/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200327.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 27, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 63
Headlines
ADENIKE GRAHAM: Faces Synergy Flavors Suit in N.D. Illinois
ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: Rosenblatt Challenges Acquisition by Dialog
AHO ENTERPRISES: Ortega Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
ALEX MILL COMPANY: Fischler Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind
ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Douglas Seeks to Certify Settlement Classes
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Mueller
ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Justice Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in "Leyse"
BURKE & HERBERT BANK: Randall Sues Over Overdraft Fees
CAGLE STUCCO: Palacios Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Approval of Settlement in Heredia Case Sought
CCI GENERAL: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
CENTENE COMPANY: Whittenberg Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHIODO CORPORATION: Rocha Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
CINCINNATI BELL: Palkon Sues Over Sale to Brookfield Infrastructure
CLOUD WITH ME: Class Cert. Bid Filed in Suit over CLD Tokens
COLLETTE TRAVEL: Guglielmo Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
CPI AERO: Garrett Hits Share Drop from Erroneous Financial Reports
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Fondren
CRUNCH LLC: Faces Fox Employment Suit in California Superior Ct.
CUMULUS MEDIA: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Chiappa ERISA Suit Says
DAILY GROMMET: Faces Guglielmo ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
DESERT LAKE: Dewoskin TCPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
EASTPOINT RECOVERY: Faces Ergas FDCPA Class Suit in W.D. New York
EL TINA LOUNGE: Sacked Resto Staff Seeks Unpaid Wages
ENDEAVOR METALS GROUP: Naiman Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Stevener Suit Over Underpayment of Claims
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Epps Sues in W.D. Virginia Over FDCPA Violation
FAMILY HEALTHCARE: Faces Munoz Employment Suit in California
FEDERAL SAVINGS: Tenaglia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIG & OLIVE: Restaurant Staff Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit
FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces Muldowney FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
GALLAGHER & CO: Rubin-Knudsen Seeks Class Certification
GASDICK STANTON: Ford Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GRUNDFOS PUMPS: Faces Smith Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
HAIN CELESTIAL: Kyszenia Files Product Mislabeling Suit
HANNA ANDERSSON: Jadin Sues Over Data Breach
HCA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Arias Claims
HEALTH IQ INSURANCE: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KENDO HOLDINGS: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
KLAUSNER LUMBER: Raymond Sues Over FLSA and WARN Act Violation
LG DRYWALL: Drywall Workers Seek to Recover Overtime Pay
M&M BURGERS: Omou Ba Seeks Overtime Pay, Uniform Reimbursements
MASTERCARD INT'L: Scoma Seeks to Certify Classes
MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Arnold Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Virginia
MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Voeks
MONDELEZ INT'L: Class Certification Bid Denied in McMorrow Suit
NEWELL BRANDS: Brezinski Sues Over Baby Sleeper Health Hazard
OCWEN LOAN: Franklin Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
ODE A LA ROSE: Naseri Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
PET SUPPLIES: Faces Nelson-Devenere Employment Suit in California
POST FOODS: Consumers Class Certified in Krommenhock Suit
PRINCE SECURITY: Faces Colbert Suit in District of Columbia
RBM ASSOCIATES: Retina Associates Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Fails to Help in Registration, Treakle Says
SHEER STRENGTH: Boyer Sues in Southern District of California
SIX FLAGS: Klein Hits Share Drop from Delayed China Project
SOUTHERN TIDE: Faces Kalender ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
SUNLIGHT SOLAR: Hildre Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
TARGET CORP: Deceptively Markets Hand Sanitizer, Taslakian Says
TAXACT INC: Guglielmo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
TENNESSEE: Deputy Comm'r Smith Sued by AMC Over Violation of ADA
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Eun Suit Over Defective Brakes in Vehicles
TOYOTA MOTOR: Feng Files Product Liability Suit in S.D. Calif.
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Schreiber Securities Suit in Florida
UPMC: Highmark Reaches Settlement with Class Plaintiffs
WESTROCK CP LLC: Mendez Sues Over Biometrics Data Collection
WINSTON BRANDS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
WYNDHAM VACATION: Faces Nolen Suit in Middle District of Florida
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Has 367 Cases Still Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $810MM Claim Reserves at Dec.31, 2019
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMERISAFE Had $1.3MM Reserves for Loss, LAE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Faces Lawsuits at December 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $275MM for PI Matters at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builders FirstSource Defends Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liability at December 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $85MM A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $64.4MM Accrued Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 121 Suits Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Spent $17MM for Manhattan Incident
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $6.7MM Asbestos Coverage at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Units Still Faces 200 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Unit Still Faces 150 Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $118.1MM Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $37.9MM A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $817.6MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Defends Suits at December 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,800 PI Cases at Dec. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Has 1,605 Exposure Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. and Units Still Face Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 730 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ProSight Global Has $4.45MM A&E Losses at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RLI Has $68.6MM for Tort Claims at Dec. 31, 2019
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp Estimates $85.9MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teledyne Technologies Still Defends Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Has Less Than 130 Claims in Dec.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec Still Faces PI Claims at December 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Defends 300 Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
*********
ADENIKE GRAHAM: Faces Synergy Flavors Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Adenike Graham, et al. The case is
styled as Synergy Flavors, Inc. v. Adenike Graham, Kimberly
Mcnulty, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01910 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as miscellaneous cases.
Synergy Flavors is a supplier of flavors, essences and extracts for
the global food and beverage industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob D. Sawyer, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
550 W. Adams Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Phone: (312) 345-1718
Email: Jacob.Sawyer@lewisbrisbois.com
ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: Rosenblatt Challenges Acquisition by Dialog
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Rosenblatt, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, NELSON CHAN,
NARBEH DERHACOBIAN, HERVE FAGES, FRANCIS LEE, KEVIN PALATNIK, and
SUSAN UTHAYAKUMAR, Case No. 1:20-cv-00401-UNA (D. Del., March 20,
2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Adesto
will be acquired by Dialog Semiconductor plc and Azara Acquisition
Corp.
On February 20, 2020, Adesto's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Dialog.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Adesto's
stockholders will receive $12.55 in cash for each share of Adesto
common stock they own. On March 16, 2020, the Defendants filed a
proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. The
Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection with the
Proposed Transaction, Cowen and Company, LLC. The Plaintiff insists
that the omission of material information renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, including, inter alia, the
following sections of the Proxy Statement: (i) Background of the
Merger; (ii) Recommendation of our Board and Reasons for the
Merger; and (iii) Opinion of Adesto's Financial Advisor.
The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction, the Plaintiff contends. Because of the false and
misleading statements in the Proxy Statement, the Plaintiff and the
Class are threatened with irreparable harm, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the owner of Adesto common stock.
Adesto is a leading provider of application-specific semiconductors
and embedded systems for the Industrial IoT.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
AHO ENTERPRISES: Ortega Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSE SALVADOR SANDOVAL
ORTEGA, J. GUADALUPE ALANIZ, EFRAIN HENRIQUEZ, NORBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
JOSE LUIS CORREA MARTINEZ, MELVIN EFRAIN GOODY RAMIREZ, EDUARDO
RODRIGUEZ, RODOLFO VAZQUEZ, DANIEL VALENCIA, and JOSE VALENCIA on
behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals
v. AHO ENTERPRISES, INC. (dba "SUPERIOR BODY SHOP"); JACK AHO, ISSA
AHO, HANI AHO and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No.
4:19-cv-00404-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on May 14, 2020 for an order:
1. certifying class and subclasses:
a. Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Opt-in Class:
"all non-exempt production employees, including body
shop technicians, technician helpers, detailers,
painters, and painter helpers, who were employed by Aho
Enterprises, Inc. in the State of California at any
time from January 23, 2016 to September 30, 2019, who
worked more than 40 hours a week";
b. Proposed California Claims FRCP Rule 23 Class:
"all non-exempt production employees, including body
shop technicians, technician helpers, detailers,
painters, and painter helpers, who were employed by Aho
Enterprises, Inc. in the State of California at any
time from January 23, 2015 to September 30, 2019.
-- California Overtime Pay Subclass:
"all non-exempt production employees, including body
shop technicians, technician helpers, detailers,
painters, and painter helpers, who were employed by
Aho Enterprises, Inc. in the State of California at
any time from January 23, 2015 to September 30,
2019, who worked in excess of eight hours in any
workday or 40 hours in a week without proper
overtime pay".
-- California Meal Period Subclass:
"all non-exempt production employees, including body
shop technicians, technician helpers, detailers,
painters, and painter helpers, who were employed by
Aho Enterprises, Inc. in the State of California at
any time from January 23, 2015 to September 30,
2019, who worked shifts of at least six (6) hours in
any workday, and were not paid meal period premiums
for meals that were less than 30 minutes in length".
-- Rest Period Subclass:
"all non-exempt production employees, including body
shop technicians, technician helpers, detailers,
painters, and painter helpers, who were employed by
Aho Enterprises, Inc. in the State of California at
any time from January 23, 2015 to September 30,
2019, who worked shifts of at least three and a half
hours in any workday, who had their rest and meal
periods combined";
-- Inaccurate/Incomplete Wage Statement Subclass:
"all non-exempt production employees, including body
shop technicians, technician helpers, detailers,
painters, and painter helpers, who were employed by
Aho Enterprises, Inc. in the State of California at
any time from January 23, 2018 to September 30, 2019
who received a wage statement that due to the
violations claimed herein, was an inaccurate
itemized wage statement by listing either: a) false
gross and net wage earned amounts or 2) failing to
provide the accurate amount of 7 hours worked at
each wage rate including overtime, 3) failing to
list rest and meal premiums"; and
-- Waiting Time Subclass:
"all non-exempt production employees, including body
shop technicians, technician helpers, detailers,
painters, and painter helpers, who were employed by
Aho Enterprises, Inc. in the State of California at
any time from January 23, 2016 to present who were
not paid all wages due when they were terminated or
quit as required by California Labor Code sections
201, 202, and 203";
2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and
3. appointing Mallison & Martinez as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' policy of willfully not
paying overtime for workweeks greater than 40 hours violates the
FLSA and California Labor Code; and Defendants' policy of not
providing complete meal periods to production workers violates
California Labor Code section and Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order as well.
Aho offers auto Detailing and auto Repair services.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Liliana Garcia, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94549
Telephone: 510-832-9999
Facsimile: 510-832-1101
E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
LGarcia@TheMMLawFirm.com
ALEX MILL COMPANY: Fischler Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Alex Mill
Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00532 (S.D. N.Y., January
21, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Alex Mill is a retailer of clothing and accessories for men and
women through its website, www.alexmill.com, and at its flagship
store, located at 70 Mercer Street, New York. Plaintiff is legally
blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017-6705
Tel: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
chris@lipskylowe.com
ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Douglas Seeks to Certify Settlement Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KIRK DOUGLAS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL
SECURITY SERVICES; ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES LLC and ALLIED
SECURITY HOLDING LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-6093-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court for an order:
1. granting final approval of the settlement reached by the
parties in this action as embodied in their Amended
Settlement Agreement;
2. certifying the following settlement class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure in connection with the settlement
process:
"all present and former persons employed as Airport
Security Agents, Operation Assistants, or Tour Supervisors
at JFK by Defendants at any time between September 1, 2013
and May 28, 2019"; and
3. certifying the following settlement class under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) in
connection with the settlement process:
"all present and former persons employed as Airport
Security Agents, Operation Assistants, or Tour Supervisors
at JFK by Defendants at any time between May 16, 2015 and
May 28, 2019."
Allied Universal is a privately owned facility services company
based in the United States. It also offers security systems,
janitorial services and staffing.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC
80 Broadway, Suite 703
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 430-7930
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Mueller
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARILYN MUELLER, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00395-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
ASSOCIATED MATERIALS: Justice Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Justice, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Associated Materials LLC and Premium
Building Products LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00410, (N.D.
Ohio, February 21, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio labor laws.
Defendants are in the business of manufacturing and selling
building and construction products, including window frames and
vinyl siding. They jointly employed Justice at their manufacturing
facility located at 265 Congress Rd., West Salem, OH 44287. Justice
claims to attend pre-shift meetings before they clocked in and that
they were not compensated and were not paid overtime compensation
for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
34 N. High St., Ste. 502
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 824-5770
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in "Leyse"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARK LEYSE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:11-cv-07128-SDW-SCM (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton entered an order:
1. granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and
2. dismissing as moot Defendant's Motion to strike,
Plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint, and
plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Leyse sued BofA for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, after receiving a prerecorded telemarketing
call on the landline he shares with his roommate.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services company headquartered in
Charlotte, with central hubs in New York City, London, Hong Kong,
Minneapolis, and Toronto.[CC]
BURKE & HERBERT BANK: Randall Sues Over Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Randall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Burke & Herbert Bank & Trust Company,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00183, (E.D. Va., February 20, 2020)
seeks monetary damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory
relief arising from unfair and unconscionable assessment and
collection of overdraft fees resulting from breach of contract and
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Burke & Herbert is a $3 billion bank headquartered in Alexandria,
Virginia with 25 locations across Virginia. Randal has a checking
account with Burke & Herbert and claims that Burke & Herbert
assesses and collects overdraft fees on accounts that were never
actually overdrawn. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Bernard J. DiMuro, Esq.
