CAR_Public/140314.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 14, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 52

                             Headlines

ACCREDITED ROOFING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Jury Trial in No-Poaching Suit Slated for May
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating FDCPA in Rhode Island
AROBERT TONOGBANUA: Pleads Guilty to Altering Asbestos Complaints
AUTO CITY: Sued for Violating Truth in Lending Act in New Mexico

BAXTER INT'L: Recalls Peritoneal Dialysis Solution Due to Molds
CANON USA: Recalls 14,000 PowerShot SX50 HS Digital Cameras
CLUB ONE LLC: Sued for Not Paying Workers for All Hours Worked
CONCENTRA INC: Body Recovery Clinic Suit Returns to State Court
CROWN FOOD: Recalls "Fruit Island" Due to Undeclared Sulfites

DESIGN IDEAS: Recalls 26,900 Rubber Ducky et al. Magnets
EL POLLO: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
FAMILY LINK: Improperly Paid Him Yearly Salary, Worker Claims
FITBIT INC: Recalls Force Activity-Tracking Wristband
FRANCISCO T. MONTAMARTA: Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages

GENERAL MOTORS: Safety Regulators Probe Recall-Related Deaths
GOOGLE INC: Google Buzz Class Action Transferred to California
GRETCHEN'S SHOEBOX: Recalls Yogurt Parfait Due to Mislabeling
HONG LEE: Recalls Young Coconut Candy (Strips) Due to Sulfites
HOUSE OF FLAVORS: Recalls Ice Cream Due to Undeclared Nuts

JOHN EAGLE: Intentionally Refused to Pay Minimum Wages, Suit Says
KIMCHI GRILL: Never Paid Workers Required Minimum Wage, Suit Says
KING'S DAUGHTERS: Former Patients Sue Over Unnecessary Procedures
LENFEST MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Earwax Removal Ad
MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Florida Action Stayed Pending Ruling in NY Case

MEDICREDIT INC: "Prater" Suit Accuses TCPA Violations
MIRABELA NICKEL: Shareholder Class Action Demands Disclosure
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Football Scholarships
NATIONAL UNION: Accused of Illegally Selling Group Insurance
NEW PEKING: Dist. Court Adopts Judge's Ruling in "Shiu" Suit

NET FOOD: Recalls Dried Apricots Due to Undeclared Sulfites
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Calls Class Without Prior Consent, Suit Says
PACKAGING TAPE: Recalls 2,800 Air Movers and Blowers
PACIFIC 9: Sued for Allegedly Misclassifying Port Drivers
PAIN FREE: RecallS "Reumofan Plus" Due to Undeclared Ingredients

PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Lipitor Suit Over Jurisdiction Issues
PFIZER INC: Recalls Effexor Bottles Due to Packaging Error
PLUM ORGANICS: Recalls World Baby Line Pouch Due to Damaged Spouts
PUERTO MADERO: Fails to Pay Class for All OT Hours, Suit Claims
QUAKER OATS: Fairness Hearing in Labeling Suit Moved to June 26

RUSSELL & SMITH: Warehouseman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SANITATION SALVAGE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Says
SHIV SHAKTI: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Bettanin" Suit in Kentucky Over Toning Shoes
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Ivy" Suit in Kentucky Over Shape-Up Shoes

SKECHERS USA: Faces "Woolard" Suit in Kentucky Over Toning Shoes
SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Efficacy of Shapeups, Suit Says
SKECHERS USA: "Morrison" Suit Seeks Damages Relating to Shape-Ups
SKECHERS USA: Toning Shoes Cause Chronic Injuries, Suit Claims
SOMICH DELI: Owes Class Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Claims

STREAM ENERGY: Faces Racketeering Class Action in Houston
TEKTRO USA: Recalls 2,000 Spyre Mechanical Disc Brake Calipers
THERAPEDIC OF NEW ENGLAND: Recalls Mattresses
THORATEC CORP: Updates HeartMate II(R) Label, Training Materials
TNUVA: Facing Class Action for Overcharging White Cheese

UNITED STATES: Vietnam Veterans With PSTD File Class Action
WEISSMAN NOWACK: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Claims
ZLP MANUFACTURING: Recalls Hornet Zip Line Trolleys

* SEBI Opts to Halt Financial Assistance to Class Actions
* WV Lawmakers Say Proposed Rule to Harm Black-Lung Patients


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Accrued $127-Mil. for Mask Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Recorded $25-Mil. for Aero Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Had 2,600 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Insurance Covers Majority of PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Paid & Accrued $278.4-Mil for Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $190MM Net Reserves in 2013
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co-Op City Wants Fibro Removal Mandate Repealed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claimed Life of Torquay Man and Brother
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Melling Station Cleared of Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Settlement Won't Affect Walpole Superfund

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Blocks Salvage, Demolition of Merrimac Mill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Government Issues Fibro Warnings for Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Toxins Make DIY Risky
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sufferers' Adult Children Urged to Contact Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Defense Verdict in Cigar Fibro Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Austin Demolition Raises Fibro Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundreds Displaced After Fibro Find in Apartments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mansfield Care Provider Fined for Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Waste Plan Worries New Zealand MP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Probe Into Fibro Find at Primary School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Files Lung Cancer Case in St. Clair County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corette Power Plant Shuts Down After Fibro Leak
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Released in Explosion, Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County's First 2014 Fibro Trial Begins
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkhamsted Woman Dies of Industrial Disease

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Exposed to Fibro Urged to Contact Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UA Law Alum Wins Largest Ever Ohio Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs' Exposure Experts Take Stand in Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AgustaWestland Directors in Chopper Fibro Probe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Fines Man for Improper Trailer Demolition

