/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210101.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 1, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 261 Headlines [^] Major Court Rulings in Class Action Lawsuits - 2020 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Companies Fined $200,000 in Rockland Settlement ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jackson Family Files lawsuit Against Frito-Lay ********* [^] Major Court Rulings in Class Action Lawsuits - 2020 ------------------------------------------------------- The Class Action Reporter is pleased to provide our subscribers the following list of court decisions in class action lawsuits that we have identified as major rulings in 2020. This list is the product of and copyrighted by Beard Group, Inc., and no reproduction or further use of this list is permitted without the prior written consent of Beard Group, Inc. James J. Thole, et al., Petitioners, v. U.S. Bank N.A., et al., No. 17-1712 (U.S.) Two retired participants in U.S. Bank's retirement plan sued the bank and others for alleged mismanagement of the defined-benefit plan. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants violated duties of loyalty and prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by poorly investing the plan's assets from 2007 to 2010. The plaintiffs requested that U.S. Bank repay the plan roughly $750 million in losses that the plan allegedly suffered. The plaintiffs also asked for injunctive relief, including replacement of the plan's fiduciaries. The plaintiffs' counsel also requested at least $31 million in attorney's fees. The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed on the ground that the plaintiffs lack statutory standing. A divided U.S. Supreme Court held the plaintiffs lack Article III standing, noting that James Thole and Sherry Smith have received all of their monthly benefit payments so far, and the outcome of the lawsuit would not affect their future benefit payments. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan joined, pointing out the Court is barring pensioners from bringing a federal lawsuit to stop or cure retirement-plan mismanagement until their pensions are on the verge of default. This conclusion conflicts with common sense and longstanding precedent. Decision entered June 1, 2020. Counsel to Petitioners Plaintiffs Thole, et al.: Peter K. Stris, Esq. STRIS AND MAHER LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 E-mail: peter.stris@strismaher.com Counsel to Respondents U.S. Bank N.A., et al.: Joseph Russell Palmore, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-6940 E-mail: jpalmore@mofo.com - and - Stephen Paul Lucke, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 343-7947 E-mail: lucke.steve@dorsey.com Counsel to Pension Rights Center: Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 E-mail: ehopkins@kantorlaw.net Counsel to Public Citizen: Nandan Maheshchandra Joshi, Esq. PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP 1600 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 588-1000 E-mail: njoshi@citizen.org Counsel to The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, The American Benefits Council, and The ERISA Industry Committee: Brian David Netter, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 E-mail: bnetter@mayerbrown.com Counsel to Law Professors: Erin M. Riley, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: eriley@kellerrohrback.com Counsel to New England Legal Foundation: Benjamin G. Robbins, Esq. NEW ENGLAND LEGAL FOUNDATION 150 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111-2504 Telephone: (617) 695-3660 E-mail: benrobbins@nelfonline.org Counsel to Washington Legal Foundation: Richard A. Samp, Esq. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION 2009 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20036-0000 Telephone: (202) 588-0302 E-mail: rsamp@wlf.org Counsel to AARP and AARP Foundation: Dara Swartz Smith, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION 601 E St., NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-6280 E-mail: dsmith@aarp.org Counsel to National Association of Home Builders: Thomas Jon Ward, Esq. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS 1201 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 266-8200 E-mail: tward@nahb.org William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al., No. 19-631 (U.S.) Political and nonprofit organizations urge the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the provision under the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act that generally prohibits robocalls to cell phones and home phones -- rather than simply invalidating a 2015 amendment to the TCPA that allows robocalls that are made to collect debts owed to or guaranteed by the Federal Government, including robocalls made to collect many student loan and mortgage debts. Invoking the First Amendment, they argue that the 2015 government-debt exception unconstitutionally favors debt-collection speech over political and other speech. The High Court says the correct result in this case is to sever the 2015 government-debt exception and leave in place the longstanding robocall restriction. "Plaintiffs still may not make political robocalls to cell phones, but their speech is now treated equally with debt-collection speech. The judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is affirmed," the High Court says. Justice Kavanaugh announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined, and in which Justices Thomas, joined as to Parts I and II. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Thomas joined as to Part II. Decision entered July 6, 2020. Counsel to Petitioners William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al.: Noel J. Francisco, Esq. Solicitor General UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: (202) 514-2217 - and - Jeffrey Bryan Wall, Esq. Acting Solicitor General UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: (202) 514-2217 E-mail: charlene.w.goodwin@usdoj.gov Counsel to Respondents American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al.: Roman Martinez V, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-3377 E-mail: roman.martinez@lw.com Counsel to National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, U.S. Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, and International Municipal Lawyers Association: John Michael Baker, Esq. GREENE ESPEL, PLLP 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 373-8344 E-mail: jbaker@greeneespel.com Counsel to Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al.: Alan Jay Butler, Esq. ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 1519 New Hampshire Ave NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 483-1140 E-mail: butler@epic.org Counsel to Facebook, Inc.: Paul D. Clement, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 389-5000 E-mail: paul.clement@kirkland.com Counsel to Cato Institute: Robert Lawrence Corn-Revere, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-4225 E-mail: bobcornrevere@dwt.com Counsel to Retail Energy Supply Association: Michael Patrick Daly, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-2604 E-mail: michael.daly@faegredrinker.com Counsel to Institute for Free Speech: Thomas William Parker Douglas, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 801 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 301-9800 E-mail: pdouglas@ifs.org Counsel to Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America: Shay Dvoretzky, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001-2113 Telephone: (202) 879-3474 E-mail: sdvoretzky@jonesday.com Counsel to Student Loan Servicing Alliance: Jessica Lynn Ellsworth, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US, LLP 555 13th Street, N. W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5886 E-mail: jessica.ellsworth@hoganlovells.com Counsel to State of Indiana: Thomas M. Fisher, Esq. Indiana AG's Office, IGC S., 5th Fl. 302 W. Washington Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 232-6255 E-mail: tom.fisher@atg.in.gov Counsel to Fifteen Members of Congress: Keith James Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD 55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com Counsel to Public Citizen and Public Citizen Foundation: Scott Lawrence Nelson, Esq. PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP 1600 20th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 588-1000 E-mail: snelson@citizen.org Counsel to Retail Litigation Center, Inc. and National Retail Federation: Joseph Russell Palmore, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-6940 E-mail: jpalmore@mofo.com Counsel to Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al.: Marc Rotenberg, Esq. ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (EPIC) 1519 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 415-6788 E-mail: rotenberg@epic.org Counsel to Healthcare Companies: Michael Dietz Roth, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 725 S Figueroa St, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 629-9040 E-mail: mroth@bsfllp.com Counsel to Midland Credit Management, Inc.: Zachary Charles Schauf, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK, LLP 1099 New York Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 637-6379 E-mail: ZSchauf@jenner.com Counsel to Institute for Justice: Paul Michael Sherman, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 682-9320 E-mail: psherman@ij.org Counsel to Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC: Misha Tseytlin, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 759-5947 E-mail: misha.tseytlin@troutman.com Counsel to National Consumer Law Center, Verizon, Consumer Federation of America: Tara Twomey, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER 7 Winthrop Square Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 542-8010 E-mail: tara.twomey@comcast.net Counsel to Association of Credit & Collection Professionals (ACA): Steven Gregory White, Esq. GRAY REED & MCGRAW 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (254) 717-5728 E-mail: gwhite@grayreed.com Putnam Investments, LLC, et al., Petitioners, v. John Brotherston, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., No. 18-926 (U.S.) Former Putnam employees filed a class action against Putnam and related defendants alleging, among other things, that the Plan's fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence by allowing participants to invest in Putnam-managed mutual funds without conducting an adequate investigation into those funds. They contended that Putnam must restore to the Plan any losses resulting from that breach. After seven days of a bench trial, once the employees finished presenting their evidence, Putnam filed a motion for judgment on partial findings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c), arguing, among other things, that even assuming a fiduciary breach, the employees had failed to establish loss causation. The district court granted Putnam's motion, holding that the employees were required to make "a prima facie showing of loss caused by a breach of fiduciary duty." The First Circuit vacated the district court's judgment on the duty-of-prudence claim. It disagreed with the district court's analysis of causation and loss, holding that the employees' showing of loss shifted the burden to Putnam to prove that the loss was not caused by its breach and the resulting investment decision was objectively prudent. Petition for writ of certiorari denied January 13, 2020. Counsel to Putnam Investments, LLC, et al.: William McGinley Jay, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 1900 N St. N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4190 E-mail: WJay@goodwinlaw.com Counsel to John Brotherston, et al.: James H. Kaster, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 E-mail: kaster@nka.com Counsel to United States: Noel J. Francisco, Esq. Solicitor General UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: (202) 514-2217 Counsel to Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al.: Shay Dvoretzky, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001-2113 Telephone: (202) 879-3474 E-mail: sdvoretzky@jonesday.com Counsel to Investment Company Institute: Mark Andrew Perry, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 887-3667 E-mail: mperry@gibsondunn.com Counsel to The American Council of Life Insurers: Nicole A. Saharsky, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3052 E-mail: nsaharsky@mayerbrown.com Chambers, et al. v. Whirlpool Corporation, et al., Nos. 16-56666, 16-56684, 16-56688, 16-56694 (9th Cir.) The parties settled a long-running class action lawsuit about malfunctioning "electronic control boards" in Whirlpool dishwashers. That settlement provided, among other things, coupons that consumers could use to buy a new Whirlpool dishwasher. The parties, however, could not agree on the value of this settlement, or the amount of attorney's fees for the plaintiffs' counsel. Whirlpool estimated it to be as low as $4.2 million, while the plaintiffs put the high end at $116.7 million. The district court approved the class settlement and awarded $14.8 million in attorney's fees based on a lodestar calculation of billable hours expended. The Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's approval of the settlement but vacated and remanded the fee award because the district court erred in applying a lodestar-only methodology for the coupon portion of the settlement. That methodology potentially inflates the amount of attorney's fees in proportion to the results achieved for the class because the coupons may end up providing phantom benefits to most class members. On remand, the district court should apply a percentage-of- redemption-value methodology for the coupon portion of a settlement, and use a lodestar method for the non-coupon part of the relief. Alternatively, the district court may use a lodestar-only methodology, but only if it does not consider the coupon relief or takes into account its redemption value. Sears Holdings Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co. were also named as defendants. Opinion issued November 10, 2020. Counsel to Plaintiffs: Jeffrey M. Cohon, Esq. Kristina S. Keller, Esq. COHON & POLLAK, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 231-4470 Facsimile: (310) 231-4610 E-mail: jcohon@cohonpollak.com - and - Charles S. Fax, Esq. Liesel Schopler, Esq. RIFKIN, WEINER, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN & SILVER LLC 7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (301) 951-0150 Telecopier: (301) 951-0172 E-mail: cfax@rlls.com lschopler@rlls.com - and - David H. Weinstein, Esq. Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq. WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC 100 South Broad Street, Suite 705 Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 545-7200 Telecopier: (215) 545-6535 E-mail: weinstein@wka-law.com kitchenoff@wka-law.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Timothy N. Mathews, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Telecopier: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: sas@chimicles.com tnm@chimicles.com - and - Nicole Sugnet, Esq. LEIFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Telecopier: (415) 956-1008k E-mail: klaw@lchb.com nreynolds@lchb.com Counsel to Defendants: Galen D. Bellamy, Esq. Michael T. Williams, Esq. Andrew M. Unthank, Esq. N. Reid Neureiter, Esq. Catherine R. Ruhland, Esq. Cedric Logan, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 244-l800 Facsimile: (303) 244-1879 E-mail: williams@wtotrial.com bellamy@wtotrial.com unthank@wtotrial.com neureiter@wtotrial.com ruhland@wtotrial.com logan@wtotrial.com - and - Dean J. Zipser, Esq. Carole E. Reagan, Esq. UMBERG ZIPSER LLP 1920 Main St., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 679-0052 Facsimile: (949) 679-0461 E-mail: dzipser@umbergzipser.com creagan@umbergzipser.com Nick Pearson, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Target Corp., et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. Randy Nunez, et al., Objectors-Appellees, Appeal of: Theodore H. Frank, Objector, No. 19-3095 (7th Cir.). Three objectors appealed the denial of their objections to a class action settlement and then dismissed their appeals in exchange for side payments. The question is whether, on motion of another class member, the district court had the equitable power to remedy the problem by ordering the settling objectors to disgorge for the benefit of the class the proceeds of their private settlements. The district court held that it did not, finding that the objectors had not intended or committed an illegal act nor taken money out of the common fund. The Seventh Circuit disagrees. "Falsely flying the class's colors, these three objectors extracted $130,000 in what economists would call rents from the litigation process simply by showing up and objecting to consummation of the settlement to slow things down until they were paid. We hold that settling an objection that asserts the class's rights in return for a private payment to the objector is inequitable and that disgorgement is the most appropriate remedy." Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in federal district court in Illinois alleging that defendants had made false claims about certain dietary supplements they manufactured and distributed. In April 2015, the parties negotiated and submitted to the district court for approval a new settlement known as "the Pearson II settlement." The agreement provided for a common fund of $7.5 million and a permanent injunction against certain labeling statements. The three objecting class members are Randy Nunez, Steven Buckley, and Patrick Sweeney. Decision entered August 6, 2020. Counsel to Pearson et al.: Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 938-1670 Counsel to Objector, Theodore H. Frank: Michael Frank Bednarz, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1145 E. Hyde Park Boulevard Chicago, IL 60615 Telephone: (801) 706-2690 - and - Theodore H. Frank, Esq. Anna St. John, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (703) 203-3848 Counsel to Target Corporation, NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc.: Kara L. McCall, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603-0000 Telephone: (312) 853-2666 E-mail: kmccall@sidley.com Counsel to Randy Nunez: James Richard Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON LAW GROUP 1350 Columbia Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6993 Counsel to Steven Buckley: John Jacob Pentz, III, Esq. 19 Widow Rites Lane