Jayna Genti, Esq.
DIMUROGINSBERG, P.C.
1101 King Street, Suite 610
Alexandria, VA 22314
Tel: (703) 684-4333
Fax: (703) 548-3181
Email: bdimuro@dimuro.com
jgenti@dimuro.com
- and -
Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielpllc.com
CAGLE STUCCO: Palacios Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Enrique Palacios, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CAGLE STUCCO & MASONRY OF TEXAS, LLC d/b/a
CAGLE STUCCO & MASONRY; CAGLE STUCCO & MASONRY LLC; LOZANO
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC; CHRISTOPHER N. CAGLE; and BENJAMIN
LOZANO, Case No. 4:20-cv-01015 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 2020), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime wages from the Defendants under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing the Plaintiff and
other nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours
but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of
forty hours, at a rate not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate at which they are or were employed," says the
complaint. The Defendant also violated the FLSA by failing to
maintain accurate time and pay records for the Plaintiff as
required by the FLSA.
The Plaintiff was primarily responsible for preparing construction
sites by building scaffolding for residential properties for the
Defendants.
The Defendants are residential and commercial construction
companies in the Houston metropolitan area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
Renu Tandale, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Approval of Settlement in Heredia Case Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MABEL L. HEREDIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situate v.
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-00284-WCG (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. preliminarily approving a class settlement agreement;
2. certifying class for settlement purposes;
all persons with a Wisconsin address to whom Capital
Management Services, L.P. mailed a written communication
between February 28, 2016 and March 21, 2017, which: (i)
offered to settle a debt owed to Discover Bank for less
than the amount owed; (ii) resulted in a savings of less
than $600.00 in principal; and, (iii) contained the
following warning: 'settling a debt for less than $600 may
have tax consequences and Discover may file a 1099C form.
We cannot provide you with tax advice. If you have
any questions, Discover encourages you to consult with a
tax advisor of your choosing'";
3. appointing Stern Thomasson LLP as Class Counsel;
4. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Settlement
Class;
5. setting dates for Class Members to seek exclusion from, or
object to, the Settlement;
6. scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Settlement;
7. approving the mailing of notice and claim form to Class
Members; and
8. finding the mailing of such notice satisfies the
requirements of due process.
On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging
that CMS violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by mailing
consumers form letters to collect defaulted Discover Bank credit
card debts, which offered settlements of those debts.
CMS is a nationally licensed and recognized collections agency
providing delinquent receivables resolution.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Katelyn B. Busby, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081
Telephone (973) 379-7500
E-mail: Andrew@SternThomasson.com
Philip@SternThomasson.com
Francis@SternThomasson.com
Katelyn@SternThomasson.com
CCI GENERAL: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Chad McCann, Tony Bryan and Kevin Abbott, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CCI General Contractors,
LLC and Brandon Oglesby, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00184 (E.D.
Ark., January 24, 2020), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.
Defendants provide remodeling services such as painting and
flooring installations where Plaintiffs were employed as
construction workers. They claim that CCI switched payment schemes
between "piece-rate" and "hourly-paid" at their own discretion and
misclassified its construction workers as independent contractors
thus denying them overtime for hours worked more than forty hours
in a workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
Post Office Box 39
Russellville, AR 72811
Tel: (479) 880-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
CENTENE COMPANY: Whittenberg Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Shelley Whittenberg, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CENTENE COMPANY OF TEXAS, L.P. CENTENE
CORPORATION and CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00080-JM (W.D. Tex., March 20, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the Defendants' failure to
pay the Plaintiff proper overtime compensation for all hours
worked.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week while working for the Defendant. During
weeks in which the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours, the Defendant
paid an improper overtime rate because the Defendant determined the
regular rate of pay solely based on employees' hourly rate, without
including the value of the nondiscretionary bonuses that the
Defendant provided to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends that
the Defendant has deprived the Plaintiff of proper overtime
compensation for all of the hours worked over 40 per week.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
Service Coordinator from February of 2013 through the present.
The Defendants own and operate a healthcare management company
registered to do business in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
CHIODO CORPORATION: Rocha Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaciel Rocha, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. CHIODO CORPORATION, AND STEVE CHIODO, individually, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01902 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law to
recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the
Plaintiff.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Jaciel Rocha was employed by the Defendants from May 2019
to December 2019 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's
stores.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's franchise stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay Forester, Esq.
M. Mathews, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (214) 346-5909
- and -
Matthew D. Rose, Esq.
9501 W. Devon Ave., Ste. 702
Rosemont, IL 60018
Phone: (312) 541-1078
Email: mrose@drlawpc.com
CINCINNATI BELL: Palkon Sues Over Sale to Brookfield Infrastructure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Palkon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cincinnati Bell Inc., Lynn A. Wentworth,
Meredith J. Ching, Walter A. Dods, Jr., John W. Eck, Leigh R. Fox,
Jakki L. Haussler, Craig F. Maier, Russel P. Mayer, Theodore H.
Torbeck, Martin J. Yudkovitz, Charlie Acquireco Inc. and Charlie
Merger Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00244 (D. Del.,
February 20, 2020) seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or
closing the acquisition of Cincinnati Bell Inc. by institutional
partners of Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P., rescinding it
in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages,
costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Cincinnati Bell's
stockholders will receive $10.50 in cash for each share of
Cincinnati Bell common stock they own.
Palkon claims that the proxy statement filed in line with the
transaction failed to disclose all line items used to calculate
EBITDA and Unlevered Free Cash Flow and a reconciliation of all
non-GAAP to GAAP metrics, material information that provides
stockholders with a basis to project the future financial
performance of a company and allows stockholders to better
understand the financial analyses performed by the company's
financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion.
Cincinnati Bell delivers integrated communications solutions to
residential and business customers over its fiber-optic and copper
networks including high-speed internet, video, voice and data in
the areas of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and Hawaii. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
CLOUD WITH ME: Class Cert. Bid Filed in Suit over CLD Tokens
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RAYMOND BALESTRA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CLOUD WITH ME LTD., GILAD SOMJEN, and ASAF ZAMIR, Case No.
2:18-cv-00804-MRH-LPL (W.D. Pa.), lead Plaintiffs John Oum and
Raymond Balestra move the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class consisting of:
"all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Cloud Tokens ("CLD Tokens") during the period
from July 23, 2017 through June 19, 2018, inclusive, and
were injured thereby."
Excluded from the Class are: (I) defendant Cloud; (ii) Defendants
Somjen and Zamir; (iii) any person who was an officer, director or
employee of Cloud; (iv) any immediate family member of any excluded
person; (v) any firm, trust, corporation or other entity in which
any excluded person or entity has or had a controlling interest;
and (vi) the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors
in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity.;
2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky as Class Counsel.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G.
YATES, JR., P.C.
300 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 206-B
Pittsburgh, PA 15234
Telephone: (412) 391-5164
E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 636-7171
COLLETTE TRAVEL: Guglielmo Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collette Travel
Service, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Collette Travel
Service, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02454 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Collette Travel Service, Inc. offers escorted tours, cruise
programs, and learning vacations, as well as cruises and land
tours, educational and faith-based travels, exciting adventures,
and relaxing getaways. .[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
CPI AERO: Garrett Hits Share Drop from Erroneous Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Garrett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CPI Aerostructures, Inc., Douglas McCrosson
and Vincent Palazzolo, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01026, (E.D.
N.Y., February 25, 2020), seeks redress for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
CPI is a U.S. manufacturer of structural assemblies, for fixed wing
aircraft, helicopters, and airborne intelligence surveillance and
reconnaissance pod systems in both the commercial aerospace and
national security markets.
CPI disclosed that the company had a material weakness in its
internal control over financial reporting and that its disclosure
controls and procedures were not effective, attributing these
overstatements to errors in the billing process. On this news,
CPI's stock price fell $1.80 per share, or 26.99%, to close at
$4.87 per share on February 14, 2020.
Garrett acquired and held shares of CPI at artificially inflated
prices. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey C. Block
Jacob A. Walker,
Nathaniel Silver
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
155 Federal Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: (617) 398-5600
Fax: (617) 507-6020
Email: jeff@blockesq.com
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Fondren
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TROY FONDREN, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CREDIT MANAGEMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00393-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
CRUNCH LLC: Faces Fox Employment Suit in California Superior Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crunch Norcal, LLC,
et al. The case is captioned as Joseph Fox, On behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Crunch Norcal,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Crunch, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2020-00276101-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 24,
2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
The Defendants operate a fitness gym.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave., Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
CUMULUS MEDIA: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Chiappa ERISA Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARA CHIAPPA and DAN ALFONSO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CUMULUS MEDIA, INC., and JOHN DOES
1-10., Case No. 1:20-cv-00847-TWT (N.D. Ga.,. Feb. 24, 2020),
accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The lawsuit is brought against the Cumulus Media 401(k) Plan's
fiduciaries, which include Cumulus Media, Inc. and any individuals,
who may have been appointed by the Company to serve as Plan
fiduciaries during the Class Period.
The Plan was initially established on January 1, 1998. The purpose
of the Plan is to enable eligible Employees to save for
retirement.
According to the complaint, new share classes offered participants
the same investment strategy and risk, but the overall expenses
were lowered. Further, the Plan participants were told that
beginning on December 1, 2019, quarterly revenue credits "may be
allocated to your account based on the investments you hold during
the prior quarter," as stated in the September 2019 letter to
participants from Fidelity Investments.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' mismanagement of the
Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries,
constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and
loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1104; and that their
actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost
the Plan and its participants millions of dollars.
The Plaintiffs also contend that as a consequence of the breaches
of the duty to monitor, the Plan suffered millions of dollars of
losses. Had Cumulus complied with their fiduciary obligations, the
Plan would not have suffered these losses, and Plan participants
would have had more money available to them for their retirement.
Cumulus is the Plan sponsor. According to its Web site, Cumulus "is
a leading audio-first media and entertainment company delivering
premium content to over a quarter billion people every month."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
William W. Stone, Esq.
Mary Ellen Conner, Esq.
Adam J. Sunstrom, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Telephone: (470) 632-6000
Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
williams@johnsonfistel.com
maryellenc@johnsonfistel.com
adams@johnsonfistel.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Donald R. Reavy, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
DAILY GROMMET: Faces Guglielmo ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daily Grommet Inc.
The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Daily Grommet Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02460 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Grommet (formerly The Daily Grommet) is an online marketplace
and product discovery platform based in Somerville, Massachusetts
for consumer products from maker culture, inventors, entrepreneurs,
and small businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
DESERT LAKE: Dewoskin TCPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as DANIEL DEWOSKIN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. DESERT LAKE GROUP,
LLC, a Utah limited liability company d/b/a First Class Herbalist
CBD, and DARIN TOONE, Case No. 20A78718, was removed from the
Georgia State Court for Dekalb County to the U.S. District Court
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on Feb. 21, 2020.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00806-WMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge William M. Ray, II.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made telephone
solicitation calls to him and all others similarly situated, who
subscribe to a residential or wireless telephone number despite
such persons' registration on the national do not call registry, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made telemarketing calls
to without implementing the minimum procedures for maintaining a
company specific do not call list.
Desert Lake is in the business of marketing and selling products
with Cannabidiol. Darin Toone is an individual member of Desert
Lake, who is responsible for its operations and marketing,
including the telephone calls at issue in this case.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
Kris Skaar, Esq.
James M. Feagle, Esq.
Cliff R. Dorsen, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (770) 427-5600
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
EASTPOINT RECOVERY: Faces Ergas FDCPA Class Suit in W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eastpoint Recovery
Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Matatiaou Ergas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Eastpoint Recovery Group, Inc., JTM Capital Management, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00333 (W.D.N.Y., March 20, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Eastpoint Recovery Group provide clients with the best asset
recovery options that maximize results with industry best
practices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
EL TINA LOUNGE: Sacked Resto Staff Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Ramon Luna, Olga Hernandez, Javiel Hernandez, Ernesto Reyes,
Dionicio Frias, Santa Carolina Acosta and Maria Teresa Vasquez, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Santiago Quezada and Euros El Tina Restaurant Lounge and Billiards
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01575, (S.D. N.Y., February 21,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, unpaid tips, unpaid
overtime, an additional amount as liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York State Labor Law.
Defendants operate as "El Tina Lounge," a Latin nightclub, billiard
lounge and restaurant located at 500 W 207th St, New York where
Plaintiffs worked as restaurant staff. They claim that El Tina
never kept track of how many hours they worked, paid them less than
the minimum wage and never provided pay stubs or a pay notices.