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Looks for Answers to Husband's Fibro Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Latrobe Elementary School to Get Fibro Exam
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal/OSHA Halts Work on Palace Hotel in Ukiah
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Inmate's Motion to Amend Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owner Required to Remediate Unsafe Indiana Bldg.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Awarded Summary Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Peraica" Suit Tolled
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Rulings Issued in "Quirin" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avondale Gets Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Interpleader in "Torres" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford May Win Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Awarded to Cummins in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awarded Summary Judgment in NY Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Allen" Suit Remanded to Wash. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Verdict v. Crane Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Affirms Ruling in "Martinez" Suit


                             *********


ACCREDITED ROOFING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Billy E. Bradley, Jr., on his own behalf and all similarly
situated individuals v. Accredited Roofing Technologies, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, and David A. Johnson,
Individually, Case No. 8:14-cv-00210-VMC-TBM (M.D. Fla.,
January 28, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.

Accredited Roofing Technologies, LLC, is a Florida Limited
Liability Company, engaged in the roofing business.  David A.
Johnson managed and operated Accredited.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Jury Trial in No-Poaching Suit Slated for May
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Merritt, writing for EE Times, reports that a jury trial is
slated for May in a class action alleging that Adobe, Apple,
Google and Intel unfairly agreed not to hire one another's
engineers, and that they set pay ceilings based on salary data
they shared.

The suit relies heavily on evidence from a Justice Department
investigation concluded in 2010 that said Intuit, Lucasfilms, and
Pixar used similar practices.

Court documents from the San Jose suit provide details from the
DoJ investigation, including emails in which several top
executives allegedly agreed not to recruit one another's top
employees.  As many as 64,000 programmers and engineers and
billions of dollars in damages may be involved, The New York Times
reported on March 1.

The case shines a light on the intense hunt for talent
concentrated in technology hot spots such as Silicon Valley, where
recruiters cold call the best engineers in rival companies and
offer significant signing bonuses.  Samsung and Baidu are among
the companies expanding here and working to access top engineers.

"It is hard for me to believe that this was the only time this
happened," Joseph R. Saveri, a San Francisco lawyer for the
plaintiffs, told us in an email.  "The companies say they have
these practices in place but they are justified for other
reasons."

The DoJ settled the 2010 case; the companies agreed to end the
practices, but the deal still allowed engineers to sue for
damages.  Intuit, Lucasfilms, and Pixar settled their class action
for $20 million.  The case against the other companies will be
heard by Judge Lucy Koh of the US District Court for the Northern
District of California this spring.

Engineers who worked for the defendant companies from 2005 through
2009 may qualify to join the suit.  They have until March 19 to
file a claim online.

Court documents show several instances in which chief executives
appeared to agree not to recruit one another's engineers, and
their recruiters allegedly created secret do not call lists.  For
example, one email from Bill Campbell (who held positions at
Apple, Intuit, and Google) told Steve Jobs that Eric Schmidt, then
Google's CEO, "got directly involved and firmly stopped all
efforts to recruit anyone from Apple."

In an email dated April 16, 2007, then-Intel CEO Paul Otellini
told an Intel recruiter "I have an unofficial no poaching policy"
with Google.  Mr. Schmidt later told Mr. Otellini, "If we find
that a recruiter called into Intel, we will terminate the
recruiter."

The court documents included snippets from emails between Apple's
Jobs and Ed Colligan, then CEO at Palm.  Mr. Colligan wrote that a
"proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's
employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only
wrong, it is likely illegal."

Mr. Jobs later threatened to file a patent infringement suit
against Palm, according to court documents.  When Mr. Colliagn
held his ground, Jobs responded, "My advice is to take a look at
our patent portfolio before you make a final decision."

The suit also alleges, based on documents and expert reports, that
"the top companies and top employees at these companies set a
ceiling, based on which all or nearly all employees of the
Technical Class's compensation was set."

The case also alleges that Facebook's recruiters targeted top
Google engineers and programmers.  After discovering it was losing
employees to Facebook, Google announced a Big Bang initiative
under which all its salaried employees got a 10% pay increase and
an immediate cash bonus of $1,000, the suit alleges.

The DoJ investigation traced the practices back to a deal between
Lucasfilms and Pixar in the mid-1980s. It said the deals then
spread to Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe.

Job hopping for better salaries and opportunities has long been
common in Silicon Valley.  Reports of skyrocketing pay emerge from
time to time.  For example, the veteran investor Marc Andresseen
said last fall that top engineers at Google could bring down stock
options and bonuses worth a million dollars for delivering
algorithms that boost the company's bottom line.


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating FDCPA in Rhode Island
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Chatelle, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00052-ML-PAS (D.R.I., January 28, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Longo, Esq.
          CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C.
          681 Smith St., Suite 201
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 272-2177
          Facsimile: (401) 537-9185
          E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com

               - and -

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com


AROBERT TONOGBANUA: Pleads Guilty to Altering Asbestos Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a disbarred New Jersey lawyer has pleaded guilty in federal court
to involvement in a scheme to falsify complaints in more than 100
asbestos suits by adding his clients as defendants.

Arobert Tonogbanua, while a partner at the Haddonfield office of
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, obtained copies of legitimate asbestos
complaints filed in New York State courts and altered them by
deleting named defendants and inserting the names of his firm's
clients.  He then forwarded the altered complaint by e-mail or fax
to the firm's clients and their insurance companies.

Mr. Tonogbanua and his colleagues at the firm, who prosecutors say
were unaware of the fraud, then undertook representation of the
clients: conducting depositions, answering discovery and settling
claims.