Sudbury, MA 01776 Telephone: (978) 261-5725 Counsel to Patrick S. Sweeney: Patrick S. Sweeney, Esq. 6666 Odana Road Madison, WI 53716 Telephone: (310) 339-0548 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Companies Fined $200,000 in Rockland Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Difazio at The Patriot Ledger reports that three companies were ordered to pay more than US$200,000 in a settlement with the state attorney general's office over allegations they performed illegal and shoddy asbestos abatement work during a large-scale renovation of a low-income housing complex in Rockland. The complex, Spring Gate Apartments on Hannah Way, is deemed to be in an environmental justice neighborhood. The 204-unit complex is state and federally subsidized. "These companies put the health of their own workers and vulnerable residents at risk by not taking the required asbestos safety precautions," Attorney General Maura Healey said in a statement, The Patriot notes. "We are working with our state partners to take action against companies that fail to comply with our important public health laws – especially in neighborhoods where low-income residents are disproportionately subjected to environmental harms and risks." The consent judgments entered in Suffolk County Superior Court on Tuesday, Dec. 22 settle allegations that Connecticut-based First Hartford Realty Corp. and its subsidiaries violated the state's clean air laws and asbestos regulation. According to prosecutors, the company allowed significant renovation work at Spring Gate to be done "without using proper handling and abatement practices and without properly securing the asbestos for safe storage, transport and disposal." Prosecutors said First Hartford workers "failed to contain, handle and dispose of asbestos material legally and safely, despite prior knowledge that building material on the walls, ceilings, and floors at Spring Gate contained asbestos." The consent judgments also settle allegations against two asbestos consulting companies hired by First Hartford, Brockton-based Enviro-Safe Engineering and Connecticut-based TRC Environmental Corp., which prosecutors said illegally cleared areas as clean when there was still asbestos there. Prosecutors said the actions of the three companies put the health of workers and tenants at risk. Under the settlement, First Hartford and its companies are required to pay US$250,000 in civil penalties, US$50,000 of which will be suspended pending compliance with terms of the judgment. First Hartford is required to provide more asbestos training for staff members, provide asbestos inspection reports and maintenance records to the state Department of Environmental Protection, hire a licensed asbestos consultant and an asbestos abatement contractor to be available "on call" as needed and develop a plan to inspect and deal with any asbestos materials remaining in the apartments. TRC is required to pay US$25,000 and Enviro-Safe is required to pay US$10,000 in civil penalties for the asbestos violations under separate agreements. "Asbestos is a known human carcinogen and MassDEP's asbestos regulations are designed to protect public health and the environment," said Millie Garcia-Serrano, the Department of Environmental Protection's Southeast Region director, in a statement. The microscopic fibers of asbestos can cause lung problems and death. Asbestos was used in window caulk, insulation, plaster and taping compounds, floor and roofing tiles, siding and other housing materials until it was banned in the late 1970s. If asbestos is improperly handled or maintained, fibers can be released into the air and inhaled, potentially resulting in life-threatening illnesses, including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer, according to prosecutors. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jackson Family Files lawsuit Against Frito-Lay --------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Love, writing for 12 News WJTV, reports that a Jackson family is taking on Frito-Lay in federal court. The heart of the case is whether a former worker died of asbestosis from the job. From 1974 to 1999, Jimmie Ruffin worked as a machine operator and pest control worker at the Jackson Frito-Lay plant. In 2019, he suddenly died due to lung cancer. His son is trying to prove it was due to conditions at his job. In class action lawsuit filed earlier this year, Reggie Ruffin and several other Jackson families called on Frito-Lay to acknowledge the old worksite had asbestos and workers were at risk. "Families have gone through tremendous debts behind losing their loved ones. Some of these people had to pay for their own funerals, because they didn't have any money. These families need to be financially compensated but also have some appreciation shown. Frito-Lay has made billions of dollars off the backs of these employees and then they just discard them like tools," said Ruffin. While employed, Ruffin claimed his father worked with pesticide spray, leading to mesothelioma exposure shown in his medical records. In other parts of the country, lawyers have also pointed to Frito-Lay buildings containing asbestos. WJTV notes that in the lawsuit, Ruffin listed damages Frito-Lay must compensate his and other families for lost earnings, loss of inheritance and emotional pain. "Main thing I put in my argument was how Frito-Lay broke the law by not informing anyone the possible exposure and risk because then Frito-Lay would be responsible for the care of the employees." Mississippi has a three-year statue of limitation on asbestos and mesothelioma claims, but Ruffin's attorneys are pointing to the families not knowing about these diagnoses connections until recently as a loophole. In all, seven other families are part of the class action lawsuit. Ruffin encouraged anyone who believes they're victims to contact his organization C.A.U.S.E. Coalition by emailing ReggieRuffin50@gmail.com or calling (214) 931-5645. 12 News reached out to Frito-Lay for comment and process for internal asbestos claims. They responded the company does not comment on pending litigation. ********* 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 2021. 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 ***