Plaintiffs were all terminated on November 24, 2019 without prior
notice or warning. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse C. Rose, Esq.
THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
3109 Newtown Avenue, Suite 309
Astoria, NY 11102
Tel: (718) 989-1864
Fax: (917) 831-4595
Website: https://www.theroselawgroup.com/
ENDEAVOR METALS GROUP: Naiman Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sid Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Endeavor Metals Group, LLC and Does 1
through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-at-00179 (E.D. Cal., February
20, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble
damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Endeavor Metals Group does business as Endeavor Global Marketing
and Advertising Agency, an advertising and marketing company.
Naiman claims to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls from
Endeavor on his phone despite being registered in the National
Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Stevener Suit Over Underpayment of Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Stevener and Carol Stevener, individually and on behalf of
all other Ohio residents similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-00603-PAB (N.D. Ohio, March 20, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for breaching its contractual
obligations by engaging in a systematic and unlawful pattern of
underpayment of insurance claims.
On June 16, 2019, the Steveners' house located at 376 Bishop Way,
in Sagamore Hills, Ohio (the "Insured Property") suffered damage
covered by policy number Q535118821, issued to the Steveners by
Erie. The damage to the Insured Property required replacement
and/or repair. While Erie did compensate the Steveners for certain
damage to their property, under its actual cash value ("ACV")
calculations, Erie systematically and improperly depreciated the
cost of the labor required to repair the damage to the Insured
Property, the Steveners allege. As a result, they assert, Erie
underpaid their claim, thus, leaving them under indemnified.
By underpaying the Steveners' claim, Erie denied the Plaintiffs
access to funds necessary to pick up the pieces during a period of
great need and tremendous stress, the Plaintiffs contend. This is
directly contrary to the purpose of insurance--to protect insureds
when they are in such need. Erie's systematic underpayment of
claims is not limited to the Steveners' claim. The Plaintiffs
allege that Erie consistently depreciates the cost of labor from
its ACV calculations for structural damage claims made throughout
Ohio and has been doing so at all times relevant to the allegations
of this Complaint. This includes payments to victims of natural
disasters such as tornado and other wind storms, victims of fire,
and those who have suffered from any other form of covered real
property loss.
Ohio law allows an insurer to depreciate the value of building
materials, but does not allow the depreciation of the cost of
labor. As a result, by depreciating labor costs from its ACV
calculations around Ohio, Erie has engaged, and continues to
engage, in a systematic and unlawful pattern of underpayment of
insurance claims, says the complaint.
Plaintiffs Timothy and Carol Stevener are residents and citizen of
Summit County, Ohio.
Erie is authorized to sell property insurance policies in the State
of Ohio and is engaged in the insurance business in the State of
Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen G. Whetstone, Esq.
WHETSTONE LEGAL, LLC
P.O. Box 6
2 N. Main Street, Unit 2
Thornville, OH 43076
Phone: 740.974.7730
Facsimile: 614.829.3070
Email: steve@whetstonelegal.com
- and –
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
201 West Short Street, Suite 800
Lexington, KY 40507
Phone: 859-225-3731
Facsimile: 859-225-3830
Email: edp@austinmehr.com
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Epps Sues in W.D. Virginia Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fair Collections &
Outsourcing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kristyn Epps,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fair
Collections & Outsourcing, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:20-cv-00176-EKD (W.D. Va., March 20, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Fair Collections & Outsourcing, also referred to as FCO, is a debt
collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
MERIDAN LAW, LLC
600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
Baltimore, MD 21208
Phone: (443) 326-6011
Fax: (410) 653-9061
Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com
FAMILY HEALTHCARE: Faces Munoz Employment Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Family Healthcare
Network. The case is captioned as Antonio Munoz, On Behalf Of Other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Family
Healthcare Network, Case No. VCU282194 (Cal. Super., Tulare Cty.,
Feb. 24, 2020),
The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
FHCN is a nonprofit community-based organization that operates 26
federally qualified health centers throughout Tulare,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com
FEDERAL SAVINGS: Tenaglia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Tenaglia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 1:20-cv-01898 (N.D. Ill.,
March 20, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
unpaid overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty for
any given workweek.
The Plaintiff was paid a set salary regardless of hours worked, was
eligible for nondiscretionary bonuses for files worked on and
"closed," routinely worked in excess of forty hours per workweek,
and was not paid any overtime for hours worked over forty per
workweek. Throughout all the weeks of her employment (excluding
weeks of national holidays or weeks where sick/personal/vacation
days were taken), the Plaintiff estimates that she worked on
average 65 hours per week, says the complaint
The Plaintiff performed all job duties as a "loan processor"
employee with the job title of Underwriting Analyst of the
Defendant.
The Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce by selling mortgage
loans and other financial products at its office locations
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
DONELON, P.C.
4600 Madison, Ste. 810
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: 816-221-7100
Email: brendan@donelonpc.com
- and –
Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
DONELON, P.C.
6642 Clayton Rd., #320
St. Louis, MO 63117
Phone: (314) 297-8385
Fax: (816) 709-1044
Email: dan@donelonpc.com
- and -
Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-726-3400
Fax: 312.782.4519
Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com
FIG & OLIVE: Restaurant Staff Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit
----------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Montalvo, Daniel Hurtado, Fredy Ramirez, Jose Ricardo
Lopez, Mario Vargas, Mauricio Santos and Victor Hugo Serrano, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Fig & Olive Founders LLC, Fig & Olive USA Inc., Fig & Olive Holding
LLC, Fig & Olive Fifth Avenue LLC, Fig & Olive Thirteen Street LLC,
Fig & Olive Inc., Laurent Halasz, Jean Pierre Halasz, Sebastian
Gault and Christopher Meaker, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01603
(S.D. N.Y. February 24, 2020) seeks compensation for unpaid minimum
wages due to an invalid tip credit deduction, unpaid spread of
hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate a chain of restaurants as a single integrated
enterprise under the trade name "Fig & Olive" stores throughout the
United States where Plaintiffs worked as food runners, servers,
bussers and bartenders in their New York locations. They claim to
be denied tip credit notices at hiring and had their tips illegally
withheld and did not receive proper wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces Muldowney FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Muldowney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00316-TJM-TWD
(N.D.N.Y., March 20, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Frontline Asset Strategies provides third-party collection services
and first-party business process outsourcing services for many
different types of accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
GALLAGHER & CO: Rubin-Knudsen Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PAMELA RUBIN-KNUDSEN, an
individual; and MARNINE CASILLAS, an individual on behalf of
themselves, and all other persons similarly situated v. ARTHUR J.
GALLAGHER & CO., a Delaware corporation, ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER
SERVICE COMPANY, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No.:
2:18-cv-06227-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on June 1, 2020 for an order:
1. certifying the case as class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)
(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with following
class and subclass definitions:
The Class:
"all current and former Client Service Managers employed
in California by Defendants Arthur J. Gallagher & Co and
Arthur J. Gallagher Service Company, LLC (collectively
"Gallagher") who were classified as "exempt" from
California's overtime requirements during the class period
of July 18, 2014 to the present. This Class will include
the employees who worked in the "Client Service Manager,"
"Client Service Manager Senior," "Client Service Manager"
and "Client Service Manager 3" positions during the class
period.
The Subclass:
"all former Client Service Managers who were previously
employed by Gallagher in California and were classified as
"exempt" from California's overtime requirements during
the subclass period of July 18, 2015 to the present.
2. appointing Plaintiffs as the class representatives for the
Class and Subclass; and
3. appointing Jason M. Frank and Scott H. Sims of Frank Sims
& Stolper LLP as class counsel.
Alternatively, if the Court denies certification under Rule
23(b)(3), Plaintiffs request the Court certify the following common
issue for resolution on behalf of the Class and Subclass pursuant
to Rule 23(c)(4): Whether it was proper for Gallagher to
categorically classify its "Client Service Manager," "Client
Service Manager Senior," "Client Service Manager 2" and "Client
Service Manager 3" positions as "exempt" under California's
"administrative exemption.
Gallagher & Co. is a US-based global insurance brokerage and risk
management services firm headquartered in Rolling Meadows,
Illinois.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Jason M. Frank, Esq.
Scott H. Sims, Esq.
FRANK SIMS STOLPER, LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 855
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 201-2400
Facsimile: (949) 201-2405
E-mail: jfrank@lawfss.com
ssims@lawfss.com
GASDICK STANTON: Ford Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ARMALETHA FORD, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. GASDICK STANTON EARLY,
P.A., Case No. 3:19-cv-01064-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"(i) all persons with addresses in the United States (ii)
to whom initial communication letters that contained the
language "If you notify this office within the thirty (30)
day period that you dispute the amount owed or any portion
thereof, I shall obtain verification of the debt or a copy
of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such
verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by
the debt collector" (iii) were mailed, delivered or caused
to be served by the Defendant (iv) that were not returned
undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office (v) in an attempt to
collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household
purposes (vi) during the one-year period prior to the
filing of the original Complaint in this action through the
date of certification"; and
2. appointing Armaletha Ford as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Max H. Story, Esq. and Austin Griffin, Esq. as
Class counsel.
On September 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her class action
complaint pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Max Story, Esq.
Austin J. Griffin, Esq.
328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
Telephone: (904) 372-4109
E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com
austin@storylawgroup.com
GRUNDFOS PUMPS: Faces Smith Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN SMITH, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. GRUNDFOS PUMPS MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION, a California corporation; GRUNDFOS AMERICAS
CORPORATION, a California corporation; GRUNDFOS CBS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; GRUNDFOS PUMPS CORPORATION, a California
corporation; GRUNDFOS US HOLDING CORPORATION, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG00674
(Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Feb. 24, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay
overtime and minimum wages and to provide meal periods.
The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly paid, non-exempt
Carousel Department--Team 4 Leader--from August 2019 to October
2019. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants out of their
manufacturing facility in Fresno, California.
Grundfos is a Danish pump manufacturer based in Denmark.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
Orlando Villalba, Esq.
Joseph Hakakian, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com
Joseph.Hakakian@capstonelawyers.com
HAIN CELESTIAL: Kyszenia Files Product Mislabeling Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Janet Kyszenia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00979 (E.D. N.Y., February 21, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of
contract, and for violation of the Consumer Protection from
Deceptive acts of New York business laws.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells rice drink beverages under their "Rice Dream"
brand. Kyszenia disputes Hain's claim that their beverages are
flavored only with vanilla saying that they contain non-vanilla
flavors which imitate and extend vanilla but are not derived from
the vanilla bean. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
HANNA ANDERSSON: Jadin Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------
Addi Jadin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hanna Andersson, LLC, Salesforce.com,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01347, (N.D. Cal., February 21,
2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs together with other relief resulting from negligence and
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
Hanna Andersson specializes in selling high-end children's apparel
through its popular website and specialty retail stores throughout
the United States. For online sales, Hanna uses Salesforce's
Commerce Cloud Unit to take customers' personal and payment
information. On January 15, 2020, Hanna Andersson notified
customers about a widespread data breach that occurred from
September 16, 2019 to November 11, 2019. Jadin has been a customer
of Hanna.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
(Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 762-1910
Fax: (619) 756-6991
Email: ekim@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 322-9243
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
HCA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Arias Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ARIAS and PETRA FIEL on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated v. HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., Case
No. 8:20-cv-00438-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2020), alleges that
the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay minimum and overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as radiology
technologists. Mr. Arias began working for the Defendant in March
2018 while Ms. Fiel began working in February 2018.
The Plaintiffs and Members of the Class worked hours in excess of
40 hours within a work week for the Defendant, and they were
entitled to be paid an overtime premium equal to one and one-half
times their regular hourly rate for all of these hours, says the
complaint.
HCA Health provides general medical and surgical hospital
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donna V. Smith, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: 813 224-0431
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
reooke@wfclaw.com
HEALTH IQ INSURANCE: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health IQ Insurance
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Health IQ Insurance
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02455 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Health IQ is an insurance company rewarding those with healthy
lifestyles like runners, cyclists, weightlifters, yogis,
vegetarians, and well-managed diabetics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
KENDO HOLDINGS: Kalender Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kendo Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Kendo Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02450 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Kendo Holdings creates or acquires beauty brands and focuses on
developing them into global powerhouses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
KLAUSNER LUMBER: Raymond Sues Over FLSA and WARN Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnnie Raymond, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. KLAUSNER LUMBER ONE LLC, KLAUSNER LUMBER TWO LLC
KLAUSNER HOLDING USA, INC., LEOPOLD STEPHAN, and CHRISTOPH SCHAETZ,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00287 (M.D. Fla., March 21, 2020), is brought for
unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 and the
Florida Constitution.
The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek while
employed by the Defendants. Despite working in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek, the Plaintiff allege that he did not receive
overtime payments at a rate not less than one and one-half times
their regular rate for such overtime hours.
The Defendants are also liable under the WARN Act for the failure
to provide the Plaintiff and others at least 60 days' advance
notice of their termination, as required by the WARN Act, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants.
Klausner is a company that owns and, until March 16, 2020, operated
lumber mills in Live Oak, Florida, and Enfield, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
LECHNER LAW
Fifth Third Center
201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 412
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 842-7071
Facsimile: (813) 225-1392
Email: jplechn@jaylechner.com
shelley@jaylechner.com
LG DRYWALL: Drywall Workers Seek to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Jose Alfredo Lopez Ayala, Jose Maximiliano Argueta and Daniel J.
Mendez Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. L.G. Drywall & Painting, LLC and Gido H.
Zuniga, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00198 (E.D. Va., February 24,
2020) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants are in the business of providing construction services
throughout the Washington Metropolitan area where Plaintiffs worked
as construction workers. They claim to have worked in excess of 40
hours per work week without being paid overtime. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
7540A Little River Turnpike
Annandale, VA 22003
Telephone: (703) 256-1800
Facsimile: (703) 991-1661
Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com
M&M BURGERS: Omou Ba Seeks Overtime Pay, Uniform Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omou Ba, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. M&M Burgers, Inc. and Mukhtar Ahmad, Defendants,
Case No. 702946/2020 (N.Y. Sup., February 20, 2020) seeks
reimbursement or additional pay for time spent off the clock and
money spent in laundering and maintaining his company-provided
uniform in accordance with New York labor laws and the New York
Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Defendants own and operate fast food restaurants where Omuo Ba was
employed from July 2019 through December 2019. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Gaylord, Esq.
BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (516) 742-4949
Fax: (516)742-1977
Email: mark@bglawny.com
MASTERCARD INT'L: Scoma Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------
SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., WILLIAM P. GRESS, and FLORENCE MUSSAT
M.D., S.C., individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INC., Case
No. 2:16-cv-00041-TJC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:
1. certifying All Fax Recipients Class under Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(b)(3):
"all persons or entities who were successfully sent a
facsimile on or about December 18-23, 2015, stating "Happy
Holiday" and inviting recipients to apply for an
"Exclusive Doctors Club World Elite MasterCard" credit
card, where the fax either (a) contains no "opt-out
notice" explaining how to stop future faxes; or (b)
contains an opt-out notice stating: "Recipient may Opt Out
of any future faxes by emailing a request to
OptOut@TheDrClub.com or by calling 949-202-1777"; and
2. appointing Scoma, Gress, and Mussat as class
representatives, if the Court certifies the All Fax
Recipients Class;
In the alternative, if the Court finds it necessary to distinguish
between faxes received on a "stand-alone" fax machine and faxes
received via "online fax service" following the Amerifactors Bureau
Order, then Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes:
Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class:
"all persons or entities who were successfully sent a
facsimile on a stand-alone telephone facsimile machine on or
about December 18–23, 2015, stating "Happy Holiday" and
inviting recipients to apply for an "Exclusive Doctors Club
World Elite MasterCard" credit card, where the fax either (a)
contains no "opt-out notice" explaining how to stop future
faxes; or (b) contains an opt-out notice stating: "Recipient
may Opt Out of any future faxes by emailing a request to
OptOut@TheDrClub.com or by calling 949 202 1777""; and
Online Fax Service Class:
"all persons or entities who were successfully sent a
facsimile via an "online fax service" on or about December
18–23, 2015, stating "Happy Holiday" and inviting recipients
to apply for an "Exclusive Doctors Club World Elite
MasterCard" credit card, where the fax either (a) contains no
"opt-out notice" explaining how to stop future faxes; or (b)
contains an opt-out notice stating: "Recipient may Opt Out of
any future faxes by emailing a request to
OptOut@TheDrClub.com or by calling 949.202.1777.""
If the Court certifies the alternative classes, Plaintiffs request
the Court appoint Scoma and Gress to represent the Stand-Alone Fax
Machine Class and Mussat to represent the Online Fax Service Class.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoint the law firms of
Anderson + Wanca and Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin ("ECLG"),
and Curtis C. Warner as class counsel.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
Ross M. Good, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
rgood@andersonwanca.com
- and -
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Heather Kolbus, Esq.
EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN
20 S. Clark St., Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
hkolobus@edcombs.com
- and -
Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
5 E. Market St., Suite 250
Corning, NY 14830
Telephone: (888) 551-8685
E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal
MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Arnold Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Data Systems,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Charlene Arnold, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medical Data
Systems, Inc. also known as: Medical Revenue Service, John Does
1-25, Case No. 6:20-cv-00013-NKM (W.D. Va., March 20, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Medical Data Systems, Inc., provides revenue cycle management
services, and offers accounting, bookkeeping, and related auditing
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
MERIDAN LAW, LLC
600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
Baltimore, MD 21208
Phone: (443) 326-6011
Fax: (410) 653-9061
Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Voeks
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MEGAN VOEKS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00393-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
MONDELEZ INT'L: Class Certification Bid Denied in McMorrow Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PATRICK MCMORROW, et al. v.
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 17-cv-2327-BAS-JLB (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon.Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order:
1. denying, without prejudice, a motion to certify these
classes;
California Class:
"all persons in California who, on or after November 16,
2013 purchased for household use and not for resale or
distribution, belVita products bearing the phrase
"NUTRITIOUS STEADY ENERGY," "NUTRITIOUS SUSTAINED ENERGY"
or "NUTRITIOUS MORNING ENERGY"; and
New York Class:
"all persons in New York who, on or after January 2, 2015
purchased for household use and not for resale or
distribution, belVita products bearing the phrase
"NUTRITIOUS STEADY ENERGY," "NUTRITIOUS SUSTAINED ENERGY,"
or "NUTRITIOUS MORNING ENERGY"";
2. granting the motion to exclude expert testimony of Dr. J.
Michael Dennis; and
3. granting the motion to exclude expert testimony of Colin
Weir.
The Plaintiffs allege that consumption of the belVita Breakfast
Products "causes increased risk of CHD, stroke, and other
morbidity." The Plaintiffs allege the Products' labeling violates
California, New York, and federal law. Plaintiffs' theory of
damages is based on their contention that Defendant can charge a
higher price for the Products due to the allegedly misleading
labels.
Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding
and beverage company based in Deerfield, Illinois which employs
approximately 83,000 individuals around the world.[CC]
NEWELL BRANDS: Brezinski Sues Over Baby Sleeper Health Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nayonna Brezinski, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Graco Children's Products, Inc. and Newell Brands DTC,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00347 (C.D. Cal., February 20,
2020), seeks damages resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment,
breach of express and implied warranty, fraudulent concealment and
for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law.
Newell Brands and Graco Children's Products manufactures, markets
and sells the Graco Little Lounger Rocking Seat, the Graco Duet
Glide LX Baby Infant Gliding Swing and Napper/Portable Sleeper and
the Graco DreamGlider Gliding Seat and Sleeper.
Brezinski claims that the Sleeper's 30 degree incline increases the
risk that the infant's head will tilt to constrict the windpipe
and/or cause the infant's face to become pressed against the padded
fabric in the sleeper and block airflow, increasing the risk of
death by asphyxiation. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Blair E. Reed, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
breed@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
OCWEN LOAN: Franklin Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GREGORY FRANKLIN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-03333-SI (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 22, 2020, for an order:
1. certifying a California-only injunctive relief Class:
"all persons in California who are customers of Defendant
whose cellular telephone conversation on at least one
outgoing call from Defendant was recorded by Defendant
and/or its agent/s without consent between November 1,
2015 and November 30, 2015"; and
2. certifying a California-only statutory damages Class and
Sub-Class:
Class:
"all persons in California who are customers of Defendant
whose cellular telephone conversation on at least one
outgoing call from Defendant was recorded by Defendant
and/or its agent/s without consent between November 1,
2015 and November 30, 2015"; and
Sub-class:
"all persons in California who are customers of Defendant
whose cellular telephone conversation on at least one
outgoing call from Defendant was recorded by Defendant
and/or its agent/s without consent on November 23, 2015."
The Plaintiff alleges that Ocwen violated California's Invasion of
Privacy Act.
Ocwen offers consumer home, reverse mortgage, and investment
property loans.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
jason@kazlg.com
ODE A LA ROSE: Naseri Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------
Mokhtar Naseri, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ode A La Rose, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00999, (E.D. N.Y. February 24, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Ode a La Rose is a flower business and delivery service. In order
to solicit business from new consumers, they rely on direct
solicitations to consumers, including making SMS ad blasts sent en
masse to unknowing recipients. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
PET SUPPLIES: Faces Nelson-Devenere Employment Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pet Supplies Plus
Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Elizabeth
Nelson-Devenere, On behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Pet Supplies Plus Holdings, LLC; PSP Stores,
LLC; and Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2020-00276208-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 25, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
Pet Supplies offers pet care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com
POST FOODS: Consumers Class Certified in Krommenhock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DEBBIE KROMMENHOCK, et al. v.
POST FOODS, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-04958-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick entered an order:
1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:
"all persons who, on or after August 29, 2012 (the "Class
Period"), purchased in California, for household use and
not for resale or distribution, one or more of the
following Post cereal varieties";
Great Grains Subclass:
Raisins, Dates, and Pecans (16 or 40.5 oz.package);
Crunchy Pecan (16 oz.); Cranberry Almond Crunch (14 oz.);
Blueberry Pomegranate (15.9 oz.); Banana Nut Crunch (15.5
oz.); Protein Blend: Honey, Oats, and Seeds (14.75 or 13.5
oz.); and Protein Blend: Cinnamon Hazelnut (14.75 or 13.5
oz.).
Honey Bunches of Oats Subclass:
Honey Roasted (14.5, 18, 23, 24.5, 27, 28, 36, or 48 oz.);
Almonds (14.5, 18, 23, 24.5, 27, 28, 36, or 48 oz.); Raisin
Medley (17 oz.); Pecan Bunches (14.5 oz.); Cinnamon Bunches
(14.5 or 18 oz.); Vanilla Bunches (18 oz.) Apple & Cinnamon
Bunches (14.5 oz.); Real Strawberries (13, 16.5, or 20
oz.); Fruit Blends: Banana Blueberry (14.5 or 18 oz.);
Fruit Blends: Peach Raspberry (14.5 or 18 oz.); Tropical
Blends: Mango Coconut (14.5 or 18 oz.); Greek Honey Crunch
(12.5 or 15.5 oz.); and Greek Mixed Berry (12.5 or 15.5
oz.).
Honey Bunches of Oats Whole Grain Subclass:
Vanilla Bunches (18 oz.); Honey Crunch (18 oz). 25 Honey
Bunches of Oats Granola Subclass: Honey Roasted (11 or 20
oz.); Cinnamon (11 oz.); Raspberry (11 oz.).
Raisin Bran Subclass:
Raisin Bran (20 or 25 oz.).
Bran Flakes Subclass:
Bran Flakes (16 oz.).
Alpha-Bits Subclass:
Alpha-Bits (11.5 or 12 oz.).
Honeycomb Subclass:
Honeycomb (12.5, 16, 33, or 35 oz.).
Waffle Crisp Subclass:
Waffle Crisp (11.5 oz.).;
2. granting Post's motion for summary judgment in limited part
with respect to identified preempted Statements and denying
in all other respects;
3. denying motions to exclude, except that the Advantage
Realized Model cannot be used as a measure of classwide
damages/restitution.
4. denying administrative motions to seal without prejudice;
5. posting required sealing chart and supporting declarations
within twenty days of the date of this Order.
6. scheduling case management conference on April 28, 2020 at
2:00 p.m. If there are disagreements about the content or
delivery of Class Notice, the parties shall identify them
in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement, to be
filed by April 21, 2020; and
7. directing the parties to propose a trial schedule.[CC]
PRINCE SECURITY: Faces Colbert Suit in District of Columbia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prince Security
Services of DC, et al. The case is captioned as IRENE COLBERT, ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PRINCE SECURITY SERVICES
OF DC, LLC and THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PREVENTION OF
HOMELESSNESS, Case No. 2020 CA 001347 B (Colo. Super., Feb. 25,
2020).
Prince Security provides professional uniformed security guards and
Special Police Officers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Samual Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
RBM ASSOCIATES: Retina Associates Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Retina Associates Medical Group, Inc., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. RBM ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a LOCAL
EYE SITE, RISE HIRE, and INPHARMACY JOBS, and RICHARD BRADLEY
MCCORKLE, Case No. 8:20-cv-00566 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for their violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendants, or someone acting on their behalf, used a telephone
facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send to the
Plaintiff's telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited
advertisement, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendants have sent
other unsolicited fax advertisements to the Plaintiff and to at
least 40 other persons as part of a plan to broadcast fax
advertisements, of which the Fax is an example, or, alternatively,
the Fax was sent on Defendants' behalf, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Retina Associates Medical Group, Inc., is a citizen of
the State of California and has its principal place of business in
Orange County, California.
RBM Associates, LLC d/b/a Local Eye Site, Rise Hire, and
inPharmacy Jobs (RBM), is a North Carolina corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-524-2820
Facsimile: 954-524-2822
Email: seth@epllc.com
REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Fails to Help in Registration, Treakle Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Treakle and Randall Joe Thigpen, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Reinalt-Thomas Corp., and
Discount Tire Co. Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00587-SRB (D. Ariz., March
20, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to comply with
federal laws requiring them to assist in the tire-registration
process of the proposed class members, who purchased tires from
them.
The federal law requires that, for each tire sold, Independent Tire
Dealers like the Defendants must either: (1) provide the tire
purchaser with a paper tire-registration form containing the
Independent Tire Dealer's contact information and the entire,
federally mandated tire identification number ("TIN") of each tire
sold, so that the purchaser can add his or her name and contact
information to the tire-registration form and send it to the tire
manufacturer; (2) complete such a form and send it to the tire
manufacturer for the consumer; or (3) electronically transmit that
information to the tire manufacturer for the purchaser.
According to the complaint, the Defendants sold millions of tires
to Class Members without registering those tires with the tire
manufacturer in the time required by the federal rule or providing
Class Members with the tire-registration forms necessary to enable
them to register the tires themselves. The Defendants' conduct
spared its tire sales personnel from taking the extra few moments
required to comply with federal law, freeing up those sales
personnel to sell more tires. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants were unjustly enriched by the sales it made during the
time it would have taken to register Class Members' tires with the
tire manufacturer or provide Class Members with the
tire-registration forms.
The Defendants' failure to comply with the tire-registration
requirements constitutes a misrepresentation that those tire sales
comply with federal law, when they do not, says the complaint.
Alternatively, non-registration constitutes an actionable
representation by omission because it leaves Class Members with the
false impression that tire manufacturers can reach them in the
event of a safety-related recall. The Plaintiffs assert that
failure to register Class members' tires created an unreasonable,
unlawful, imminent risk to Class members by causing them to drive
on the tires without knowledge of defects and recalls.
The Plaintiffs purchased tires from Discount during the Class
Period.
Reinalt, which does business under the trade name or fictitious
business names Discount Tire, America's Tires, and others, is the
largest independent tire dealer in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
14646 North Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Phone: (480) 348-6400
Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
SHEER STRENGTH: Boyer Sues in Southern District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sheer Strength Labs,
LLC. The case is styled as Tricia Boyer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sheer Strength Labs, LLC, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00528-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal., March 20, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as constitutional--state statute.
Sheer Strength Labs sells sports nutrition brands in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 233-7770
Fax: 619-1022
Email: ak@kazlg.com
SIX FLAGS: Klein Hits Share Drop from Delayed China Project
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shlomo Klein, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, James
Reid-Anderson and Marshall Barber, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00460
(N.D. Tex., February 24, 2020) seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Six Flags is a theme park operator in the world, with 26 parks
across North America. It also earns from its international
licensing agreements to assist third parties in the development and
management of Six Flags-branded parks outside of North America. On
June 23, 2014, Six Flags announced that it was building multiple
Six Flags-branded theme parks in China in partnership with
Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd.
On January 10, 2020, Six Flags announced that the development of
the Six Flags-branded parks had not progressed as expected
resulting from macroeconomic problems and declining real estate
market in China, which caused Riverside to default on its payment
obligations to Six Flags in the tune of approximately $10 million.
On these disclosures, Six Flags' stock price fell $7.80 per share,
or 17.82%, to close $35.96 per share on January 10, 2020.
Klein owns shares in Six Flags. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (972) 521-6868
Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com
SOUTHERN TIDE: Faces Kalender ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Tide, LLC.
The case is styled as Frances Kalender, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Southern Tide, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-02449 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Southern Tide is an American apparel company founded in 2006 in
Greenville, South Carolina, by Allen Stephenson.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
SUNLIGHT SOLAR: Hildre Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------
Don Hildre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunlight Solar, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00333 (S.D. Cal., February 21, 2020), seeks statutory damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Sunlight Solar, a solar panel installation company, attempted to
solicit solar power services to consumers through the use of cold
telemarketing calls. At no point in time did Hildre provide them
with his express written consent to be contacted using an automated
dialer, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex S. Madar, Esq.
MADAR LAW CORPORATION
14410 Via Venezia #1404
San Diego, CA 92129
Telephone: (858) 299-5879
Facsimile: (619) 354-7281
Email: alex@madarlaw.net
TARGET CORP: Deceptively Markets Hand Sanitizer, Taslakian Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mardig Taslakian, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation;
TARGET BRANDS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02667-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal., March 20,
2020), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from engaging in deceptive
advertising and business practices concerning false and misleading
promotion of its hand sanitizer product that purports to eliminate
99.99% of germs.
The Hand Sanitizer is advertised, marketed and sold as a product
that "kills 99.99% of germs." The Hand Sanitizer is advertised,
marketed and sold as to "Compare to Purell Refreshing Aloe Advanced
Hand Sanitizer" or "Compare to Purell Refreshing Gel Advanced Hand
Sanitizer." Despite these representations, the Plaintiff contends,
there are no reliable studies that support Target's
representations.
By making this representation and by comparing its less expensive
in-house private label product to the nationally known brand
Purell's more expensive hand sanitizer, the Defendant misleads
consumers into believing its Hand Sanitizer is as effective as
Purell's and can therefore prevent disease or infection from, for
example, Coronavirus and flu, along with other claims that go
beyond the general intended use of a topical alcohol-based hand
sanitizer, the Plaintiff asserts.
The misrepresentations allow the Defendant to unlawfully increase
its sales and have an economic edge over their competitors, and
have caused the Plaintiff damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Target's product, an alcohol-based hand
sanitizer marketed under Target's own brand name up & up.
Target was and is a national retail discount mass marketing icon of
consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sareen Bezdikian, Esq.
Raffi Kassabian, Esq.
BEZDIK KASSAB LAW GROUP
790 E. Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: +1 626 499 6998
Facsimile: + 1 626 499 6993
Email: sareen@bezdikkassab.com
raffi@bezdikkassab.com
TAXACT INC: Guglielmo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TAXACT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02458 (S.D.N.Y., March
20, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Web site, http://www.taxact.com/,and therefore
denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his
computer.
The Defendant is a tax filing company that owns and operates the
Web site offering features, which should allow all consumers to
access the goods and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
TENNESSEE: Deputy Comm'r Smith Sued by AMC Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith. The case is
styled as A.M.C. by her next friend, C.D.C.; K.A. by his next of
friend, J.Y.; S.F.A. by her next friend, C.M.A.; Vivian Barnes by
her next friend Glenda Surrett; Carlissa Caudill; S.L.C by her next
friend, C.B.C.; Rhonda Cleveland; D.D.; T.E.W.; S.D.W. by her next
friend, D.D.; Y.A.D. by his next friend, D.D.; Z.M.D. by his next
friend, D.D.; X.M.D. by his next friend, D.D.; Charles E. Fultz by
his next friend, Mary Fultz; Michael S. Hill by his next friend,
Kimberly Noe; J.S.K.; J.C.K.; M.S.K. by his next friend, J.S.K.;
M.N.S. by her next friend, J.C.K.; D.C.S. by his next friend,
J.C.K.; E.I.L. by his next friend, J.N.L.; William C. Monroe; Linda
Rebeaud by her next friend, James Rebeaud; D.R.; J.Z. by his next
friend, D.R.; M.X.C. by her next friend, D.R.; J.C. by his next
friend, D.R.; M.A.C. by her next friend, D.R.; S.L.T.; T.J.T.;
A.L.T. by her next friend, T.J.T.; J.L.T. by his next friend,
T.J.T.; F.T. by his next friend, T.J.T.; Kerry A. Vaughn; Johnny L.
Walker by his next friend, Paige Walker, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly v. Stephen Smith, in his official
capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Finance and Administration and
Director of the Division of TennCare, Case No. 3:20-cv-00240 (M.D.
Tenn., March 20, 2020).
The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Stephen Smith is a Republican political advisor in the state of
Tennessee. He is sued in his official capacity as Deputy
Commissioner of Finance and Administration and Director of the
Division of TennCare.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catherine M. Kaiman, Esq.
George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Esq.
Michele M. Johnson, Esq.
Vanessa M. Zapata, Esq.
TENNESSEE JUSTICE CENTER
211 7th Avenue, N., Suite 100
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 255-0331
Fax: (615) 255-0354
Email: ckaiman@tnjustice.org
gbonnyman@tnjustice.org
mjohnson@tnjustice.org
vzapata@tnjustice.org
- and -
Laura E. Revolinski, Esq.
TENNESSEE JUSTICE CENTER
488 Lamont Drive, Apt. G166
Nashville, TN 37216
Phone: (706) 373-0882
Email: lrevolinski@tnjustice.org
- and -
Elizabeth Edwards, Esq.
Jane Perkins, Esq.
NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
101 E Weaver Street, Suite G-7
Carrboro, NC 27510
Phone: (919) 968-6308
Fax: (919) 968-8855
Email: edwards@healthlaw.org
perkins@healthlaw.org
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Eun Suit Over Defective Brakes in Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHONG EUN, STEPHANIE OWENS, DAVID SIEGAL, GREGORY VASQUEZ, MADELINE
VASQUEZ, ENRIQUE PABON, BRYAN FEINBERG, and LOIS FELTS, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR
CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-00127-ALM (E.D. Tex., Feb. 24,
2020), seeks damages against the Defendants for breach of the
manufacturer's warranty and for unfair or deceptive acts or
practices pertaining to their design and manufacture of 2010-2015
Prius and Prius PHV, 2012-2015 Prius V, 2012-2014 Camry Hybrid, and
2013-2015 Avalon Hybrid vehicles.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants defectively designed
and/or manufactured defective brake booster pump assemblies in the
Class Vehicles, which cause their braking systems to fail. They add
that the Toyota Brake Defect directly affects their use, enjoyment,
safety, and value of the Class Vehicles.
Toyota Motor is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Aichi, Japan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
krogers@sgc.law
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
Mark I. Richards, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
3281 E. Guasti, Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
sah@mccunewright.com
mir@mccunewright.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Feng Files Product Liability Suit in S.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor North
America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tina Feng, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor
North America, Inc. a California corporation, Toyota Motor Sales,
USA, Inc., a California corporation, Toyota Motor Engineering &
Manufacturing North America, Inc., a Kentucky corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-00534-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal., March 20, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as contract product liability.
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a holding company of sales and
manufacturing subsidiaries of Toyota Motor Corporation in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
555 West C Street, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619) 238-1333
Fax: (619) 238-5425
Email: jjn@classactionlaw.com
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Schreiber Securities Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Schreiber and Karen Schreiber, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION,
PATRICIA A. STITZEL, CHRISTOPHER D. O'LEARY, CASSANDRA HARRIS, and
MICHAEL POTESHMAN, Case No. 6:20-cv-00507-CEM-LRH (M.D. Fla., March
20, 2020), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired Tupperware securities between January 30, 2019, and
February 24, 2020, inclusive, to pursue claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about Tupperware's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) Tupperware lacked effective internal controls;
(ii) accounting irregularities existed with respect to the
Company's Fuller Mexico business; (iii) the foregoing issues would
foreseeably necessitate an investigation that would cause
Tupperware to be be unable to timely file its 2019 annual report;
(iv) Tupperware would need relief from its $650 million Credit
Agreement; (v) Tupperware provided overvalued earnings per share
("EPS") guidance; and (vi) as a result, the Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.
On February 24, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing
that the Company "will file a Form 12b-25 Notification of Late
Filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission to provide a
15-calendar day extension within which to file its From 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019." The February 24, 2020
press release also announced for the first time that the Company is
conducting "an investigation primarily into the accounting for
accounts payable and accrued liabilities at its Fuller Mexico
beauty business" and that "the Company is forecasting a need for
relief concerning its existing leverage ratio covenant in its $650
million Credit Agreement dated March, 29, 2019."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.61 per share, or
45.63%, to close at $3.11 per share on February 25, 2020.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased Tupperware securities during the Class
Period.
Tupperware is a direct-to-consumer marketer of products sold around
the world. The Company's brands include Tupperware, Avroy Shlain,
Fuller, NaturCare, Nutrimetics, and Nuvo.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1625 N. Commerce Parkway, S. 320
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
Phone: (954) 515-0123
Email: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
UPMC: Highmark Reaches Settlement with Class Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as COLE'S WEXFORD HOTEL, INC.,
on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
UPMC and HIGHMARK, INC., Case No. 2:10-cv-01609-JFC (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff moves for retention of the previously certified
settlement class in conjunction with its Motion for Final Approval
of Settlement with Highmark.
Highmark has agreed not to oppose the motion for certification of
the settlement class.
As previously submitted to the Court, Plaintiff reached a
settlement with Highmark to settle all claims brought in the
lawsuit. This settlement is on behalf of the Small Group Settlement
Class, which includes:
"all persons, whether natural or fictitious, who purchased
small group health insurance coverage in Western Pennsylvania
from, or otherwise paid any small group plan premiums or
portion thereof to, Highmark Health Insurance Co. (HHIC) or a
similar for profit subsidiary of Highmark, Inc. 1 between
July 1, 2010 and March 21, 2012."
The Plaintiff avers that the Court has already certified this Small
Group Class for purposes of the UPMC settlement, finding that the
Class satisfied all of the requisite elements of Rule 23. For all
the reasons the Court granted certification of the settlement class
for the UPMC settlement, it should retain the certification of the
same settlement class for this Highmark settlement. The two classes
are identical, adds the Plaintiff.
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is a $20 billion
integrated global nonprofit health enterprise that has 87,000
employees, and 40 hospitals with more than 8,000 licensed beds.
Highmark is a non-profit healthcare company and Integrated Delivery
Network based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick K. Cavanaugh, Esq.
Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Esq.
Steven J. Del Sole, Esq.
Patrick K. Cavanaugh, Esq.
DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
3 PPG Place, Suite 600
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: 412-261-2393
Facsimile: 412-261-2110
E-mail: astroyd@dscslaw.com
sdelsole@dscslaw.com
pcavanaugh@dsclaw.com
- and -
Andrew M. Stone, Esq.
STONE LAW FIRM, LLC
The Frick Building, Suite 1806
437 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: 412-391-2005
Facsimile: 412-391-0853
E-mail: astone@stone-law-firm.com
- and -
Scott Michael Hare, Esq.
The Frick Building, Suite 1806
437 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: 412-338-8632
Facsimile: 412-338-6611
E-mail: scott@scottlawpgh.com
- and -
Hamish Hume, Esq.
Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
BOIES,SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: 202-237-2727
Facsimile: 202-237-6131
E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com
mzappala@bsfllp.com
- and -
David Stone, Esq.
STONE & MAGNANINI LLP
100 Connell Drive, Suite 2200
Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
Telephone: 973-218-1111
Facsimile: 973-218-1106
E-mail: dstone@stonemagnalaw.com
WESTROCK CP LLC: Mendez Sues Over Biometrics Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Westrock CP LLC., Defendant, Case
No. 2020CH02286 (Ill. Cir., February 25, 2020), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Westrock is a world-wide paper and packaging company. It has
collected the biometrics of its employees exposing their data to
serious and irreversible privacy risks. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
Mara Baltabols, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
kunze@fishlawfirm.com
docketing@fishlawfirm.com
WINSTON BRANDS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winston Brands, Inc.
The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Winston Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01605-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John G. Koeltl.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
Winston Brands operates as a catalogue and Internet retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
WYNDHAM VACATION: Faces Nolen Suit in Middle District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wyndham Vacation
Resorts, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Carolyn Nolen, Windy
Kelley, Cara Kelley, and Paula Litton on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.;
Fairshare Vacation Owners Association; and RCI, LLC, Case No.
6:20-cv-00330-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron. The suit
demands $5 million in damages.
Wyndham Vacation develops, markets and sells vacation ownership
interests to individual consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
John Allen Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
One Tampa City Center, Ste. 700
201 N Franklin Street
Tampa, FL 33602-5157
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: pbarthle@forthepeople.com
jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Has 367 Cases Still Pending at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 367 asbestos-related cases pending
at December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "...[S]ince 1990 we have been named as a
defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to
asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or
former facilities. The majority of asbestos cases pending in which
we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for
damages. In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for
damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for
compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages, but does not attempt to allocate the
total monetary claim among the various defendants.
"Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, six
asbestos claims against us proceeded to trial in five separate
cases. Five out of six claims concluded with a verdict in our
favor.
"Based upon present knowledge, and the factors above, we believe it
is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos
claims against us will have a materially adverse effect on our
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition. However, predictions about the outcome of pending
litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are
subject to substantial uncertainties. These uncertainties include
(1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims may be
filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies currently
or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the litigation
process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case,
(4) the type and severity of the disease each claimant is alleged
to suffer, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation
affecting asbestos litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/hEgvs3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $810MM Claim Reserves at Dec.31, 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation had US$810 million reserves for asbestos
claims net of reinsurance recoverables of US$362 million as of
December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$810 million and US$866 million, net of reinsurance recoverables
of US$362 million and US$400 million, as of December 31, 2019 and
2018, respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were US$179
million and US$170 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of
US$40 million and US$39 million, as of December 31, 2019 and 2018,
respectively.
"The Company establishes reserves for claims and claims expense on
reported and unreported claims of insured losses. The Company's
reserving process takes into account known facts and
interpretations of circumstances and factors including the
Company's experience with similar cases, actual claims paid,
historical trends involving claim payment patterns and pending
levels of unpaid claims, loss management programs, product mix and
contractual terms, changes in law and regulation, judicial
decisions, and economic conditions. In the normal course of
business, the Company may also supplement its claims processes by
utilizing third-party adjusters, appraisers, engineers, inspectors,
and other professionals and information sources to assess and
settle catastrophe and non-catastrophe related claims. The effects
of inflation are implicitly considered in the reserving process."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/En96qU
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMERISAFE Had $1.3MM Reserves for Loss, LAE
------------------------------------------------------------
AMERISAFE, Inc. had US$1,323,000 reserves for loss and loss
adjustment expenses (LAE) at year ended December 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Reserves established for workers' compensation
insurance includes the exposure to occupational disease or
accidents related to asbestos or environmental claims. The
exposure to asbestos claims emanate from the direct sale of
workers' compensation insurance. These claims resulted from
industry workers who were exposed to tremolite asbestos dust and
electricians and carpenters who were exposed to products that
contained asbestos. There has been no known exposure to asbestos
claims arising from assumed business. The emergence of these
claims is slow and highly unpredictable. The Company estimates
full impact of the asbestos exposure by establishing full case
basis reserves on all known losses. Reserves for losses incurred
but not reported (IBNR) include a provision for development of
reserves on reported losses. Reserves are established for loss
adjustment expenses (LAE) associated with these case and IBNR loss
reserves."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/JJpRE4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Faces Lawsuits at December 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2019, that to date, no judgments have been rendered against the
Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.
AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been
named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits.
Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured
or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the
seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against
these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims
have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller. The
seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company
does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to
fulfill its obligations in the future. To date, no judgments have
been rendered against the Company as a result of any
asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good
and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend
them vigorously."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/GNlHyd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $275MM for PI Matters at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") has accrued US$275
million at December 31, 2019, for personal injury matters,
including asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The current portion of this
amount is US$75 million.
The Company states, "BNSF's personal injury liability includes the
cost of claims for employee work-related injuries, third-party
claims, and asbestos claims. BNSF records a liability for asserted
and unasserted claims when the expected loss is both probable and
reasonably estimable. Because of the uncertainty of the timing of
future payments, the liability is undiscounted. Defense and
processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis, are
not included in the recorded liability. Expense accruals and
adjustments are classified as materials and other in the
Consolidated Statements of Income.
"Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to
the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
rather than state workers' compensation laws. Resolution of these
cases under FELA's fault-based system requires either a finding of
fault by a jury or an out-of-court settlement. Third-party claims
include claims by non-employees for compensatory damages and may,
from time to time, include requests for punitive damages or
treatment of the claim as a class action.
"BNSF estimates its personal injury liability claims and expense
using standard actuarial methodologies based on the covered
population, activity levels and trends in frequency, and the costs
of covered injuries. The Company monitors actual experience
against the forecasted number of claims to be received, the
forecasted number of claims closing with payment, and expected
claim payments and records adjustments as new events or changes in
estimates develop.
"BNSF is party to asbestos claims by employees and non-employees
who may have been exposed to asbestos. Because of the relatively
finite exposed population, the Company has recorded an estimate for
the full amount of probable exposure. This is determined through
an actuarial analysis based on estimates of the exposed population,
the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that
will likely require payment, and the cost per claim. Estimated
filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are
determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.
"The amount recorded by the Company for the personal injury
liability is based upon the best information currently available.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of
personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs
to resolve these claims may be different from the recorded amounts.
The Company estimates that costs to resolve the liability may
range from approximately US$235 million to US$330 million.
"Although the final outcome of these personal injury matters cannot
be predicted with certainty, it is the opinion of BNSF that none of
these items, when finally resolved, will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity. However,
the occurrence of a number of these items in the same period could
have a material adverse effect on the results of operations in a
particular quarter or fiscal year."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/TzrXTt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builders FirstSource Defends Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Builders FirstSource, Inc. is involved in various claims, including
asbestos-related matters, related to products manufactured and
distributed, and services provided by the Company, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "We are involved in product liability, product
warranty, casualty, construction defect, asbestos, vehicle and
other claims relating to the products we manufacture and
distribute, and services we provide or have provided that, if
adversely determined, could adversely affect our financial
condition, operating results, and cash flows. We rely on
manufacturers and other suppliers to provide us with many of the
products we sell and distribute. Because we have no direct control
over the quality of such products manufactured or supplied by such
third-party suppliers, we are exposed to risks relating to the
quality of such products. The Company has a number of known and
threatened construction defect legal claims. We are also involved
in several asbestos personal injury suits due to the alleged sale
of asbestos-containing products by legacy businesses that we
acquired. In addition, we are exposed to potential claims arising
from the conduct of our respective employees and subcontractors,
and builders and their subcontractors, for which we may be
contractually liable. Although we currently maintain what we
believe to be suitable and adequate insurance in excess of our
self-insured amounts, there can be no assurance that we will be
able to maintain such insurance on acceptable terms or that such
insurance will provide adequate protection against potential
liabilities. Product liability, product warranty, casualty,
construction defect, asbestos, vehicle, and other claims can be
expensive to defend and can divert the attention of management and
other personnel for significant periods, regardless of the ultimate
outcome. Claims of this nature could also have a negative impact
on customer confidence in our products and our company. In
addition, we are involved on an ongoing basis in other types of
legal proceedings. We cannot assure you that any current or future
claims against us will not adversely affect our financial
condition, operating results and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/PKJTWq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liability at December 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million
for asbestos suits at December 31, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
CECONY also deferred US$7 million as regulatory assets related to
asbestos suits at December 31, 2019.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/oIigfI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $85MM A&E Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corporation has US$85 million of net loss and
loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims at
year-end 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "We carried US$85 million of net loss and loss
expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims and US$43
million of reserves for mold claims at year-end 2019, compared with
US$89 million and US$44 million, respectively, for such claims at
year-end 2018. The asbestos and environmental claims amounts for
each respective year constituted 1.5% and 1.6% of total net loss
and loss expense reserves at these year-end dates.
"We believe our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is
limited, largely because our reinsurance retention was US$500,000
or below prior to 1987. We also were predominantly a personal
lines company in the 1960s and 1970s, when asbestos and pollution
exclusions were not widely used by commercial lines insurers.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a
percentage of our overall business and our exposure to asbestos and
environmental claims grew accordingly. Over that period, we
endorsed to or included in most policies an asbestos and
environmental exclusion."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/It9r10
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $64.4MM Accrued Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had accrued asbestos-related liability of
US$64,394,000 as of December 31, 2019, compared with US$56,045,000
as of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company also disclosed long-term asbestos liability of
US$286,105,000 at December 31, 2019, compared with US$288,962,000
at December 31, 2018.
The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable and
reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability costs that the
Company believes the subsidiaries will pay, and unpaid legal costs
related to defending themselves against asbestos-related liability
claims and legal action against the Company's insurers, which is
included in Accrued liabilities in the Consolidated Balance
Sheets.
The Company states, "Management's analyses are based on currently
known facts and a number of assumptions. However, projecting
future events, such as new claims to be filed each year, the
average cost of resolving each claim, coverage issues among layers
of insurers, the method in which losses will be allocated to the
various insurance policies, interpretation of the effect on
coverage of various policy terms and limits and their
interrelationships, the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, the amount of remaining insurance available, as well as
the numerous uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could
cause the actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher
or lower than those projected or recorded which could materially
affect the Company's financial condition, results of operations or
cash flow."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ToZIX1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 121 Suits Pending at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company is facing 121 individual asbestos-related
cases pending in state and federal courts throughout the United
States as of December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
Colgate-Palmolive states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder
products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with
asbestos. Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants
from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of
asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's
products, were designed to contain asbestos.
"As of December 31, 2019, there were 121 individual cases pending
against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the
United States, as compared to 239 cases as of December 31, 2018.
During the year ended December 31, 2019, 110 new cases were filed
and 228 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, dismissal by
the court, judgment in the Company's favor or settlement.
"During the year ended December 31, 2019, one case resulted in a
jury verdict in favor of the Company after a trial, which is now
pending appeal by the plaintiff, and one case resulted in an
adverse jury verdict after a trial, which the Company is appealing.
The value of the settlements and of the adverse jury verdict in
the year presented was not material, either individually or in the
aggregate, to such period's results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/AunER0
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Spent $17MM for Manhattan Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. has incurred operating costs of US$17
million as of December 31, 2019, for property damage, clean-up and
other response costs related to the rupture of a steam main owned
by its subsidiary in Manhattan, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "In July 2018, the NYSPSC commenced an
investigation into the rupture of a CECONY steam main located on
Fifth Avenue and 21st Street in Manhattan. Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response
to the incident required the closing of buildings and streets for
various periods. The NYSPSC has commenced an investigation. As of
December 31, 2019, with respect to the incident, the company
incurred operating costs of US$17 million for property damage,
clean-up and other response costs and invested US$9 million in
capital and retirement costs. The company is unable to estimate
the amount or range of its possible loss related to the incident.
At December 31, 2019, the company had not accrued a liability
related to the incident."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/oIigfI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation plc disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December
31, 2019, that the Company is still subject to asbestos claims from
historic products which may have contained asbestos.
The Company states, "Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims,
administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate
to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement,
personal injuries, antitrust matters, and employment-related
matters. Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos. Insurance may cover
some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings.
Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a
material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/BezHiV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $6.7MM Asbestos Coverage at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc. had approximately US$6.7 million of
insurance coverage for asbestos claims payments and certain expense
payments as of December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Under the Consensual Settlement and Joint
Plan, GST and EnPro Holdings retained their rights to seek
reimbursement under insurance policies for any amounts they have
paid in the past to resolve asbestos claims, including
contributions made to the Trust. These policies include a number
of primary and excess general liability insurance policies that
were purchased by EnPro Holdings and were in effect prior to
January 1, 1976 (the "Pre-Garlock Coverage Block"). The policies
provide coverage for "occurrences" happening during the policy
periods and cover losses associated with product liability claims
against EnPro Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries. Asbestos
claims against GST are not covered under these policies because GST
was not a subsidiary of EnPro Holdings prior to 1976. The Joint
Plan provides that EnPro Holdings may retain the first US$25
million of any settlements and judgments collected for non-GST
asbestos claims related to insurance policies in the Pre-Garlock
Coverage Block and EnPro Holdings and the Trust will share equally
in any settlements and judgments EnPro Holdings may collect in
excess of US$25 million. To date, EnPro Holdings has collected
almost US$22 million in settlements for non-GST asbestos claims
from the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and anticipates further
collections once the Trust begins making claims payments.
"At December 31, 2019, approximately US$6.7 million of available
products hazard limits or insurance receivables existed under
primary and excess general liability insurance policies other than
the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block (the "Garlock Coverage Block") from
solvent carriers with investment grade ratings, which we believe is
available to cover GST asbestos claims payments and certain expense
payments, including contributions to the Trust. We consider such
amount of available insurance coverage under the Garlock Coverage
Block to be of high quality because the insurance policies are
written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by
S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating
is excellent (A-) or better. The remaining US$6.7 million is
available to pending and estimated future claims. There are
specific agreements in place with carriers regarding the remaining
available coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the
policies in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we
believe that all of the US$6.7 million of insurance proceeds will
ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that
the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due.
Assuming the insurers pay according to the agreements and policies,
we anticipate that US$6.7 million will be collected in 2020.
"We also believe that EnPro Holdings will bill, and could collect
over time, as much as US$10 million of insurance coverage for
non-GST asbestos claims to reimburse it for Trust payments to
non-GST Trust claimants. After EnPro Holdings collects the first
approximately US$3 million of that coverage, remaining collections
for non-GST asbestos claims from the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block
will be shared equally with the Trust.
"GST LLC has received US$8.8 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007 and may receive additional payments
from insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated insolvent
carrier collections are included in the US$6.7 million of
anticipated collections. The insurance available to cover current
and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability
policies that cover EnPro Holdings and certain of its other
subsidiaries in addition to GST for periods prior to 1985 and
therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other
covered subsidiaries and their assignees."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ag6LtI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Units Still Faces 200 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation's utility operating companies are facing
approximately 200 asbestos-related lawsuits involving approximately
400 claimants, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal
and state courts, primarily by contractor employees who worked in
the 1940-1980s timeframe, primarily against Entergy Texas, and to a
lesser extent the other Utility operating companies, as premises
owners of power plants, for damages caused by alleged exposure to
asbestos. Many other defendants are named in these lawsuits as
well. Currently, there are approximately 200 lawsuits involving
approximately 400 claimants. Management believes that adequate
provisions have been established to cover any exposure.
Additionally, negotiations continue with insurers to recover
reimbursements. Management believes that loss exposure has been
and will continue to be handled so that the ultimate resolution of
these matters will not be material, in the aggregate, to the
financial position, results of operation, or cash flows of the
Utility operating companies."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/jcbITK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Unit Still Faces 150 Suits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Energy Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that there were currently fewer than
150 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against its subsidiary.
The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as one
of many defendants in a number of product liability claims for
alleged exposure to asbestos. These lawsuits are typically filed
on behalf of plaintiffs who allege exposure to asbestos, against
numerous defendants, often forty or more, who are alleged to have
manufactured or distributed products containing asbestos. The
injuries alleged by plaintiffs in these cases range from
mesothelioma and other cancers to asbestosis.
"The earliest claims against our subsidiary were filed in New
Jersey in 1998, and our subsidiary currently has active cases in
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Delaware, and
Pennsylvania. These complaints do not typically include requests
for a specific amount of damages. Our subsidiary acquired the
trademark for the product line in question in 1985. To date, the
claims against our subsidiary alleging illnesses due to asbestos
have generally been based on products manufactured by the previous
owner prior to 1985 that are alleged to have contained asbestos.
Many claimants alleging illnesses due to asbestos sue on the basis
of exposure prior to 1985, as by that date the hazards of asbestos
exposure were well known and asbestos had begun to fall into
disuse.
"Our subsidiary has been successful in obtaining dismissals in most
lawsuits without any cash contribution including because the
"successor liability" law in most states does not hold a purchaser
in good faith liable for the actions of the seller prior to the
acquisition date unless the purchaser contractually assumed the
liabilities, which our subsidiary did not. There are exceptions to
the successor liability doctrine in many states, so there are no
assurances that our subsidiary will not be found liable for the
actions of its predecessor. The law in other states on so called
"successor liability" may be different or ambiguous in this regard,
and could also expose our subsidiary to liability. Our subsidiary
could also be found liable should a trier of fact reject our
subsidiary's position that it is not responsible for the alleged
asbestos injuries.
"To date, asbestos claims have not had a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flow, as our annual out-of-pocket costs over the last five years
has been less than US$200,000. There were fewer than 25 new cases
filed against our subsidiary in each of last two years, and a
significant number of existing cases were dismissed, settled or
otherwise disposed of over the last year.
"We currently have fewer than 150 lawsuits pending against this
subsidiary. Our subsidiary has over US$17 million in face amount
of insurance per occurrence and over US$23 million of aggregate
primary insurance coverage.
"In addition, our subsidiary has over US$950 million in face amount
of excess coverage applicable to the claims. There can be no
guarantee that all of this can be collected due to policy terms and
conditions and insurer insolvencies in the past or in the future.
"In January 2011, we entered into an agreement with seven of our
primary insurers under which they have agreed to pay 80% of the
costs of handling and settling each asbestos claim against the
affected subsidiary. The insurers' portion of the settlements is
funded by our aggregate primary limits, which are eroded only by
settlements and not legal fees. Approximately US$2.0 million in
settlements has been paid by insurers and our subsidiary to date,
with approximately US$40,000 paid over the course of the last two
years. Our subsidiary and the subscribing insurers have the right
to withdraw from this agreement, but to date, no party has
exercised this right or expressed an intent to do so."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/esI2bI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $118.1MM Reserve at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. had total litigation reserve of
US$118.1 million as of December 31, 2019, with regards to potential
liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
Gardner Denver states, "The Company has been named as a defendant
in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury
lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to
asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company
is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants.
"Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the
Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the
materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits.
Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if
any, were enclosed within the subject Products.
"Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold
products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure,
many of the companies that did engage in such activities or
produced such products are no longer in operation. This has led to
law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in
lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related
injury.
"The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from
the Products; the Company's experience that the vast majority of
plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged
exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or
for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various
potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such
matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable matters.
However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future
developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies
of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse
determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to
collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors,
could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal
proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known
facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the
amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the
liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal
injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets include a total litigation reserve of
US$118.1 million and US$105.8 million as of December 31, 2019 and
December 31, 2018 respectively, with regards to potential liability
arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation. Asbestos
related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims
liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred. In
the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that
the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or
liquidity.
"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation
against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary. The
Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos
related recoveries of approximately US$122.4 million and US$103.0
million as of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018,
respectively, which was included in "Other assets" in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets. During the year ended December 31,
2018, the Company received asbestos related insurance recoveries of
US$14.4 million, of which US$6.2 million related to the recovery of
indemnity payments, and was recorded as a reduction of the
insurance recovery receivable in "Other assets" in the Consolidated
Balance Sheets, and US$8.2 million related to the reimbursement of
previously expensed legal defense costs, and was recorded as a
reduction of "Selling and administrative expenses" in the
Consolidated Statements of Operations.
"The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010,
in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case
number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case"). In the lawsuit, the
Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess
insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to
the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs
associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the
Company.
"In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the
insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and excess
policies, for approximately the amount of such defendant's policies
that were subject to the lawsuit. Since then, the case has been
proceeding through the discovery and motions process with the
remaining insurer defendants.
"On January 29, 2016, the Company prevailed on the first phase of
that discovery and motions process ("Phase I"). Specifically, the
Court in the Adams County Case ruled that the Company has rights
under all of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and
conditions, even though the policies were sold to the Company's
former owners rather than to the Company itself.
"On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the
insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling
immediately rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as
is normally required. The case is now proceeding through the
discovery process regarding the remaining issues in dispute ("Phase
II").
"A majority of the Company's expected future recoveries of the
costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject
of the Adams County Case.
"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently
available information and assumptions that the Company believes are
reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions. There are a number of key variables and assumptions
including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year,
the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of
resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available,
allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer
with whom the Company has reached settlements, the resolution of
coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom the
Company has not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk
with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Other factors
that may affect the future liability include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made
by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal
legislation. The Company makes the necessary adjustments for the
asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an
annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of
an interim date."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/mQ79JU
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $37.9MM A&E Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. has US$37.9 million of net
asbestos and environmental reserves as of December 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2019, we have US$37.9
million of net asbestos and environmental reserves, comprised of
US$8.4 million of direct reserves and US$29.5 million of assumed
reinsurance pool reserves. This compares to net reserves of
US$38.9 million and US$39.8 million as of December 31, 2018 and
2017, respectively. Ending loss and LAE reserves for all direct
business written by our property and casualty companies related to
asbestos and environmental damage liability were US$8.4 million,
US$8.9 million and US$9.5 million, net of reinsurance of US$17.6
million, US$18.7 million and US$20.2 million for the years ended
December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Activity for our
direct asbestos and environmental reserves was not significant to
our 2019, 2018 or 2017 financial results. As a result of our
historical direct underwriting mix of Commercial Lines policies
toward smaller and middle market risks, past asbestos and
environmental damage liability loss experience has remained minimal
in relation to our total loss and LAE incurred experience.
Although we attempt to limit our exposures to asbestos and
environmental damage liability through specific policy exclusions,
we have been and may continue to be subject to claims related to
these exposures.
"In addition to reserves we carry to cover exposure in our direct
business, we have established gross and net loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and
environmental damage liability of US$29.5 million, US$30.0 million
and US$30.3 million at December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017,
respectively. These reserves relate to pools in which we have
terminated our participation; however, we continue to be subject to
claims related to years in which we were a participant. Results of
operations from these pools are included in our Other segment. A
significant part of our pool reserves relates to our participation
in the ECRA voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool
was dissolved and since that time, the business has been in
run-off. Our percentage of the total pool liabilities varied from
1% to 6% during these years. Our participation in this pool has
resulted in average paid losses of approximately US$2 million
annually over the past ten years.
"We estimate our ultimate liability for asbestos, environmental and
toxic tort liability claims, whether resulting from direct
business, assumed reinsurance or pool business, based upon
currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the facts are
not known, current law and methodologies currently available.
Although these outstanding claims are not believed to be
significant, their existence gives rise to uncertainty and are
discussed because of the possibility that they may become
significant. We believe that, notwithstanding the evolution of
case law expanding liability in asbestos and environmental claims,
recorded reserves related to these claims are adequate.
Nevertheless, the asbestos, environmental and toxic tort liability
reserves could be revised, and any such revisions could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations for a
particular quarterly or annual period or on our financial
position."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/mPKsHV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $817.6MM Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. had an undiscounted asbestos-related liability of US$817.6
million as of December 31, 2019, for pending claims and unasserted
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Our subsidiaries, ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps
LLC, have been joined as defendants with numerous other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure. These claims allege that certain of their
products sold prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a
third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the
extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable.
Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. In
addition, many claims pending against the Company's subsidiaries
have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot
demonstrate a compensable loss. Our experience to date is that a
substantial portion of resolved claims have been dismissed without
payment by the Company's subsidiaries.
"We have recorded a liability for pending asbestos claims and
asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years.
While it is probable that we will incur additional costs for future
claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for potential
future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable
due to the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential
recoveries. As of December 31, 2019, we have recorded an
undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and
unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of
US$817.6 million, which includes expected legal fees, and we have
recorded an associated asset of US$386.8 million, which represents
estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net exposure of
US$430.8 million."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/tQz5Wj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Defends Suits at December 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaman Corporation said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that based on information currently available,
the Company does not believe that the resolution of any currently
pending asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse
effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows.
The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, the
Company and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos integrated into certain products sold or distributed by
the Company and/or the named subsidiary. A substantial majority of
these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or
other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment.
The rest have been resolved for amounts that are not material to
the Company, either individually or in the aggregate. Based on
information currently available, we do not believe that the
resolution of any currently pending asbestos-related matters will
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/oq0sM1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,800 PI Cases at Dec. 27
------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc has approximately 11,800 asbestos-related cases
pending as of December 27, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 27, 2019.
The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,
the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises
liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos
while on the Company's property. Each case typically names dozens
of corporate defendants in addition to the Company. The complaints
generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily
injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing
asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been
limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore,
in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims
have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the
courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial
court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue
to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles
claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos
claims have been immaterial. As of December 27, 2019, there were
approximately 11,800 asbestos-related cases pending against the
Company.
"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims, claims that were
incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which
are recorded on a gross basis in the consolidated balance sheets.
The Company's estimate of its liability for pending and future
claims is based on claims experience over the past five years and
covers claims either currently filed or expected to be filed over
the next seven years. The Company believes that it has adequate
amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is not
possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate
outcome of these asbestos-related proceedings, the Company
believes, given the information currently available, that the
ultimate resolution of all known and anticipated future claims,
after taking into account amounts already accrued, along with
recoveries from insurance, will not have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ybxMvo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Has 1,605 Exposure Lawsuits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that its subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances
Company, LLC ("MSA LLC") was named as a defendant in 1,605
cumulative trauma lawsuits comprised of 2,456 claims at December
31, 2019.
The Company states, "Cumulative trauma product liability claims
involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and
coal dust) that occurred years ago and may have developed over long
periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis,
mesothelioma or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. The products at
issue were manufactured many years ago and are not currently
offered by MSA LLC. A reserve has been established with respect to
estimated amounts for cumulative trauma product liability claims
currently asserted but not yet resolved and incurred but not
reported ("IBNR") cumulative trauma product liability claims.
Because our cumulative trauma product liability risk is subject to
inherent uncertainties, including unfavorable trial rulings or
developments, an increase in newly filed claims, or more aggressive
settlement demands, and since MSA LLC is largely self-insured,
there can be no certainty that MSA LLC may not ultimately incur
losses in excess of presently recorded liabilities. These losses
could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating
results, financial condition and liquidity."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/B7JsaY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. and Units Still Face Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries still defend themselves in
legal proceedings related to alleged exposures to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "We, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business
activities. At December 31, 2019 and 2018, our consolidated
balance sheets included liabilities for these other legal actions
of US$12.4 million and US$15.6 million, respectively. These
liabilities do not include costs associated with legal
representation. Based on our analysis, and considering the
inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not
believe that it is reasonably possible that these other legal
actions will materially adversely affect our financial position,
cash flows or results of operations. In connection with the
October 5, 2015 acquisition of Dow's U.S. Chlor Alkali and Vinyl,
Global Chlorinated Organics and Global Epoxy businesses, the prior
owner of the businesses retained liabilities related to litigation
to the extent arising prior to October 5, 2015."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/SOc6B7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 730 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries continues to face approximately 730
pending claims related to asbestos matters as of December 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Our subsidiaries, along with numerous other
companies, are named as defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials, substantially all of which relate to our discontinued
operations. These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution
of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were
attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third parties. Each case typically names between
several dozen to more than a hundred corporate defendants.
Historically, our subsidiaries have been identified as defendants
in asbestos-related claims. Our strategy has been, and continues
to be, to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated
suits dismissed, and, only where appropriate, settling claims
before trial.
"As of December 31, 2019, there were approximately 730 claims
pending against our subsidiaries, substantially all of which relate
to our discontinued operations. We cannot predict with certainty
the extent to which we will be successful in litigating or
otherwise resolving lawsuits in the future, and we continue to
evaluate different strategies related to asbestos claims filed
against us including entity restructuring and judicial relief.
Unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could have a
material adverse impact on our business and financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/tyzaG5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ProSight Global Has $4.45MM A&E Losses at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
ProSight Global, Inc. has net losses of US$4,448,000 for asbestos
and environmental related as of December 31, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
ProSight Global states, "The Company participated in an insurance
pool in both the issuance of umbrella casualty insurance and ocean
marine liability insurance during the period from 1978 to 1996.
Depending on the underwriting year, the insurance pools' net
retention per occurrence after applicable reinsurance ranged from
US$250,000 to US$2,000,000. The Company's effective pool
participation on such risks varied from 11% in 1978 to 59% in 1985,
which exposed the Company to asbestos and environmental losses.
Subsequent to this period, the pools substantially reduced their
umbrella writings and coverage was provided to smaller insureds.
"Additionally, the Company has assumed asbestos and environmental
reserves on a retroactive basis from prior members of the pool.
The liability related to the same was US$8.4 million and US$8.7
million as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 respectively.
"The Company believes that the uncertainty surrounding asbestos and
environmental exposures, including issues as to insureds'
liabilities, ascertainment of loss date, definitions of occurrence,
scope of coverage, policy limits and application and interpretation
of policy terms, including exclusions, all affect the estimation of
ultimate losses. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to
determine the ultimate loss for asbestos and environmental-related
claims. Given the uncertainty in this area, losses from asbestos
and environmental-related claims may develop adversely and
accordingly, management is unable to estimate the range of possible
loss that could arise from asbestos and environmental-related
claims. However, the Company's net unpaid reserves for loss and
loss adjustment expenses, in the aggregate, as of December 31,
2019, represent management's best estimate."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ctqMTg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RLI Has $68.6MM for Tort Claims at Dec. 31, 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RLI Corp. has recorded net loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE)
payments of US$68,636,000 related to environmental, asbestos and
mass tort as of December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
Net unpaid losses and LAE were US$17,467,000 as of December 31,
2019.
The Company states, "We are subject to environmental site cleanup,
asbestos removal and mass tort claims and exposures through our
commercial excess, general liability and discontinued assumed
casualty reinsurance lines of business. The majority of the
exposure is in the excess layers of our commercial excess and
assumed reinsurance books of business.
"Our environmental, asbestos and mass tort exposure is limited,
relative to other insurers, as a result of entering the affected
liability lines after the insurance industry had already recognized
environmental and asbestos exposure as a problem and adopted
appropriate coverage exclusions. The majority of our reserves are
associated with products that went into runoff at least two decades
ago. Some are for assumed reinsurance, some are for excess
liability business and some followed from the acquisition of
Underwriters Indemnity Company in 1999.
"During 2019, inception to date incurred environmental, asbestos
and mass tort losses did not develop materially."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/wCieRX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp Estimates $85.9MM Liability at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation estimates US$85.9 million asbestos-related
liabilities as of December 31, 2019, for all current and future
costs through 2064, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "We recognize a liability for asbestos-related
contingencies that are probable of occurrence and reasonably
estimable. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, we record asbestos-related insurance
receivables that are deemed probable.
"The liability projection period covers all current and future
indemnity and defense costs through 2064, which represents the
expected end of our asbestos liability exposure with no further
ongoing claims expected beyond that date. This conclusion was
based on our history and experience with the claims data, the
diminished volatility and consistency of observable claims data,
the period of time that has elapsed since we stopped manufacturing
products that contained encapsulated asbestos and an expected
downward trend in claims due to the average age of our claimants,
which is approaching the average life expectancy.
"To date, the indemnity and defense costs of our asbestos-related
product liability litigation have been substantially covered by
insurance. Although we have exhausted coverage under some of our
insurance policies, we believe that we have applicable primary,
excess and/or umbrella coverage for claims arising with respect to
most of the years during which we manufactured and marketed
asbestos-containing products. In addition, we have entered into a
cost sharing agreement with most of our primary, excess and
umbrella insurance carriers to facilitate the ongoing
administration and payment of claims covered by the carriers. The
cost sharing agreement may be terminated by any party, but will
continue until a party elects to terminate it. As of the filing
date for this report, the agreement has not been terminated, and no
carrier had informed us it intended to terminate the agreement. We
expect to continue to exhaust individual primary, excess and
umbrella coverages over time, and there is no assurance that such
exhaustion will not accelerate due to additional claims, damages
and settlements or that coverage will be available as expected. We
are responsible for uninsured indemnity and defense costs, and for
the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, we paid US$0.7 million
and US$1.2 million, respectively, related to such costs.
"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables are based on facts known at the time
and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events,
such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average
cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time it takes to
dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers and the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the
numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the U.S.,
could cause the actual liability and insurance recoveries for us to
be higher or lower than those projected or recorded."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/TgDTp8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teledyne Technologies Still Defends Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teledyne Technologies Incorporated continues to face
multi-defendant lawsuits related to asbestos exposure, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019.
The Company states, "We have been joined, among a number of
defendants (often over 100), in lawsuits alleging injury or death
as a result of exposure to asbestos. In addition, because of the
prominent "Teledyne" name, we may continue to be mistakenly joined
in lawsuits involving a company or business that was not assumed by
us as part of our 1999 spin-off. To date, we have not incurred
material liabilities in connection with these lawsuits. However,
our historic insurance coverage, including that of our
predecessors, may not fully cover such claims and the defense of
such matters. Coverage typically depends on the year of purported
exposure and other factors. Nonetheless, we intend to vigorously
defend our position against these claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/nAPduA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Has Less Than 130 Claims in Dec.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Solutions Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that there were fewer than 130 asbestos-related
claims as of December 31, 2019, for which the Company has liability
for defense and indemnity pursuant to the indemnification
obligation.
Univar Solutions states, "The Company is subject to liabilities
from claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.
The claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation
related to Univar Solutions USA Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of
McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson").
Univar's obligation to defend and indemnify McKesson for
settlements and judgments arising from asbestos claims is the
amount which is in excess of applicable insurance coverage, if any,
which may be available under McKesson's historical insurance
coverage. Univar is also a defendant in a small number of asbestos
claims. As of December 31, 2019, there were fewer than 130
asbestos-related claims for which the Company has liability for
defense and indemnity pursuant to the indemnification obligation;
however, this number tends to fluctuate up and down over time.
Historically, the vast majority of the claims against both McKesson
and Univar have been dismissed without payment or with a negligible
payment. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
these matters, it does not believe, based upon current available
facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will
have a material effect on its overall financial position, results
of operations, or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/AlWDu5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec Still Faces PI Claims at December 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation ("Wabtec") and
certain of its affiliates continue to face asbestos-related claims
in the U.S., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Claims have been filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the
United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products. Most of these claims
have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad
Friction Products Corporation ("RFPC"), and the vast majority of
the claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to
insurance carriers for defense and indemnity, or to non-affiliated
companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing
products at issue. We cannot, however, assure that all of these
claims will be fully covered by insurance, or that the indemnitors
or insurers will remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and
financial liability with respect to these claims, as is the case
with other pending litigation, cannot be estimated. A limited
number of claims are not covered by insurance, nor are they subject
to indemnity from non-affiliated parties. Wabtec has incurred
defense, administrative and indemnity costs in connection with
these actions, but these costs have not been material, and the
Company has no information that would suggest these costs would
become material in the foreseeable future. Based on the Company's
history in resolving all asbestos claims over the last twenty
years, Management believes that the costs of the Company's
asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company's
overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/bYkxw5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Defends 300 Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is defending approximately 300
lawsuits in different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "The complaints in these cases typically name a
large number of defendants and do not identify any of our
particular products as a source of asbestos exposure. To date,
discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure to
any of our products and no judgments have been entered against
us."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/4RFVzK
*********
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. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2020. 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.
*** End of Transmission ***