Prosecutors say Mr. Tonogbanua's actions in more than 100 cases
from 2008 until 2012 generated more than $1 million in fraudulent
fees, costs and settlements.

The information filed by the government against Mr. Tonogbanua
cites a case in which he sent an e-mail to a client with offices
in Connecticut and Missouri, forwarding a doctored complaint and
summons from New York.

U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman in Camden, N.J., accepted
Mr. Tonogbanua's plea of guilty to one count of wire fraud, which
carries a maximum of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

Sentencing is scheduled for June 17.

The Pittsburgh-based firm says it discovered Mr. Tonogbanua's
criminal activity in April 2012 and promptly fired him and
notified the FBI, the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics and the
affected clients.

Mr. Tonogbanua was disbarred by the state Supreme Court last
April.

"Clearly, this shocked those of us who knew and worked with
Mr. Tonogbanua.  We never had any reason to suspect he was engaged
in, or capable of, misconduct," the firm says.

Dickie McCamey says it has reimbursed the affected clients for all
fees paid to the firm on account of the fraud.  They were provided
with copies of audit reports from a forensic accountant hired to
determine the extent of their losses.

Mr. Tonogbanua divided his practice at Dickie McCamey between
immigration law and toxic tort litigation, including asbestos and
silicosis cases.

According to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark, he undertook
the scheme to increase business and raise his standing at the firm
and profited from the scheme by way of increased billings which
led to bonuses and increased compensation.

But his defense lawyer, Michael Miller, of Helmer, Conley &
Kasselman in Turnersville, says, "All the income went directly to
the firm, not to him."

Under the terms of a plea agreement, Mr. Tonogbanua must make
restitution to Dickie McCamey.  Mr. Miller says his client expects
to do by the date of sentencing, although he declines to say how
much Mr. Tonogbanua is required to pay.

Mr. Miller says his client is "looking at the possibility of going
to jail" and adds, "It's tough to predict these things in federal
court; it's much more wide open than in state court."

Mr. Tonogbanua, a native of the Philippines who came to the U.S.
as a child, is a 1996 Temple University School of Law graduate.
Before joining Dickie McCamey, he was with Margolis Edelstein of
Mount Laurel from 1998 to 2006.

The government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Diana
Carrig.


AUTO CITY: Sued for Violating Truth in Lending Act in New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Yardman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Auto City, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00077-JB-KBM
(D.N.M., January 28, 2014) is brought under the Truth in Lending
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard N. Feferman, Esq.
          Nicholas H. Mattison, Esq.
          FEFERMAN & WARREN
          300 Central Avenue SW, Suite 2000 West
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 243-7773
          Facsimile: (505) 243-6663
          E-mail: rfeferman@msn.com
                  nmattison@swcp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lynn Isaacson, Esq.
          P.O. Box 1772
          104 E. Aztec
          Gallup, NM 87305
          Telephone: (505) 722-4463
          Facsimile: (505) 722-2629
          E-mail: tli@milawfirm.net


BAXTER INT'L: Recalls Peritoneal Dialysis Solution Due to Molds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deerfield, Ill.-based Baxter International Inc. has initiated a
voluntary recall in the United States of a single lot of DIANEAL
PD-2 Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 1.5% Dextrose 6000mL (Ambu-
Flex II) to the hospital/user level.  The recall is being
initiated as a result of complaints of particulate matter,
identified as mold, resulting from a leak in the container.

Intraperitoneal administration of a product contaminated with mold
could result in life-threatening fungal peritoneal infection or
sepsis. Baxter has received reports of adverse events for this lot
of DIANEAL PD Solution; no causal relationship has been
established between the events and this recall to date.

DIANEAL is a peritoneal dialysis (PD) solution for use in chronic
renal failure patients being maintained on PD therapy. The one
affected lot is C903799, expiration 05/15 (product code L5B9710),
NDC 00941-0411-11. Product affected by this recall was packaged in
flexible plastic containers and distributed to dialysis centers,
facilities, distributors and patients in the United States.

Baxter notified customers by recall letter to instruct customers
to locate and remove any affected product from their facility. All
patients who received product from the affected lot also were
contacted by recall letter and provided instructions to arrange
for product return. Dialysis centers, facilities, distributors and
patients should stop use and return to place of purchase.

The affected lot was distributed to customers between May 2013 and
January 2014.  Unaffected lot numbers can continue to be used
according to the instructions for use.  Healthcare providers who
received affected product should return it to Baxter for credit by
contacting Baxter Healthcare Center for Service at 1-888-229-0001,
Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., Central Time.  Unaffected lots of product are available for
replacement.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall or requiring
replacement product can call Baxter Home Care Services at 1-800-
284-4060, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. Central Time.  Patients should contact their
physician or PD nurse if they have experienced any problems that
may be related to taking or using this drug product.

Any adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use
of these products may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse
Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

According to the DIANEAL PD Solution product labeling, the
container should be inspected visually for signs of leakage prior
to use. Solutions that are cloudy, discolored, contain visible
particulate matter, or show evidence of leakage should not be
used.

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives
of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, cancer, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a global, diversified healthcare company,
Baxter applies a unique combination of expertise in medical
devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.


CANON USA: Recalls 14,000 PowerShot SX50 HS Digital Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Canon USA Inc., of Melville, NY, Japan, announced a voluntary
recall of about 14,000 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Digital Cameras.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A chemical used in the rubber part of the viewfinders on the
camera can cause skin or eye irritation or an allergic reaction to
the user.

