges wrote. That means Verizon could benefit from the choice-of-law clause, but Turn could not. Turn operates its business in California. "Because Henson sued Turn in the Northern District of California, we apply California's choice-of-law principles," judges wrote. Forced arbitration clauses aren't going away The complaint against Turn was filed in April 2015 and asks the court to require Turn to delete all user data, change its data collection and opt-out practices, and return all "ill-gotten gains" to class members. The plaintiffs say that Turn "engaged in deceptive business practices" in violation of New York law and "committed trespass to chattels by intentionally interfering with the use and enjoyment of Verizon subscribers' mobile devices." Mandatory arbitration clauses deprive customers of their rights and help ISPs avoid serious punishment for actions that harm consumers, FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and US Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) have argued. Franken has authored Senate legislation that would ban mandatory arbitration clauses, but the clauses remain legal. [GN] VOLKSWAGEN: Files Motion to Dismiss 4 Appeals in TDI Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Sara McCleary, writing for Northern California Record, reports that Volkswagen has submitted a motion to dismiss four of the 10 appeals against it relating to the 2.0-liter Consumer Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release. Ten members of the class action settlement are pursuing appeals as a result of the settlement's failure to reimburse class members who had retained attorneys prior to the class certification. Volkswagen has filed a motion to dismiss against four of those appellants, however, arguing that they have all completed and accepted their settlement offers already. Part of this process, according to the motion, is signing a release. Volkswagen argues in its motion, filed Aug. 8, that "by signing the individual releases, these appellants released all claims that were resolved by the class action agreement, or otherwise arose from or in any way relate to the subject matter of the underlying actions. Because these individual releases remain effective even if the class action agreement is vacated, reversed, or in any way modified on appeal, the releasing appellants can seek no further remedy from Volkswagen or the other released parties, and would not be able to participate even in the modified versions of the settlement that they seek through their appeals." In response, one such appellant, Daniel Ancona, argues he does, in fact, have standing in the appeal. In his objection to the motion to dismiss, filed Aug. 18, Ancona argues the release does not negate his right to object to a class settlement. Rather, he argues, the language of the release simply prevents him from pursuing further separate claims against Volkswagen for the 2.0- liter TDI Matter. Furthermore, reads Ancona's objection, "the fact that Ancona participated in the class settlement by executing an individual release, as he was required to do to participate in the class settlement, does not change the fact that he presently has an injury that can be redressed on appeal, and that a live controversy still exists." The Volkswagen 2.0-liter TDI settlement is one of the largest class action settlements ever. Within the first eight months after the settlement was reached, Volkswagen has paid more than $6 billion to almost 500,000 Class members. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration for Overdraft Fees Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Kayla Goggin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that attorneys for Wells Fargo asked a three-judge, 11th Circuit panel on August 24, to toss multiple class actions accusing the banking giant of unfair overdraft practices and send the cases to arbitration. Sonya Winner -- swinner@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling LLP, who is representing the bank, told the panel that just because Wells Fargo didn't enforce its arbitration rights in disputes with some customers, doesn't mean it waived those rights altogether. Class actions filed in 49 states accuse Wells Fargo of changing the order of debit card transactions -- from the highest to lowest dollar amount -- to unfairly increase the number of transactions subject to overdraft penalties. Lawyers for the Wells Fargo customers say the practice, which went on for at least a decade, was "unconscionable" and disproportionately affected the poor because they are most likely to have low account balances. The lawsuits claim that in addition to changing the order of transactions, Wells Fargo also failed to get customer consent before processing transactions, failed to give customers accurate balance information -- increasing the chances of overdrafts, and refused to let them opt out of overdraft protection programs. The cases were consolidated before a federal judge in Florida, who last year declined Wells Fargo's request to force the claims into arbitration. The bank appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit, which heard the case on August 24. The latest hearing actually represents the third time the case has come before the appeals court. In 2012, the 11th Circuit ruled Wells Fargo missed its chance to compel the putative class of plaintiffs into arbitration after the bank decided not to move for binding arbitration on an individual plaintiff. In 2015, the 11th Circuit vacated a judge's ruling that the bank's waiver of its right to arbitration with the named plaintiffs precludes it from compelling arbitration with the unnamed class members. One August 24, Winner argued the central question being presented is "whether or not arbitration can be waived." But U.S. Circuit Judge Bard Tjoflat cut her off. "This is a classic case of issue preclusion," the judge said. "It has never been decided that the contracts are valid to compel arbitration." Attorneys for the class argued that Wells Fargo waived its right to arbitration when it failed to raise the argument before the lawsuits were classified as class actions. Tjoflat seemed to agree, noting "five years of litigation goes down the drain" if the bank is allowed to assert the arbitration clause now. Still, the bank stands firm in its belief that arbitration is justified. "Wells Fargo continues to believe that arbitration is a fair, efficient and effective way for a customer to pursue a legal claim and resolve a legal dispute," Jason Menke, a spokesman for the bank told Courthouse News. "For many years, high-to-low posting order was standard in the banking industry. In 2010, Wells Fargo eliminated high-to-low posting order for debit card transactions and moved to chronological posting order for these items (the bank also moved to chronological posting order for checks and ACH transactions in 2014)." Although the bank ceased its reordering practices in 2010, its business practices continue to be plagued with scandal. In 2016, it was revealed that Wells Fargo employees created millions of fake bank and credit card accounts in the names of real customers in order to fraudulently boost sales numbers. The bank's CEO, John Stumpf, resigned after the fraud was uncovered. The news came just a few months after the US Supreme Court rejected the bank's appeal arguing that a California overdraft class action verdict was unjustified and let a $203 million verdict in favor of the class stand. WINN-DIXIE STORES: Reply to "Magee" Suit Due Sept. 18 ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. The case is titled as Scott Magee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Winn- Dixie Stores, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-08063-SSV-KWR (E.D. La., August 21, 2017). Winn-Dixie Stores was served on the complaint August 28 and the Defendant's reply is due September 18. Judge Sarah S. Vance has reassigned the case to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. "It has been brought to the Court's attention that the above captioned matter is related to Civil Action No. 16-4364 Magee v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al., previously allotted to Section "R"(4) of this Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is hereby reassigned to Magistrate Judge," Judge Vance said August 23.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto L. Costales, Esq. Emily Westermeier, Esq. William Henry Beaumont, Esq. COSTALES LAW OFFICE 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com Email: eaw@beaumontcostales.com Email: whb@beaumontcostales.com * Cy Pres Only Settlement Can Work in Privacy Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Jay Ramsey, writing for National Law Review, reports that The internet continues to expand into every aspect of our lives. With it, many companies have collected, tracked, and used an enormous amount of data. All of this has given rise to class action lawsuits challenging the privacy practices of these companies. But, these lawsuits often challenge practices that do not cause any actual damage, which can make it difficult to reach a settlement, particularly of a Rule 23(b)(3) class. So, how can parties wanting to settle proceed? In a recent opinion, the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court's approval of a class action settlement in a privacy litigation where the class received no damages, and the settlement funds went to cy pres recipients instead. In In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, No. 15-15858 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2017), the plaintiffs challenged Google's practice of providing websites with the search terms that individuals used in Google's search engine to reach the website. The plaintiffs claimed this violated their privacy. The parties reached a settlement with an $8.5 million fund. Of that, $3.2 million was set aside for attorneys' fees, administration costs, and incentive payments, the remaining $5.3 million was allocated to six cy pres recipients, and class members received nothing. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement, holding that a cy pres only settlement was appropriate where the settlement fund was "non-distributable." In the case, there were 129 million class members. If the $5.3 million settlement had been distributed, each class member would have received "a paltry 4 cents." The court held that, because each class member's recovery would have been de minimis, a cy pres only settlement was appropriate. The Ninth Circuit went on to hold that the cy pres recipients were appropriate. The recipients included organizations to which Google had previously donated, organizations that had previously received settlement funds from Google, and organizations housed at plaintiffs' counsel alma maters. The Ninth Circuit held that these connections did not raise any conflicts. For example, the Ninth Circuit stated: "Given the burgeoning importance of Internet privacy, it is no surprise that Google has chosen to support the programs and research of recognized academic institutes and nonprofit organizations. Google has donated to hundreds of third- party organizations whose work implicates technology and Internet policy issues, including university research centers, think tanks, advocacy groups, and trade organizations. These earlier donations do not undermine the selection process employed to vet the cy pres recipients in this litigation." Going forward, we might see more cy pres only settlements in cases alleging violations of privacy, particularly where the alleged violations cause no actual (or very little actual) damage to the class. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goldberg Nabs Segal McCambridge Toxic Tort Team ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that Goldberg Segalla has nabbed a seven-attorney team from Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd. to bolster its toxic tort and environmental practice group in Philadelphia. The team, which joins a toxic tort and environmental group at Goldberg Segalla that already boasts nearly 50 attorneys across 18 offices in the United States, is led by three partners -- Joseph Cagnoli Jr., Jeremy Dongilli and Christopher McGowan -- and also includes four associates. Mr. Cagnoli may be reached at: Joseph Cagnoli Jr., Esq. 1700 Market Street, Suite 1418 Philadelphia, PA 19103-3907 Tel: 267.519.6865 Fax: 267.519.6801 Email: jcagnoli@goldbergsegalla.com Mr. Dongilli may be reached at: Jeremy G. Dongilli, Esq. 1700 Market Street, Suite 1418 Philadelphia, PA 19103-3907 Tel: 267.519.6868 Fax: 267.519.6801 Email: jdongilli@goldbergsegalla.com Mr. McGowan may be reached at: Christopher McGowan, Esq. 1700 Market Street, Suite 1418 Philadelphia, PA 19103-3907 Tel: 267.519.6869 Fax: 267.519.6801 Email: cmcgowan@goldbergsegalla.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-NJ Justice Says No Impropriety as Master ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeannie O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reported that former New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto fired back at opposition to his appointment as special master in an asbestos fraud class action in New Jersey federal court, saying in a certification that there's no impropriety despite his former and current firms' connection to the parties. Judge Jose L. Linares of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey previously appointed former justice Rivera-Soto as the Special Master in place of Judge Garrett Brown in the case captioned KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiff, v. BASF CATALYSTS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-1754, (D.N.J.). According to Judge Linares, discovery of some of the proceedings related to the case is necessary to resolve the issues: (a) to prove that the Defendants intentionally destroyed or withheld material evidence that the Defendants had a duty to disclose, (b) that the Plaintiffs were not able to access such evidence on their own, (c) that the Plaintiffs were damaged by the destruction or concealment of such evidence, and (d) that the Defendants misrepresented that the talc products did not contain asbestos and/or that the Defendants did not have in their possession any record or test results that concluded that the talc product contained asbestos. Judge Linares directed the Special Master to examine with care the Plaintiffs' objections to discovery requests, and to address each discovery request and objection in due course if the meet and confer process has not resolved a dispute. Furthermore, the Court directed the Special Master to ascertain, and apply all relevant law to the documents and objections concerning the attorney client privilege and determine what discovery (by way of written and testimonial), if any, Plaintiffs will produce pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Former justice Rivera-Soto is a former Fox Rothschild LLP attorney and current Ballard Spahr LLP partner. Lawyers for Cahill Gordon and BASF has asked Judge Linares to select a different special master based on alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the appointment of former justice Rivera- Soto. BASF said Rivera-Soto's firm, Ballard Spahr is represented in a suit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, by Williams & Connolly, which also represents Cahill Gordon in the Williams case. Moreover, BASF pointed out that before Rivera-Soto was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2004, he was with Fox Rothschild, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs in the Williams case. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Urged to Rethink Excess Coverage Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reported that Trinity Lloyd's Insurance Co. asked the Fifth Circuit to reconsider an August ruling that asbestos claims fall under the pollution exemption in a U.S. Fire Insurance Co. excess policy. Trinity said the panel used an absurdly overbroad definition of "pollutant" in its decision to overturn an order requiring excess insurer U.S. Fire to pay it $2.5 million to a cover the cost of asbestos claims against custom fabricator Longhorn Gasket and Supply Co. The Fifth Circuit case is LONGHORN GASKET AND SUPPLY COMPANY; ET AL, Plaintiffs, TRINITY LLOYD'S INSURANCE COMPANY; TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor Plaintiffs - Appellees Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellant Cross-Appellee, No. 15-41625 (5th Cir.). The case concerns Longhorn Gasket's primary and excess policy coverage, as provided by Trinity Lloyd's, and U.S. Fire between May 21, 1983, and February 1, 1986. The Fifth Circuit finds that the pollution exclusion in U.S. Fire's excess policies is broad, and applies generally to "irritants, contaminants, and pollutants." The Fifth Circuit concludes, under plain language of the policy exclusion, that asbestos constitutes a pollutant and an irritant. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that Longhorn's claims fall under the pollution exclusion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Massachusetts Co. Fined for Asbestos Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Lee, writing for Telegram & Gazette, reported that Properties Central Inc. was penalized $18,800 by the state for violating asbestos regulations at a vacant residential property undergoing renovation. The real estate company bought a house at 14 Hadwen Lane and was renovating it before putting it up for sale, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. In September 2016, DEP inspectors responded to a complaint and observed that Properties Central improperly removed asbestos- containing heating system insulation from pipes in the basement of the property. The state ordered Properties Central to retain a licensed asbestos contractor to clean and decontaminate the property, and remove any remaining asbestos-containing materials. In addition, the state ordered the company to notify the DEP 10 working days before starting asbestos removal work so that the agency is aware of the removal work and has the opportunity to conduct inspections to ensure compliance with regulations. "Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and following required work practices is imperative to protect workers as well as the general public," said Mary Jude Pigsley, director of the DEP's Worcester office said. "Failure to do so will result in penalties, as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring costs." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Blames Asbestos for Cancer --------------------------------------------------- Jamie Lopez, writing for Visiter.com, reported that a beloved teacher who had just met the man of her dreams died of cancer she believed she developed after being exposed to asbestos at school. Michele Reed, who met husband Manu on her 60th birthday, was described by her family as being "in the prime of her life and the life and soul of any party'. They are now searching for answers after the popular mum-of-two died of Mesothelioma in February. Speaking about her loss, daughter Bethany Gibbins said: "Mum was a French teacher -- it was all she loved to do. Growing up, she always used to take me on school trips with the students to Paris or skiing in France. All of her students loved her. "She was made redundant and the first thing she did was move to France. She met Manu on her 60th birthday and he really was the man of her dreams. It was about six months before she was diagnosed that he proposed. "They got married and it was so bittersweet but we're so glad she met him." It was while living in a caravan on a holiday park in France that Michele became ill and was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a type of cancer that develops in the lining that covers the outer surface of some of the body's organs. It is usually linked to asbestos exposure. Despite returning home for treatment, she was desperate to return to her new life in France, even flying back the day she finished a course of treatment. Bethany added: "Everyone adored my mum -- it says that on her gravestone. She was in her sixties but was in the prime of her life, she was such a positive person. "We didn't even know how ill she was because she was so positive. I spoke to her the day before she died -- she had sent somebody to go and get food shopping for her for the next two weeks. "I didn't get to say goodbye to her and it breaks my heart." It was when she was diagnosed that Michele, who was originally from St Helens, had started to think about possible asbestos exposure and recalled her time at Upholland High School from 1982 to 2000. She remembered that classrooms had been dusty and work had been done to the building while she was there. Lawyers at Slater and Gordon, who Michele instructed before her death, are now appealing for people who worked with her at Upholland School or at other places where asbestos was present. Although it is banned now, it was widely used in building until the 1980s. Louise Larkin, an industrial disease specialist at the law firm said: "Michele lived for her work. "She adored teaching French and it's a real tragic twist of fate that her vocation could have led to her death. "She remembers classrooms being dusty but she was never advised to take any precautions against the toxic substance. "She was ultimately robbed of a retirement she'd worked so hard and passionately for." Anyone who believes they can help should contact Louise on 0151 353 9933 or email Louise.Larkin@slatergordon.co.uk ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Asbestos Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the Virginia Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court's dismissal of asbestos-related claims, finding that the plaintiff intended to release the instant lung cancer claims as part of a settlement reached in an earlier asbestosis case. In the Aug. 31 opinions, the state high court further opined that the release of the present claims was not void under Section 5 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, as the plaintiff had contended. For more than 35 years, Aaron J. Cole worked as a machinist for Norfolk Southern Railway Company ("NSRC"). During this time, he was regularly exposed to toxic substances and dust, including asbestos. In 1996, he filed a complaint in the circuit court alleging that he contracted "occupational pneumoconiosis, including but not limited to asbestosis" as a result of NSRC's negligence. His complaint also alleged that he suffered "from extreme nervousness, mental anxiety and fear of contracting mesothelioma, lung cancer and/or other cancers and/or other conditions caused by exposure to harmful and toxic dust and/or conditions including, but not limited to, cor pulmonale. In addition, [Cole], because of his occupational pneumoconiosis, now has an increased risk of contracting mesothelioma, lung cancer, and/or other cancers and/or other conditions." On May 15, 2000, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Cole, who was 78 years old and represented by counsel, signed a release of liability in exchange for $20,000. On February 16, 2009, Cole was diagnosed with lung cancer; he died on November 14, 2010. Alan B. Cole, as the executor of Cole's estate, filed a complaint in the circuit court alleging under FELA that Cole's death was the direct and proximate result of NSRC's negligence. In a plea in bar, NSRC argued that the complaint should be dismissed because the claim was released as part of the settlement of Cole's 1996 asbestosis action. Cole responded that the release was void under Section 5 of FELA, which states that "[a]ny contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose or intent of which shall be to enable any common carrier to exempt itself from any liability created by this act . . . shall to that extent be void." Upon consideration of an evidentiary stipulation submitted by the parties, the circuit court granted NSRC's plea in bar. It acknowledged that a federal circuit split has resulted in two tests for evaluating the validity of releases under Section 5 of FELA, but concluded that the release was valid under either test. The state supreme court granted Cole the appeal. Under the risk of harm test, which we adopt as the rule of decision in the Commonwealth, a release does not violate Sec 5 of FELA if it is executed as part of a negotiated settlement of a FELA claim and is limited to those risks that were known to the parties at the time of its execution. The focus of this test is not whether a release explicitly lists a potential future claim, but whether the parties intended to release such a claim. The evidence in the present case supports the circuit court's factual finding that Cole intended to release the present lung cancer claim as part of the settlement of his asbestosis action. Accordingly, applying the risk of harm test, the release in 2000 of the present lung cancer claim was not void under Section 5 of FELA. The state supreme court therefore affirms the circuit court's judgment. The case is ALAN BARRY COLE, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF AARON JETHRO COLE, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Record No. 161163 (Va.). A full-text copy of the Opinion penned by Justice William C. Mims dated August 31, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/YpVYuu from Leagle.com. CHARLES ROBISON ALLEN, Jr., (ESQ.), RUSSELL NASH BRAHM, III, (ESQ.), JOHN E. GUERRY, III, PATICE LADELL HOLLAND, (ESQ.), for Appellant, ALAN BARRY COLE, (AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF AARON JETHRO COLE). JAMES W. JENNINGS, Jr., (ESQ.), DAVID A. DAMICO, ELIZABETH GUILBERT PERROW, (ESQ.), FRANK KENNETH FRIEDMAN, (ESQ.), for Appellee, NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. App. Upholds $9MM Mesothelioma Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------ Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that the widow of a man who died of malignant mesothelioma won a hard- fought battle against Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation when a South Florida appeals court ruled in her favor and upheld a $9 million verdict. The company's attorneys had maintained that there was insufficient proof that her late husband's illness was caused by asbestos in its facilities, but the appellate judges rejected that order, upbraiding the company for hypocrisy. The case revolved around the illness of Dennis Britt, who died of mesothelioma in the midst of his original lawsuit against the defense contractor. Mr. Britt had been an employee benefits advisor whose job responsibilities included visiting Northrop Grumman's commercial and industrial sites in order to speak to employees and sign them up for coverage. Britt and his wife Rosa- Maria argued that the asbestos contaminating the job sites was responsible for his illness, and the jury that originally heard the lawsuit agreed. They awarded the widow $8.5 million in compensatory damages, and provided the estate with over $519,000 to pay for the funeral and medical expenses that had been incurred. The company then appealed the verdict, arguing that there was no way to prove that the asbestos that had caused Britt's mesothelioma had come from their locations. In handing down the verdict, the judges of the 3rd District Court of Appeals pointed out that it was hypocritical for the company to maintain that there was no evidence of asbestos contamination when the company hadn't been responsible enough to monitor their own air quality over the years. "Having failed to monitor and quantify airborne asbestos levels at Northrop's plants during the applicable years, Northrop is hardly in a position to demand precise quantification," they wrote. "On such a record, the pathology and medical records reflecting the existence and level of asbestos fibers in Mr. Britt's lungs, coupled with his personal testimony regarding his visits to the premises and what he observed while there -- followed by his undisputed death from mesothelioma -- constitutes competent, substantial evidence supporting the verdict." Mesothelioma is a cruel disease that claims the lives of all those who receive a diagnosis. For information on the best resources available to victims of this condition, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net at 1-800-692-8608. The appeals case is Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, etc., Appellant, v. Rosa-Maria F. Britt, etc., Appellee, Case No. 3D16- 2583 (Fla. Ct. App.). A full-text copy of the decision dated September 6, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/msnT4U from Leagle.com. DLA Piper and Fredrick H.L. McClure and J. Trumon Phillips (Tampa); Munger, Tolles & Olson and Michael B. DeSanctis (Washington, DC) and John B. Major (San Francisco, CA), for appellant. The Ferraro Law Firm and Juan P. Bauta, II, and Janpaul Portal, for appellee. Crowell & Moring and William L. Anderson; Shook Hardy & Bacon and Frank Cruz-Alvarez, for Florida Justice Reform Institute and Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., as amici curiae. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Wins $13MM Judgment in Mesothelioma Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Halleman, writing for Northern California Record, reported that the family of a man who died of mesothelioma caused by asbestos use at a sugar refinery owned by Hillshire Brands Company was awarded $13 million by a California jury in a wrongful death lawsuit. The case was heard in a California superior court and was brought by the family of Mark Lopez, who lived a few hundred yards from the Union City Sugar Refinery as a child. The housing was also owned by Hillshire. "Mesothelioma is a progressive lung disease related to exposure of asbestos," court documents state. Hillshire Brands plans to appeal. Lopez died on July 7, 2015, from asbestos exposure at the age of 60. "Mesothelioma is a very rare disease," said Jeff Kaiser of Kaiser Gornick LLP, who represented Lopezs' family in the suit. "I don't anticipate a huge amount of cases coming forward after this, because it is so rare." The suit alleged Lopez contracted mesothelioma that resulted from asbestos exposure growing up in Betteravia, a small company town near the sugar refinery. The housing he lived in also was owned by Hillshire and contained asbestos. Lopez was, "exposed to asbestos fibers emitted during the operation, maintenance, disposal and other activities at the Union Sugar Refinery, which caused friable asbestos fibers to contaminate the area surrounding the plant, including company housing," court documents state. Lopez's father worked at the refinery from 1950 to 1993, which caused secondary exposure for Lopez to asbestos. His grandfather also was employed there. During the trial, evidence was shown that Hillshire employees worked with asbestos often, without safety precautions. The jury concluded Hillshire was 100 percent negligent and at fault. The Lopez family was awarded $11 million for non-economic damages and $1,958,461 for economic damages. "It was a slam dunk case," Kaiser said. "The jury deliberated only 10 minutes before reaching a verdict. The family would like closure after 3 1/2 years of litigating and have maybe two more years to handle an appeal. They will just be patient." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Serial Sydney Asbestos Dumper Faces New Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- 9News.com.au reported that a notorious asbestos dumper has fronted court in handcuffs, facing fresh charges of dumping riddled waste across the state's west. Dib Hanna has a history of illegally leaving asbestos-laced materials in locations including Ilandilo, Wallacia and East Kurrajong from late 2015 to early 2016. Dragged before the magistrate at the Land and Environment Court, he became the first person to be extradited from Victoria to face charges after failing to appear at his past three court appearances. Hanna was recently handed a three-month sentence after being caught on CCTV dumping 80 tonnes of laced material at Sydney's Picnic Point. He has eight other convictions including three illegal dumps at Liverpool and another at Hornsby. Hanna's fresh charges allege he offered western Sydney residents free top soil in a letter box flier, with those who took up the offer receiving soil containing asbestos. The court heard Hanna's lawyer is on holiday, delaying his bail application. He is expected to plead not guilty to the new charges, which carry significant fines and a two-year jail term. Hanna was escorted from the courtroom by police in handcuffs, spitting on reporters when asked whether he was worried about facing jail. He will face court again. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues CBS, et al., Over Failure to Warn -------------------------------------------------------------- Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that a couple is suing multiple corporations, citing alleged insufficient measures were taken to prevent injuries. Kevin Nolan and Marcelle Nolan filed a complaint Aug. 21 in the St. Louis Circuit Court against Borgwarner Morse Tec LLC; CBS Corp.; Crown Cork & Seal, USA Inc.; Cytec Engineered Materials Inc.; et al., alleging they failed their duty to exercise reasonable care and caution for the safety of others working with or around products containing asbestos. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that in 1954, Kevin Nolan was first exposed to asbestos fibers emanating from certain products, manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the defendants that resulted to his diagnosis of lung cancer in January. As a result, the couple claims they suffered medical expenses, emotional distress and loss of normal life. The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they allegedly included asbestos in their products when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide adequate warnings of the dangers of inhaling asbestos to people working with or around the products and failed to warn of ingesting or otherwise absorbing asbestos fibers. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment in the amount in excess of $50,000 for actual compensatory damages, including costs of the action, and any other such relief as the Court deems just and equitable. They are represented by Laci M. Whitley of Flint Law Firm LLC in Edwardsville, Illinois, and Jason M. Ministrelli and Erik P. Karst of Karst & von Oiste LLP in Houston. St. Louis Circuit Court case number 1722-CC11064 ASBESTOS UPDATE: TOSHA Fines GPS for Asbestos Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Taneisha Cordell, writing for WRCBTV.com, reported that a Chattanooga private school is facing thousands of dollars in fines after state inspectors discovered asbestos inside a building at Girls Preparatory School that now houses a music program. Responding to a complaint, the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration (TOSHA) inspected that building on June 29. The whistleblower who filed the complaint says the school was aware of the problem months before state inspectors ordered them to correct it. The man who alerted TOSHA spoke to Channel 3 off camera and asked to remain anonymous. About two weeks after the interview, he quit his job. He says he warned the school that the building being converted to Cadek Conservatory of Music was not safe three months before TOSHA fined GPS. He shared a photo of the asbestos he says found in March. TOSHA verified the photo, saying the label is identical to what they found. TOSHA fined GPS $4,800 and gave the school until August 4th to correct the problem. TOSHA tells Channel 3, the school did meet that deadline. "TOSHA can fine up to $7000 so that can really give you kind of a scale of severity as to what this magnitude was," said Chris Cannon, spokesperson for TOSHA. According to TOSHA, an asbestos survey is required when working on buildings built before 1989. According to GPS, this one was built in 1952. Cannon says GPS did not conduct a survey. "If they had conducted the asbestos survey prior to that construction starting they would've known that was in there and that it could cause hazard for the workers who were in that garage," said Cannon. TOSHA's inspection report show the school threw the hazardous material in a dumpster at the school's tennis center. It also shows the school did not warn the people working on the building or give them protective gear. The report lists resulting 17 violations. Channel 3 repeatedly reached out to GPS to request an interview. We were referred to this written statement: "During the renovation of our old business office building, which was built around 1952 and is separate from our main campus, asbestos was discovered. Out of an abundance of caution, GPS opted to go beyond the required abatement measures and remove all asbestos from the building, including the exterior. A professional abatement company was hired to conduct the removal and testing of materials. Following abatement and cleaning activities, the air samples successfully passed the final clearance protocols." A web search shows Cadek opened on July 1st, two days after TOSHA found asbestos. Parents of those students and employees were notified on August 31st, more than two months after GPS was fined. When asked why GPS waited so long a spokesperson responded saying, "it was the right time for them." GPS oversees Cadek now located in the building. We have invited GPS officials to talk about the timeline of its opening; that offer still stands. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Asbestos Found at Shopping Center ----------------------------------------------------------- Sunshine Coast Daily reported that works have stopped on the Lend Lease Sunshine Plaza project in Maroochydore after possible asbestos was discovered on site. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union local organisers were called to the site after workers made the discovery. Samples have been collected from the site and will be sent off for independent testing at a NATA accredited laboratory. CFMEU OHS co-ordinator Andrew Ramsay said that the discovery was highly concerning as the site is next door to a primary school. "When asbestos containing materials are broken and crushed the deadly asbestos fibres become airborne," he said. "In this day and age with the level of awareness about the dangers of asbestos, there is no excuse for workers and members of the public to be exposed. "Due to the location of this site and its proximity to shops, cafes and local schools who knows how many members of the public could have potentially been exposed." Maroochydore State School principal Stuart Maish said he was unaware of the possible asbestos discovery. His school borders the northwestern edge of the construction site. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman May Have Been Exposed During Construction ---------------------------------------------------------------- RTE reported that the family of a woman who died from a form of cancer linked to asbestos say she may have been exposed to the material during the construction of a Dublin flat complex. Mary Wynne and her family were among the first to move into the Dolphin's Barn Flat Complex in Dublin's south inner city in 1955. The family took up residency in the first completed block of flats while construction continued on the remaining blocks. Mrs Wynne, an 86-year-old mother of 12 from Saul Road in Crumlin and formerly Dolphin House, died from a rare form of aggressive cancer linked to asbestos. At an inquest into Mrs Wynne's death at Dublin Coroner's Court, family members said asbestos had been found during the demolition of the flats as part of the ongoing EUR25m redevelopment of the Dolphin's Barn complex. Family members said they thought Mrs Wynne may have been exposed to the substance while a resident in the complex during the construction phase. The family moved out of the flats in 1985. When Mrs Wynne sought treatment in 2015, doctors found a tumour in her abdomen, the family said. She died from a form of cancer known as mesothelioma, which develops in the lining of the lungs, heart or abdomen as a result of asbestos exposure, on 11 December last year at Our Lady's Hospice in Harold's Cross. "The hospice staff were so good to her, they cared for her so well, they are beautiful people," a family spokesman said. Coroner Dr Myra Cullinane adjourned the inquest to address the matters raised by the Wynne family. "I will put the relevant people on notice and ask if they wish to attend a reconvened inquest. "We are expected to ascertain the facts as much as we can so that would be the reason for reconvening," the coroner said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Unaffected by Ambient Asbestos ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that city dwellers are no more likely to contract malignant pleural mesothelioma from asbestos dust in the air than people who live in rural areas -- even though there is more asbestos dust in cities. That is the conclusion of a new study published in the journal Risk Analysis. The study was based on the fact that so-called "ambient asbestos", or asbestos fibers that are free in the environment as dust, is known to be up to ten times higher in urban areas. What is Asbestos? Asbestos, a fibrous mineral once widely used in building products in the US, is the primary cause of malignant mesothelioma around the world. Once asbestos fibers are breathed in or swallowed, they tend to stay in the tissues, causing long-term irritation and inflammation that can result in mesothelioma even decades later. In most cases of pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, the asbestos exposure happened in an occupational setting and most often to men, who historically held the jobs with the highest asbestos exposure risk. Women and Ambient Asbestos Although most asbestos exposure happens in the workplace, a certain amount of asbestos is known to be free in the environment as dust. In general, there is more of this dust in cities, where there are more asbestos-containing buildings. To measure the impact of this ambient asbestos on malignant pleural mesothelioma rates, researchers at Cardno ChemRisk decided to focus on women, who were less likely, as a gender, to have been exposed to asbestos at work. The team used the US government's SEER database to calculate standardized incidence rates for malignant pleural mesothelioma in both men and women in rural and urban areas over the course of 40 years. Incidence Rates Unaffected in Women While the rates of mesothelioma for men in both the country and the city increased into the 1980s and 1990s before leveling off, the rates of mesothelioma among women remained relatively constant over time, about five to six times lower than men. In fact, the study found no statistically significant difference in the rates of pleural mesothelioma in women between the rural and urban areas during the period from 1973 to 2012. "The results suggest that differences in ambient asbestos concentrations, which have been reported to be 10-fold or greater across regions in the United States, have not influenced the risk of pleural mesothelioma," concludes Meghan E. Glynn of Cardno ChemRisk in Chicago, lead author on the paper. Malignant mesothelioma is the most deadly of several diseases caused by exposure to asbestos. There are about 2,500 new cases of mesothelioma annually in the US. Source: Glynn, ME, et al, "Ambient Asbestos Fiber Concentrations and Long- Term Trends in Pleural Mesothelioma Incidence between Urban and Rural Areas in the United States (1973-2012)", September 1, 2017, Risk Analysis ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure Puts Six School Staff at Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Ward, writing for The World, reported that asbestos exposure has potentially exposed up to six staff members at the Coos Bay School District. The district released a statement outlining events surrounding the accident leading to asbestos exposure in one of the classrooms inside the Harding Building. "We learned recently that a maintenance action may have created exposure to asbestos in a classroom at Harding School, and want to keep our parents, staff and students informed of the steps we are taking to ensure the safety of all," the release stated. "First and foremost is our commitment to the well-being of our students and staff, and . . . we have taken appropriate measures to make the classroom safe for occupancy when classes begin Sept. 6." One maintenance employee was in the process of sanding the wax layer coating the building's original asbestos tiles on Aug. 16. The sanding went too deep, knocking asbestos into the air. The district was notified of the accident on Aug. 17. Between the time of the accident and the district being notified of the exposure, five other employees went into the room for various reasons, totaling six people possibly breathing in asbestos before the room was sealed. "Such materials are generally considered safe provided they are not disturbed by sanding or grinding," the release said about asbestos. "Asbestos fibers suspended in the air have been linked to cancer exposures." According to the press release, on August 17 Arcadia Environmental began efforts to fully clean and prep the room, including sealing of the floor tiles. "Arcadia Environmental specializes in asbestos clean-up," the release said. "The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was notified and they gave oversight to the clean-up work." On Aug. 29, Arcadia Environmental issued a statement that lab tests had shown that the room was safe from contaminants and ready for human occupancy. "It's hard to tell how much asbestos was exposed," said the district's superintendent, Bryan Trendell. "We haven't received the full air quality report from Arcadia, but those floor tiles have a low percentage of asbestos in the tiles themselves." There was no exposure to the rest of the Harding Building since the classroom had its own ventilation system. As for the six staff members potentially exposed to the asbestos, the district is seeking medical options that would be best for them. "We're working with them on what the next steps would be and what we can do for them," Trendell said. "Obviously if exposed to asbestos, things don't show up for many years down the road so we have to figure out the best course of action for the folks exposed and help them move forward." If you have questions or concerns, contact the district office at 541-267-1309. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Asbestos Superfund Site Gets $1.7MM ---------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) with $1.7 million for ongoing work at the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site. "These monies are used by DEQ to participate in the Superfund process with EPA in all aspects of the Libby Asbestos cleanup," said Libby Site Department Manager Lisa Dewitt. This funding is different from the Lincoln County and EPA agreement that supports the county's Asbestos Resource Program. The legacy of Libby is an environmental and health tragedy. It's well-known W.R. Grace Company illegally dumped industrial waste containing large amounts of asbestos at several of their facilities in Libby. The vermiculite contained in the industrial waste is a naturally occurring mineral used in the production of insulating materials. The vermiculite ore also contained tremolite asbestos, which is extremely toxic. During the mine's 70 years of operation, the ore was shipped to more than 50 processing plants throughout North America. Much of the Libby vermiculite was used to produce Zonolite attic insulation, but was also used in surfacing materials, window glazing compounds, waterproofing compounds, cements, adhesives, and plaster. As a result, the small town of Libby, Montana is arguably "Ground Zero" in the war on asbestos. Nearly half the population has been diagnosed with asbestos disease. About 200 have died as a result of exposure to asbestos. "The community of Libby deserves a clean environment and this [$1.7 million] grant will help achieve that," said Sen. Steve Daines. "I applaud EPA for prioritizing the health of the people of Libby." The $1,672,106 covers the next two years as an amendment to a cooperative agreement grant already in place. According to Rep. Greg Gianforte and Daines this brings the total award to $9,706,508. In addition, earlier this year, a $25 million settlement was reached between asbestos victims and the State of Montana. It will provide compensation to over 1,000 people who were exposed to asbestos by W.R. Grace and Co.'s mine and later diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. This includes former employees of the mine as well as some of their family members. ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA Mine Workers' Mesothelioma Cases Undiagnosed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scientists in Johannesburg have found that, among 149 workers, only 14 of the 27 cases of malignant mesothelioma were identified in the patients' lifetimes. They say more should be done to improve diagnosis of diseases like mesothelioma. The study, conducted by researchers at the University of the Witwatersrand and the National Institute for Occupational Health, found that only 3 asbestos-related lung cancers were correctly identified, although 22 patients were found to have lung cancer when they underwent autopsies. "Where clinical features suggest asbestos-related diseases but the chest radiograph is negative, more sophisticated imaging techniques or immunohistochemistry for asbestos-related cancers should be used," writes the study's lead author, Ntombizodwa Ndlovu, with the School of Public Health at the University of Witwatersrand. The study published in ERJ Open Research found that doctors were only able to correctly diagnose malignant mesothelioma about 40 percent of time, but were able to accurately rule it out about 97 percent of the time. "This study is just further confirmation that mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases can be difficult to diagnose and that it is risky to rely too heavily on one diagnostic tool," says Alex Strauss, Managing Editor for Surviving Mesothelioma. For the full details of the South African miner report, see Miner Study Finds Mesothelioma Often Undiagnosed, now available on the Surviving Mesothelioma website. Ndlovu, N, et al, "Asbestos-related diseases in mineworkers: a clinicopathological study", August 25, 2017, ERJ Open Research, eCollection, http://openres.ersjournals.com/content/3/3/00022-2017 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man's Lung Cancer Caused by 4520 Corp. Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lhalie Castillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that a widow alleges her husband's exposure to asbestos during his career caused him to develop lung cancer. Ann Boknevitz, individually and as special representative of the estate of Leonard Boknevitz, deceased filed a complaint on Aug. 21 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against 4520 Corp. Inc., ABB Inc., Albany International, et al. alleging negligence. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during Leonard Boknevitz's employment from 1962 to 2015, he was exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. As a result, he was caused to develop lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease and died on March 14, the suit states. The plaintiff holds 4520 Corp. Inc., ABB Inc., Albany International, et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their products when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around products containing asbestos fibers. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages of more than $50,000. She is represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-L470 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Death Prompts Search for Co-Workers ------------------------------------------------------------- The Northern Echo reported that the widow of a former power station worker who died from an asbestos-related illness hopes to trace some of his old workmates after turning to legal experts for help to investigate his death. Frank John Gargett, who was originally from Trimdon, near Sedgefield, died at the age of 71 from asbestosis, a condition caused by exposure to asbestos materials. Following his death in November 2015, wife Pauline instructed specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to search for answers about how he developed the illness and whether more should have been done to protect him from the dangers of the material. They are now keen to hear from anyone who worked with Mr Gargett between 1974 and 1983, when he was a boiler cleaner at Deptford Power Station before he worked at a water treatment site at Woolwich Power Station. The couple returned to County Durham after his retirement in 2005. Mrs Gargett said: "Moving back up north meant Frank lost touch with his former workmates, so sadly we were not in contact with anyone when he first became ill. "Looking back, it was horrible to see how the illness affected him and I would be hugely grateful if anybody who did work with him was able to get in touch and provide information to help us understand how he came to fall ill." She said her husband had described his job at Deptford as dirty work but he was never given any breathing protection or safety advice about working around asbestos. Emma Crowther, who represents Mrs Gargett from Irwin Mitchell's Newcastle office, said: "A case of this nature demonstrates the terrible impact that asbestos exposure can have on a victim, often leading them to develop very serious health problems decades after initial contact with the material. "Our enquiries have led us to believe that Frank may have been exposed to asbestos during his time at the power stations in London, so we would be keen to develop a clearer picture of the working conditions he faced on a daily basis. "Any information may prove essential in our efforts to ensure that Pauline can get the answers she deserves in relation to Frank's death." Anyone with information can contact Jennifer Fish on 0191-2790119 or email Jennifer.Fish@IrwinMitchell.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Claims St. Louis-based Cos. Failed to Warn --------------------------------------------------------------- Lhalie Castillo, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that an individual is suing manufacturers in the St. Louis area and beyond that used asbestos in their products, citing alleged negligence. James M. Richardson filed a complaint in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against ABB Inc., Ajax Tocco Magnethermic Corp., Clark Drilling, Pump Co. LLC, et al., alleging they failed to exercise ordinary care and caution for the safety of other. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during his employment from 1974 to 2000, he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. As a result, he claims he was diagnosed with lung cancer related to asbestos on May 11, 2016. He says he has suffered disability, disfigurement, great pain, mental anguish, loss of earnings and medical expenses. The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their products when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around products containing asbestos fibers. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against defendants in excess of $25,000, plus costs for this action and all other relief that are just and equitable. He is represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville. St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC10941 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Urges Summary Judgment for Foster ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District Delaware recommends granting Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation's and Warren Pumps, LLC's motion for summary judgment in the asbestos litigation styled ICOM HENRY EVANS, and JOHANNA ELAINE EVANS, Plaintiffs, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-681-ER-SRF, (D. Del.), because the Plaintiffs have failed to show that a material issue of fact exists as to whether Warren Pumps' product was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Evans' injuries. Icom Henry Evans and Johanna Elaine Evans filed this asbestos related personal injury action in the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants on June 11, 2015, alleging injuries due to asbestos exposure. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Evans developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products during the course of his employment as a fireman and boiler tender with the U.S. Navy from 1957 to 1967. Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Evans was injured due to exposure to asbestos-containing products that Defendants manufactured, sold, distributed, licensed, or installed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs assert negligence, strict liability, punitive damages, and loss of consortium claims. The court recommends granting Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment, because Plaintiffs have failed to show that a material issue of fact exists as to whether Foster Wheeler's product was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Evans' injuries. The Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Evans was exposed to asbestos- containing products used in connection with Foster Wheeler boilers while serving aboard the USS Bole. Mr. Evans testified that he helped with the refractory and the re-bricking of the furnaces on two Foster Wheeler boilers. The Court notes that Mr. Evans did not know whether the refractory or the brick were original to the Foster Wheeler boilers, and did not know whether the boilers had this work performed on them previously. Mr. Evans testified that his job included breaking down the old brick and cement, and replacing it with new brick and cement. Mr. Evans thought the cement used during re-bricking contained asbestos, because he recalled seeing the asbestos fibers in the mix. Mr. Evans testified that the hammering process to remove the cement created airborne particles. Foster Wheeler states it did not manufacture the refractory cement. In addition, Foster Wheeler also points to Military Specifications and Affidavits from Admiral Ben J. Lehman (Ret.) and Foster Wheeler corporate representative, J. Thomas Schroppe, as evidence that the government was involved in the design and manufacture of all products used on Navy warships. The Court determines that the Plaintiffs did not cite any evidence to support the claim that the brick and cement mix was original to Foster Wheeler boilers. As such, the Court maintains that the Plaintiffs fail to show that a material issue of fact exists as to whether Foster Wheeler provided any asbestos containing components to be used with its boilers aboard the USS Bole. Accordingly, the Court recommends that summary judgment based on the government contractor defense is not warranted. However, the Court says that Foster Wheeler is, nonetheless, entitled to summary judgment based on lack of causation under maritime law. The Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Evans was exposed to asbestos- containing products used in conjunction with pumps manufactured by Warren Pumps while serving aboard the USS Kearsarge and the USS Bole. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue Warren Pumps used asbestos gaskets, packing and insulation with its pumps, and even supplied asbestos-containing replacement parts to be used with its pumps. In his deposition, Mr. Evans recalled working on fire pumps, water pumps, bilge pumps, and valves aboard the USS Kearsarge, but he could not recall the manufacturer of any of the pumps. Mr. Evans stated he performed "internal" pump work replacing carbon rings, however, he only did this work on one occasion. Mr. Evans also stated that he thought the carbon rings were made out of carbon. But he said that he did not know whether replacing the carbon rings exposed him to asbestos. As such, Mr. Evans is unable to verify whether the pumps contained original parts when he boarded the USS Kearsarge in 1957. Consequently, Mr. Evans' testimony is not enough to establish exposure to an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Warren Pumps aboard the USS Kearsarge. The Plaintiffs counter that circumstantial evidence establishes that Mr. Evans was exposed to asbestos from pumps manufactured by Warren Pumps aboard the USS Kearsarge. The Plaintiffs cite to Navy records which show that Warren Pumps was the manufacturer of pumps aboard the USS Kearsarge. However, the Court finds that the documents produced by Plaintiffs show that the pumps manufactured by Warren Pumps were located in the fire room on the USS Kearsarge, but they do nothing more than show the presence of pumps manufactured by Warren Pumps -- they do not establish exposure. Moreover, the Court points out that there is no evidence of record that Warren Pumps manufactured external flange gaskets - - the only asbestos-containing component that Mr. Evans discusses. Thus, the magistrate concludes that the Plaintiffs have not produced evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Evans was substantially exposed to respirable asbestos dust from a Warren Pumps product on the USS Kearsarge. A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 30, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/fyi1dO from Leagle.com. Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The deBruin Firm LLC. Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Soechting, Jr., pro hac vice & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice. Johanna Elaine Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The deBruin Firm LLC & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E. Soechting, Jr.. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E. Soechting, Jr.. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E. Soechting, Jr.. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magistrate Urges Partial Summary Ruling for JCI ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District Delaware recommends denial of John Crane Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment in the asbestos litigation styled ICOM HENRY EVANS, and JOHANNA ELAINE EVANS, Plaintiffs, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-681-ER- SRF, (D. Del.) Icom Henry Evans and Johanna Elaine Evans filed this asbestos related personal injury action in the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants on June 11, 2015, asserting injuries arising from Mr. Evans' alleged harmful exposure to asbestos. Defendant Foster Wheeler removed the action to this court on August 4, 2015. On September 9, 2016, the parties stipulated that maritime law applies to all substantive claims. The Plaintiff, Icom Evans, developed mesothelioma which he claims resulted from his exposure to asbestos containing gaskets manufactured by John Crane. Mr. Evans removed and replaced gaskets during his naval service as a boiler tender and fireman on the USS Kearsarge and the USS Bole between 1957 and 1968. John Crane contends that the relevant time period for purposes of Plaintiffs' punitive damages claim is confined to the time frame of Mr. Evans' ship-board service. John Crane admits to having knowledge of the hazards of asbestos by 1970. However, the Parties dispute whether John Crane had knowledge of the hazards of asbestos before 1970. The Parties further dispute whether John Crane's knowledge after 1970 is relevant to consideration of the punitive damages issue. The depositions of John Crane's corporate representatives, George Springs and George McKillop, were taken in connection with then pending asbestos litigation in 2007, 2010, and 2015, respectively. Each corporate representative testified regarding the time frame of John Crane's knowledge of the hazards of asbestos. John Crane argues that to defeat partial summary judgment, Plaintiffs must show that by 1967, John Crane knew that asbestos- containing products and gaskets it sold caused injury, yet it continued to sell them with reckless indifference of the risks to others. John Crane argues that the Plaintiffs have no evidence establishing that by 1967, John Crane had actual knowledge that exposure to its asbestos-containing packing or gaskets caused an asbestos-related disease. As such, John Crane argues there is no evidence that it sold asbestos-containing products in a willful, wanton, or reckless manner, which would support a claim for punitive damages. In response, Plaintiffs argue that (1) John Crane had actual knowledge of the hazards of asbestos as early as the 1930s, and (2) John Crane's post-exposure conduct provides evidence that is probative of John Crane's willful, wanton, and reckless state of mind. The Plaintiffs assert that John Crane sold asbestos products, including gaskets, from 1931 to 1985, and did not warn of dangers of asbestos until 1983, if at all. Therefore, Plaintiffs assert that John Crane had actual knowledge of the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure, because starting in 1933, academic and news periodicals, as well as state legislation, were published addressing the harms of asbestos exposure. Additionally, the Court notes that Mr. Springs originally stated that John Crane took precautions to prevent its workers from being exposed to raw asbestos. John Crane states it did not sell raw asbestos. Furthermore, John Crane contends that the products it sold were encapsulated with various rubber coatings and lubricants. As such, the Court cannot assess the credibility of Mr. Springs' testimony at the summary judgment stage. The Court concludes that a dispute of material fact exists as to whether John Crane knew asbestos-containing products were harmful by 1967. As such, the Court recommends that a trier of fact should determine whether John Crane knew asbestos-containing products were harmful, and chose not to warn potential users of the health risks. Furthermore, the Court maintains that the trier of fact should determine if John Crane had such knowledge, and whether John Crane continued, nonetheless, to sell products in a manner that was in willful or wanton disregard, or in reckless indifference of potential harm to others. The Court does not address the Plaintiffs' post-exposure conduct argument, because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether John Crane knew asbestos-containing products were harmful by 1967.3 As such, the Court makes no recommendations as to the admissibility of evidence of post-exposure conduct, and leaves the issue to be decided by the District Judge at the appropriate time. A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 30, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/0xi0tE from Leagle.com. Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The deBruin Firm LLC. Icom Henry Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Soechting, Jr., pro hac vice & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice. Johanna Elaine Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The deBruin Firm LLC & Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E. Soechting, Jr.. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E. Soechting, Jr.. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Icom Henry Evans, Cross Defendant, represented by Charles E. Soechting, Jr.. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Wins Summary Judgment in "Kivell" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware determines that Union Carbide is entitled to summary judgment on negligence claim as well as on strict liability claim because there is nothing in the record indicating that Union Carbide had any type of direction, control, or ownership of an asbestos product used by Milton Kivell. The Plaintiff Sandra Kivell alleges that her husband, Milton Kivell contracted mesothelioma which ultimately caused his death. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Union Carbide was the premises owner of a petrochemical facility in Taft, Louisiana where Mr. Kivell worked. Between January 1967 and October 1969 Mr. Kivell worked as a union pipefitter and welder. Union Carbide's Taft facility was a large industrial plant, and Mr. Kivell was involved in initial construction. Mr. Kivell did not work for Union Carbide directly, and he had no interaction with, and received no direction from Union Carbide personnel while at the Taft facility. Rather, he was employed by different third- party contractors, including Kiewitt Corporation and Stearns Roger Corporation. Union Carbide hired these third-party contractors to design and construct various process units. Mr. Kivell's duties included running pipe, and he stated that he worked "side-by-side" with insulators. The Defendant contends that these firms exercised exclusive control over Mr. Kivell's work area, and Mr. Kivell had no interaction with, and received no direction from Union Carbide personnel. Additionally, the Defendant also contends that these employers supplied their own tools and materials, and Union Carbide was not in custody or control of asbestos that Mr. Kivell was allegedly exposed to. But the Plaintiff argues that Mr. Kivel needed permission from Union Carbide staff before performing a "tie in" to an existing system, and Mr. Kivell "performed a fair bit of maintenance at Union Carbide." The Plaintiff concedes that Defendant is not vicariously liable for the negligence of Mr. Kivell's employer. "Although the independent contractor defense is a bar to a vicarious liability claim, it is not a bar to direct liability claim arising out of a premises-owner's own negligence." The Plaintiff claims that her husband was exposed to asbestos from products used while employed by an independent contractor at Defendant's facility. However, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not presented evidence that the Defendant in this case knew of the risks of asbestos, specified the use of asbestos in the construction, or that Mr. Kivell used asbestos products in the construction of the building. The Court also finds that the Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that Defendant breached a duty owed to Mr. Kivell under Louisiana law. Therefore, the Defendant Union Carbide's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's negligence claim is granted. The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION, SANDRA KIVELL, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of MILTON J. KIVELL, deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNION CARBIDE CORP. et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N15C-07-093 ASB (Del. Sup.). A full-text copy of the Order dated August 30, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/w3Plb6 from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Allied Fluid Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.), where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant Allied Fluid Products Corp., fka Allied Packing & Supply, Inc., stipulate that all claims against only Allied Fluid Products Corp. fka Allied Packing & Supply, Inc., may be dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/zP59hA from Leagle.com. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP & Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P.. Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham, Tucker Ellis LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young, Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP, Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M. Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner, WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP. Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer Kannett and Schweitzer. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Siemens Industry Junked --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.), where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant Siemens Industry, Inc. fka Siemens Energy and Automation, Inc., stipulate that all claims against only Siemens Industry, Inc. fka Siemens Energy and Automation, Inc., may be dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/g1ysTH from Leagle.com. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP & Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P.. Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham, Tucker Ellis LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young, Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP, Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M. Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner, WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP. Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer Kannett and Schweitzer. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Honeywell Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.), where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a AlliedSigna Inc., successor- in-interest to The Bendix Corporation, stipulate that all claims against only Honeywell International may be dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/00bE6H from Leagle.com. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP & Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P.. Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham, Tucker Ellis LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young, Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP, Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M. Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner, WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP. Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer Kannett and Schweitzer. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Armstrong Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.), where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant Armstrong International, Inc., stipulate that all claims against only Armstrong International may be dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/3Qc7mG from Leagle.com. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP & Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P.. Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham, Tucker Ellis LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young, Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP, Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M. Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner, WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP. Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer Kannett and Schweitzer. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Baldor Electric Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.), where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant Baldor Electric Company stipulate that all claims against only Baldor Electric may be dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/KnbbSA from Leagle.com. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP & Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P.. Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham, Tucker Ellis LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young, Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP, Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M. Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner, WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP. Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer Kannett and Schweitzer. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. M. Slayen Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.), where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant M. Slayen and Associates, Inc. stipulate that all claims against only M. Slayen may be dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/ftouw9 from Leagle.com. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP & Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P.. Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham, Tucker Ellis LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young, Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP, Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M. Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner, WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP. Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer Kannett and Schweitzer. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Parker-Hannifin Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order in the case captioned JAIME DEGUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02228-PJH, (N.D. Cal.), where Plaintiffs Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman and Defendant Parker-Hannifin Corporation stipulate that all claims against only Parker-Hannifin may be dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated September 7, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/o8akDf from Leagle.com. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP. Jaime DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Loida DeGuzman, Plaintiff, represented by Cecil B. Crain, Levin Simes LLP, Mahzad Kazempour Hite, LEVIN SIMES LLP, William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP & Laurel Lisa Simes, Levin Simes LLP. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Automatic Switch Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Cleaver Brooks, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP, Brian Harold Buddell, POND NORTH LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North LLP & Nilufar Kashani Majd, POND NORTH LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP, Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Tate Andale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P.. Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Arlene Carol-Mendoza Barton, Dentons US LLP & Lisa Lurline Oberg, Dentons US LLP. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory E. Ebstein, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by James P. Cunningham, Tucker Ellis LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young, Foley & Mansfield, Malcolm D. Donaldson, Foley & Mansfield PLLP, Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Emily M. Cunningham, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. McWane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine Paige Gardiner, WFBM, LLP & Michael John Beler, Walsworth, WFBM LLP. Pentair Valves & Controls, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. McCormick, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP. Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Paul Stuart Lecky, Becherer Kannett and Schweitzer. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Eaton Hydraulics, LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP & Michael A. Graham, Pond North LLP. Kunkle Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield & Lauren McLeod, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. Ruggles-Klingemann Manufacturing Co., Cross-claimant, represented by Jonathan Theonugraha, KL Gates LLP. Crane Co., Cross-defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP & Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP. M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Bina Ghanaat, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Emily Diane Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. Tate Andale, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Richard J. Finn, Burnham Brown & Rohit A. Sabnis, Burnham Brown. Tuthill Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented by Grayson William Marshall, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Jean Lynne Bertrand, Schiff Hardin LLP. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. 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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *