/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


[^] 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.
              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.
              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.
              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.
              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.
              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.
              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

           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
              950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
              Washington, DC 20530-0001
              Telephone: (202) 514-2217

                   - and -

              Jeffrey Bryan Wall, Esq.
              Acting Solicitor General
              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.
              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.
              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.
              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.
              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

              Scott Lawrence Nelson, Esq.
              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.
              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.
              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.
              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.
              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.
              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.
              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

           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,

           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
              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.
              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.
              7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400
              Bethesda, MD 20814
              Telephone: (301) 951-0150
              Telecopier: (301) 951-0172
              E-mail: cfax@rlls.com

                  - and -

              David H. Weinstein, Esq.
              Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
              100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
              Philadelphia, PA 19110
              Telephone: (215) 545-7200
              Telecopier: (215) 545-6535
              E-mail: weinstein@wka-law.com

                  - and -

              Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
              Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
              361 West Lancaster Avenue
              Haverford, PA 19041
              Telephone: (610) 642-8500
              Telecopier: (610) 649-3633
              E-mail: sas@chimicles.com

                  - and -

              Nicole Sugnet, Esq.
              275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
              San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
              Telephone: (415) 956-1000
              Telecopier: (415) 956-1008k
              E-mail: klaw@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.
              370 17th Street, Suite 4500
              Denver, CO 80202
              Telephone: (303) 244-l800
              Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
              E-mail: williams@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

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.
              1145 E. Hyde Park Boulevard
              Chicago, IL 60615
              Telephone: (801) 706-2690

                   - and -

              Theodore H. Frank, Esq.
              Anna St. John, Esq.
              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.
              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

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

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 ***