The recall involves the PowerShot SX50 HS is a black compact
digital camera. The words "PowerShot SX50 HS" are printed on the
top of the camera.  The affected cameras have serial numbers
beginning with "69", "70" or "71" and have "1" as the sixth digit
of the serial number.  The serial number is on the side or bottom
of the camera housing.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/wMGdvA

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan by Miyazaki
Daishin Canon Inc., of Miyazaki, Japan, and Nagasaki Canon Inc.,
of Nagasaki, Japan, and sold at camera and mass merchandise
retailers nationwide including OfficeMax, Sam's Club, Staples,
Target and Walmart and on various websites including Amazon.com,
Best Buy.com and BHPhotoVideo.com from October 2013 through
January 2014 for about $430.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cameras and
contact Canon to arrange a free repair.


CLUB ONE LLC: Sued for Not Paying Workers for All Hours Worked
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rashan Abuhamdeh, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Club One, LLC, a California limited
liability corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00415-WHA (N.D. Cal.,
January 28, 2014) arises from Club One's alleged systematic
failure to comply with basic mandates of federal and state
employment laws.

Among other things, Club One has failed to pay its hourly
employees for all hours worked, it has failed to pay overtime, it
has failed to provide meal and rest breaks, it has failed to pay
out the value of accrued PTO on termination of employment, and it
has failed to pay all wages due and owing on termination of
employment, according to the complaint.

Club One, LLC is a California limited liability corporation based
in San Francisco, California.  The Company operates a chain of
fitness clubs, primarily located in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduardo G. Roy, Esq.
          John R. Hurley, Esq.
          PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.
          220 Montgomery Street Suite 1094
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 527-0255
          E-mail: eduardo.roy@prometheus-law.com
                  john.hurley@prometheus-law.com


CONCENTRA INC: Body Recovery Clinic Suit Returns to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
BODY RECOVERY CLINIC LLC, Plaintiff, v. CONCENTRA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. C13-1363RAJ, (W.D. Wash.) is before the court
on a motion from Plaintiff Body Recovery Clinic LLC to remand this
action to King County Superior Court.

Auto Injury Solutions, Inc. had timely removed this case from the
King County Superior Court.  It asserted only traditional
diversity jurisdiction as a basis for removal; it claimed that the
Clinic and it were of diverse citizenship and that the amount in
controversy between them exceeds $75,000. AIS did not invoke the
removal provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act. 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d) (permitting removal of certain class actions in
which the total amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000).

The Clinic moved to remand. The sole factual dispute that the
motion raises is whether the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.

District Judge Richard A. Jones, in an order dated February 19,
2014, granted the motion to remand and directed the clerk to
remand this action to King County Superior Court. A copy of Order
is available at http://is.gd/DBBqhmfrom Leagle.com.


CROWN FOOD: Recalls "Fruit Island" Due to Undeclared Sulfites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Food Distributors, Inc. of North Bergen, NJ is recalling
25 oz. large round plastic containers of "Golden Natural Fruit
Island" because they contain undeclared sulfites and undeclared FD
& C yellow #6.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

"Golden Natural Fruit Island" was distributed to retail stores in
Northern NJ and NY areas.

The product "Golden Natural Fruit Island" comes in a 25 oz. large
round plastic container with sell by date 11/19/14.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the
presence of sulfites and undeclared FD & C yellow #6 in the 25 oz.
package of "Golden Natural Fruit Island" which were not declared
on the label.  The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per
serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some
asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite
sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of
sulfites.

No illnesses or allergic reactions involving this product have
been reported to date. Consumers who have purchased the 25 oz.
package of "Golden Natural Fruit Island" are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact Crown Food Distributors Inc. at (201) 758-
8363.


DESIGN IDEAS: Recalls 26,900 Rubber Ducky et al. Magnets
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Design Ideas Ltd., of Springfield, Ill., announced voluntary
recall of about 21,700 Rubber Ducky Magnets, 3,200 Blowfish
Magnets and 2,000 Splat Magnets. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The small magnets can easily detach from the product. If
swallowed, magnets can link together inside a child's intestines
and clamp onto body tissues, causing intestinal obstructions,
perforations, sepsis and death. Internal injury from magnets can
pose serious lifelong health effects.

No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves miniature office and refrigerator magnets sold
in the shape of a duck, blowfish and a splat. A small magnet is
affixed to the underside of the brightly colored plastic objects
which were sold in sets of four or six. Model number 3205121
(duck), 993205114 (duck), 3205122 (blowfish) or 3205078 (splat) is
printed on the bottom of the packaging. "Magnets" and the Design
Ideas' logo are printed on the front of the package.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/9F4cMh

The recalled prod Rubber ducky magnets were sold at Rubber ducky
magnets were sold at Nordstrom's Rack stores, novelty and gift
stores, book stores and art stores nationwide from March 2007
through September 2013 for about $10. Blowfish magnets were sold
at novelty and gift stores, book stores and art stores nationwide
from March 2007 through March 2011 for about $10. Splat magnets
were sold at CB2 stores, novelty and gift stores, office supply
stores and art stores nationwide from November 2012 to February
2014 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled magnets place
them out of reach of children and contact Design Ideas for a
refund.


EL POLLO: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik on February 24, 2014, filed a class action complaint
against El Pollo Loco, Inc. for allegedly forcing their employees
to work extra time after their shifts ended.  Olvera, et al. vs.
El Pollo Loco, Inc., Case No. 30-2014-00707367 is currently
pending in the San Diego County Superior Court for the State of
California.

According to the class action complaint filed against El Pollo
Loco, the company allegedly failed to pay their hourly employees
for time spent working in El Pollo Loco's California restaurants.
The lawsuit claims that although the hourly employees were
required to stay after and continue to work for El Pollo Loco, the
company allegedly refused to pay the hourly employees for this
time worked, according to the lawsuit.

The San Diego employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
Bhowmik dedicate their employment law practice to helping
employees fight back against violations of California labor laws.


FAMILY LINK: Improperly Paid Him Yearly Salary, Worker Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nana Frimpong-Manson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Family Link Money Transfer, Inc., and
Kwabena Owusu-Dapaah, Case No. 1:14-cv-00593-WFK-MDG (E.D.N.Y.,
January 28, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was improperly paid a
yearly salary of approximately $50,000, regardless of the number
of hours he worked each and every work week.

Mr. Frimpong-Manson works for the Defendants in Bronx, New York,
as a non-exempt office worker.

The Defendants were first licensed in August 2002 with the primary
objective of serving the Ghana money remittance market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Lawrence Office Park
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Building 2, Suite 220
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


FITBIT INC: Recalls Force Activity-Tracking Wristband
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fitbit Inc., of San Francisco, announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,000,000 in the U.S. and about 28,000 in Canada Wireless
activity-tracking wristband.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Users can develop allergic reactions to the stainless steel
casing, materials used in the strap, or adhesives used to assemble
the product, resulting in redness, rashes or blistering where the
skin has been in contact with the tracker.

The firm has received about 9,900 reports of the wristband causing
skin irritation and about 250 reports of blistering.

The recall involves Fitbit ForceTM wireless activity-tracking
wristbands with model numbers FB402BK, FB402BKS, FB402SL and
FB402SLS. The wristband operates as a pedometer, sleep monitor and
watch. It is made of plastic with a stainless steel casing and
clasp and a small LED display screen. The display screen is flush
with the top side of the band and a control button is on one side
of the band. The wristband is about 3/4 inch wide and comes in
large and small sizes and in the colors black or slate. The model
number is on the back of the recalled wristband below the charging
port.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/q6gwTp

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at AT&T,
Apple Stores, Best Buy, Brookstone, Dick's Sporting Goods, Radio
Shack, REI, Sports Authority, Target and other stores nationwide,
and online at Amazon.com and Fitbit.com from October 2013 to
February 2014 for about $130.

Consumers should contact Fitbit for a full refund.


FRANCISCO T. MONTAMARTA: Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ivonne Villagra, and others similarly-situated v. Francisco T.
Montamarta, DDS, P.A., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Dentalmed
Associates, and Dr. Francisco T. Montamarta, Case No. 0:14-cv-
60221-KMM (S.D. Fla., January 28, 2014) seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of the United
States.

Francisco T. Montamarta, DDS, P.A., is a Florida corporation,
doing business as Dentalmed Associates.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eddy O. Marban, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
          1600 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Safety Regulators Probe Recall-Related Deaths
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Klayman, Bernie Woodall, James B. Kelleher, Eric Beech,
Richard Valdmanis and Edward Taylor, writing for Reuters, report
that U.S. safety regulators have opened an investigation into
whether General Motors Co reacted fast enough in its recall of
more than 1.6 million cars over an ignition-switch defect linked
to 13 deaths in crashes.

The issue could prove costly to GM as the automaker faces a
potential fine from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the cost of replacing the ignition switches in
question and the possibility of costly lawsuits.

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened an
investigation into the timeliness of General Motors' recall of
faulty ignition switches to determine whether GM properly followed
the legal processes and requirements for reporting recalls," the
safety agency said in a statement released on Wednesday.

GM, which went through a bankruptcy restructuring in 2009, could
face a maximum fine of $35 million if it failed to notify NHTSA
within five days of a recall after learning of a vehicle safety
defect.  The company did not say how much the recall would cost,
but LMC Automotive analyst Jeff Schuster said the biggest cost to
the automaker could result from the flurry of lawsuits likely to
be triggered by the defect and the company's actions.

Toyota Motor Corp. last year paid more than $1 billion to resolve
economic-loss claims related to the recall of millions of vehicles
for unintended acceleration.  The Japanese automaker is still
trying to settle personal-injury lawsuits.

GM's recall was to correct a condition that may allow the engine
and other components, including front airbags, to be
unintentionally turned off.

GM previously said the weight on the key ring, road conditions or
some other jarring event may cause the ignition switch to move out
of the "run" position, turning off the engine and most of the
car's electrical components.

NHTSA urged owners to follow GM's recommendation to "use only the
ignition key with nothing else on the key ring" when operating the
vehicle and seek the repair as soon as replacement parts become
available.  GM said the initial replacement parts will be
available in early April.  NHTSA said it will monitor the recall
and take additional action as needed.  Up to now, Toyota Motor
Corp. and Ford Motor Co. have paid the largest fines of more than
$17 million to NHTSA for delaying recalls.

On Feb. 25 GM more than doubled its recall related to the issue,
saying it was "deeply sorry" and that the company was reviewing
its recall process, acknowledging it was not as "robust as it
should have been.  GM said then that it was aware of 31 reported
incidents, including 13 front-seat fatalities, involving frontal
crashes in which the condition may have caused or contributed to
the front airbags not deploying.

On Feb. 27, GM Chief Executive Mary Barra declined to address the
issue at an event in Boston.  But the company said in a statement:
"We deeply regret the events that led to the recall and this
investigation.  As our detailed chronology indicates, we intend to
fully cooperate with NHTSA and we welcome the opportunity to help
the agency have a full understanding of the facts."

GM previously said all the crashes occurred off-road and at high
speeds, where the probability of serious or fatal injuries was
high regardless of airbag deployment.  Failure to wear seat belts
and alcohol use also were factors in some cases, the company said.

Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety,
a Washington advocacy group that pushed for the wider recall, said
the whole recall system is broken.  "GM doesn't get a get-out-of-
jail-free card just because NHTSA did a sloppy job," he said.

In light of GM's bigger recall, U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, a
Democrat from Massachusetts, on Feb. 26 called on NHTSA to require
automakers to provide detailed information to the agency when they
become aware of accidents involving deaths.  He said GM was aware
of fatal accidents in Maryland and Wisconsin in 2005 and 2006
involving safety issues and notified dealers, but did not recall
the vehicles involved.

"The current early warning reporting system is too little, too
late," he said in a statement.  "We need to overhaul the early
warning reporting system so that NHTSA is not looking at auto
defects through a rear-view mirror."

David Strickland, who was head of NHTSA from January 2010 until
December 2013 and oversaw NHTSA's investigation of Toyota, said it
was too soon to blame NHSTA for failing to act sooner.

Mr. Strickland, now a partner at Venable LLP, a law firm that
represents the auto industry, said the agency's probe will focus
more on the timeliness of GM's response to the problem than on the
number of deaths or injuries related to the ignition issue.

"They'll try to figure out when the manufacturer knew it had a
defect that posed a risk to safety," he said.

Kelley Blue Book senior analyst Arthur Henry said recalls
typically do not hurt automakers' brand image.  GM's recall and
the media fervor around it is reminiscent of what Toyota went
through in 2009 and 2010, he said, when it recalled more than 19
million vehicles globally related to unintended acceleration.

"Toyota has shown that a brand can recover from an incident like
this and what may help GM is the fact that the majority of the
models recalled are discontinued," he said.  "This may dissolve
any negative projection toward its new products."

GM has said it was recalling 778,562 Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac
G5 compact cars from model years 2005 through 2007.  On Feb. 25,
it added 842,103 Saturn Ion compact cars from 2003 through 2007
model years, Chevy HHR mid-sized vehicles from 2006 and 2007, and
the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky sports cars from 2006 and
2007.

A spokesman for GM's Europe unit, Opel, said the 2007 Opel GT
Roadster, which was based on the same platform as the Solstice and
Sky, also is affected, adding around 2,300 more vehicles to the
recall.

GM no longer makes any of the affected cars.  It previously said
it is working with suppliers to increase production of replacement
parts.  GM said the ignition switch torque performance may not
meet company specifications.  The involved parts were made in
Mexico, according to documents previously filed with NHTSA.

Of the cars recalled, 1,367,146 vehicles are in the United States,
235,855 are in Canada, 15,073 are in Mexico and 2,591 were
exported outside North America, according to GM.

GM said in documents filed with NHTSA that it first learned of the
issue in 2004, around the time of the 2005 Cobalt launch with a
report of at least one incident where a Cobalt lost engine power
because the key moved out of the "run" position.

The company later issued a bulletin alerting dealers to advise
owners of the issue.

In March 2007, NHTSA officials alerted GM to a fatal Cobalt crash
from July 2005 in which the front airbags did not deploy,
according to the NHTSA documents.  While GM's legal department had
opened a file on that crash in September 2005, GM employees
meeting with NHTSA in 2007 were unaware of the crash.

In late July 2011, a meeting of GM legal staff and engineers led
to an investigation of crashes in which airbags did not deploy,
according to the NHTSA documents.


GOOGLE INC: Google Buzz Class Action Transferred to California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit against Google regarding Google Buzz has been
transferred from New York to California.

The lawsuit was originally filed on Jan. 8, 2013, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on Feb. 10.

Albert Rudgayzer, Michael Amalfitano and Lillian Ganci claim
Google Buzz was launched on Feb. 9, 2010, and Gmail users who
signed into their Gmail accounts on that day were taken to a
screen that announced Google Buzz and highlighted its features.

Google did not disclose that even if users chose not to check out
Google Buzz, they still had information made publicly available
and that those lists might later be posted on a user's public
Google profile, exposing the list of people with whom a user
chatted or emailed most often, according to the suit.

"In addition to publicizing lists of followers, Google Buzz
searched for and acquired pictures, video, text and other data
that users had posted to websites, such as Picasa and YouTube,"
the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim Google Buzz automatically sent those posts to
the email accounts of the users' frequent email contacts without
the users' knowledge or authorization.  The option to turn off
Google Buzz was in small type at the bottom of the Gmail home page
after login, the plaintiffs say.  However, clicking that link only
removed the Buzz tab from the user's Gmail page and users
continued to appear as a "follower" on the Google profiles and
Google Buzz pages of the people whom they e-mailed the most,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim by sharing users' follower/following lists
with the users' followers and making follower/following lists
publicly searchable on the Internet, Google knowingly divulged the
contents of communications while those communications were in
electronic storage, in violation of the Stores Communications Act.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
They are being represented by Todd C. Bank of the Law Office of
Todd C. Bank.

Google is being represented by Rebecca S. Engrav --
REngrav@perkinscoie.com -- Susan D. Fahringer --
SFahringer@perkinscoie.com -- and Dennis C. Hopkins --
DHopkins@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins Coie LLP.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Paul Singh Grewal.

Google is currently facing two privacy cases in California federal
court, one for allegedly scanning private emails for information
and another for intercepting wireless Internet connections while
gathering information for the Street View mapping service.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 5:14-cv-00673


GRETCHEN'S SHOEBOX: Recalls Yogurt Parfait Due to Mislabeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the utmost caution and care for our customers, Gretchen's
Shoebox Express in Seattle, Washington, is initiating a voluntary
recall of a limited number of Greek Yogurt Raspberry & Lemon
Parfait cups sold under the Starbucks brand in Seattle and
Portland regional Starbucks stores because the product was
mislabeled and failed to declare the presence of eggs, an
allergen. Persons who have an allergy or sensitivity to egg run
the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product.

This limited voluntary recall is being conducted with the
knowledge of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

This recall was immediately initiated after the mislabeling was
discovered by the company and the product was removed from the
relevant Starbucks stores in the Seattle and Portland regions.
These are the only regions affected by this recall.

The product being recalled is sold in 6.1 oz plastic cups, with a
white code date sticker on the back of the cup, stating "Enjoy by
03 05". Only this lot of product is affected by the recall, no
other date codes of product were affected and no other yogurt
parfaits were affected.

There have been no reported illnesses attributed to this product.

Anyone who has the recalled product in their possession should not
consume it and should destroy or discard the product. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 206-623-8194 Monday -
Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Pacific Time). Media may contact the
company at (206) 318-7100.

A picture of the recalled product is available at:

     http://is.gd/yKGiyB


HONG LEE: Recalls Young Coconut Candy (Strips) Due to Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hong Lee Trading Inc., at 225 Johnson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11206
is recalling "Mut Dua Non" Young Coconut Candy (Strips) because it
contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity
to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled "Mut Dua Non" Young Coconut Candy (Strips) comes in
an un-coded, 10.6oz. (300 gram), plastic container.  The product
was sold in the New York City area. The UPC code is:
8935054702377. It is a product of Vietnam.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of "Mut Dua Non"
Young Coconut Candy (Strips) that did not declare sulfites on the
label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving
has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.

Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illness have been reported to date in connection with this
problem. Consumers who have purchase "Mut Dua Non" Young Coconut
Candy (Strips) should return it to the place of purchase.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at (718) 386-
2100.


HOUSE OF FLAVORS: Recalls Ice Cream Due to Undeclared Nuts
----------------------------------------------------------
House of Flavors Ice Cream Company, based in Ludington, Michigan,
is recalling its Belmont Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Ice Cream
because its ingredients may include an undeclared nut allergen.
Consumers who may have an allergy or severe sensitivity to nuts
run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product. The Belmont Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough
Ice Cream was only distributed in Aldi stores in Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. The recall was initiated after
receiving two complaints of chocolate covered nuts found in the
product and included associated allergic reaction from consumers
allergic to nuts. The company is working to determine the type of
nut allergen and conducting an internal audit to determine
possible cause.

Only Belmont Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Ice Cream packed in 1.5
quart containers stamped with UPC code 4149816310 and date code
13340 and 13341 and marked "Best by Date: Dec. 7, 2014" are
affected by the recall.

No other Aldi products or are any other Belmont Chocolate Chip
Cookie Dough Ice Cream or other Belmont Ice Cream products are
affected by the recall.

House of Flavors it is taking precautionary steps, including
removing all potentially impacted products from retail store
shelves and the entire distribution system.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products should return
them to the store where they were purchased for a full refund.
Anyone requiring more information should contact House of Flavors
consumer affairs at 1-800-930-7740, extension 2229, Monday through
Friday 7 a.m. until 5 pm. (EST).


JOHN EAGLE: Intentionally Refused to Pay Minimum Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Armando Rodriguez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. John Eagle Sport City Motors, LLP f/k/a John
Eagle Sport City Motors, L.L.C. d/b/a John Eagle Sport City
Toyota, Case No. 3:14-cv-00334-D (N.D. Tex., January 28, 2014)
accuses the Defendant of willfully and intentionally refusing to
pay the Plaintiff's minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

John Eagle Sport City Motors, LLP, formerly known as John Eagle
Sport City Motors, L.L.C., and doing business as John Eagle Sport
City Toyota, is a company that regularly transacts business within
Dallas County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net


KIMCHI GRILL: Never Paid Workers Required Minimum Wage, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rami Ahmad, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Kimchi Grill, and Philip Lee, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00597-NGG-RLM (E.D.N.Y., January 28, 2014) alleges that the
Plaintiff was never paid the required minimum wage, nor was he
ever properly paid at time and one half of the minimum wage.  The
Plaintiff works for the Defendants in Broooklyn, New York, as a
nonexempt local delivery driver, cleaner, and all around helper.

The Defendants own and operate several locations where they
create, serve, and deliver food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Building 2, Suite 220
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Glenn Sklaire Grindlinger, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 878-7900
          Facsimile: (212) 692-0940
          E-mail: ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com


KING'S DAUGHTERS: Former Patients Sue Over Unnecessary Procedures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Nandy, writing for WOWK-TV, reports that King's Daughters
Medical Center is again a defendant, this time in two identical
lawsuits filed on March 4.

Each lawsuit lists about 300 plaintiffs, alleging civil
conspiracy, gross negligence, lack of informed consent and
negligent misrepresentation.  They are claiming that doctors at
KDMC did unnecessary cardiac procedures on them, namely heart
stenting, that left them in physical and emotional pain, and wary
of doctors.

"There are a number of complications that arise from operating on
people that don't need to be operating on," says Hans Poppe, the
Louisville attorney who filed the suits.  "The first and foremost
is a loss of trust in medical providers."

Mr. Poppe tells 13 News' Ben Nandy that several of the plaintiffs
were examined by a "neutral local doctor" who examined records and
concluded that the procedures were not needed.

"That doctor came to the opinion that those procedures were
unnecessary, unjustified, and medically inappropriate," says
Mr. Poppe.  "They are illegally using medicare, medicaid and
insurance funds to line their own pockets by doing procedures on
people who don't need them."

KDMC officials issued a statement saying they were expecting the
lawsuits and that they did not contain a lot of information, so
they cannot give any specific comment.

The statement went on to read: "As a hospital, we handle medical
malpractice cases as needed and will process these claims using
normal, established procedures. Unfortunately, this is an enormous
burden on our local judicial system and ultimately diverts
resources away from our community . . . King's Daughters intends
to defend the care provided by our cardiac program, of which we
are very proud, and which has been recognized for its patient care
and quality outcomes."


LENFEST MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Earwax Removal Ad
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against the makers of WaxVac,
an earwax removal product that is billed as a safer alternative to
traditional cotton swabs.

The lead plaintiffs in the case, Marc Weinstein and H. Thomas
Ferguson, allege that despite promises to the contrary, the
product fails to remove dirt particles and moisture from the ear
canal as intended.

The consumer rights class action accuses the defendant, King of
Prussia, Pa.-based Lenfest Media Group, of failing to deliver on
its promise that the WaxVac is the superior alternative to Q-Tips.

The complaint says that for the thousands, if not millions, of
consumers who have purchased the WaxVac, the product does not work
as promised.  The device is designed to draw dirt and moisture out
of the ears rather than pushing it in the ear, such is the case
with cotton swabs.

The defendant says it created the device after medical
professionals began warning of the dangers associated with
inserting cotton swabs into the ear.

The complaint says that the defendant marketed WaxVac using
deceptive advertising and packaging, something that caught the eye
of the federal Food and Drug Administration, which sent a warning
letter to Lenfest in July 2013 requesting that it "immediately
cease activities that result in the misbranding or adulteration of
the WaxVac . . ."

Despite the FDA's admonishment, however, the defendant continues
to use the same claims in its marketing campaign to this day.

The complaint contains counts of unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.  The suit also
accuses the defendant of violating state consumer protection laws
and the Magnuson-Moss Act, which governs warranties on consumer
products. The complaint seeks class action certification, stating
that the number of proposed class members numbers in the
thousands, if not tens of thousands.  It also says potential
damages could exceed $5 million.

The plaintiffs seek to have a judge order Lenfest to stop selling
WaxVac.  They also seek a declaration that the product was
negligently designed and manufactured.  Compensatory damages are
also sought as are attorneys' fees, costs, interest and equitable
relief.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia on
Feb. 28 by Jenkintown, Pa. attorneys Brian M. Felgoise and Amir
Stark, of the Felgoise Law Firm, and Merion Station, Pa. lawyer
Marc S. Henzel.

The federal case number is 2:14-cv-01251-ER.


MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Florida Action Stayed Pending Ruling in NY Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert L. Hinkle issued an order staying the case
captioned AMANDA McLEOD, etc., Plaintiff, v. MAIDENFORM BRANDS,
INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13CV661-RH/CAS, (N.D. Fla.).

This proposed class action involves claims that are virtually
identical to claims asserted in an earlier-filed proposed class
action in the Eastern District of New York. The proposed class
members and defendants in the two actions are the same. The
defendant Wacoal America, Inc. has moved to dismiss, transfer, or
stay this action in deference to the New York action.

Judge Hinkle denied the motion to dismiss or transfer but stayed
further proceedings.

"While the stay remains in effect, each party must file a notice
by the last day of each February and August, beginning with August
2014, briefly setting out the status of the New York action. But
if one notice has been filed, no party is obligated to file an
additional notice," ruled Judge Hinkle.  "Each party must file a
notice of any ruling in the New York action affecting whether this
Florida case may go forward. But if one notice has been filed, no
party is obligated to file an additional notice," he added.

A copy of the District Court's February 19, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/2tGK4ufrom Leagle.com.


MEDICREDIT INC: "Prater" Suit Accuses TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
John Prater, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Medicredit, Inc. and The Outsource Group, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-
00159-NCC (E.D. Mo., January 28, 2014) alleges violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony E. LaCroix, Esq.
          LACROIX LAW FIRM
          4235 Baltimore Ave.
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 399-4380
          Facsimile: (816) 399-4380
          E-mail: tony@lacroixlawkc.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Gkades Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          E-mail: mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott J. Dickenson, Esq.
          LATHROP AND GAGE, LLP
          7701 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 500
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 613-2800
          Facsimile: (314) 613-2801
          E-mail: sdickenson@lathropgage.com


MIRABELA NICKEL: Shareholder Class Action Demands Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Cole, writing for The Australian, reports that MBN Class
Action Group, a group of about 30 Mirabela Nickel shareholders,
have written to the nickel miner's administrator KordaMentha
asking if the company "engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct
and failed to disclose to the market its true debt position"
before its shares were suspended from trading on the ASX on
October 7 last year.

"If Mirabela Nickel was insolvent or likely to become insolvent
then this was not disclosed to shareholders," says a letter by the
group obtained by Data Room.  "In fact they claim they had $80
million in cash alone as at August 31, just a few weeks prior to
suspending shares."

Mbn Class Action Group is unhappy that noteholders now control the
company under a February 25 agreement between the company and
holders of its US$395 million, 8.75 per cent senior, unsecured
notes which are due April 15, 2018.  The restructuring and
recapitalization of Mirabela effectively transfers "all equity
value from shareholders to creditors."

"It appears as though it was a step-by-step plan to enter in to a
deal with creditors, locking shareholders in without prior warning
of any impending or likely insolvency," says the Mbn Class Action
Group letter.  "It is our opinion that some shareholders may have
received a priority allotment of shares in the new reorganized
Mirabela, thereby materially prejudicing other shareholders."

The group wants to know who Mirabela's new controlling
shareholders are.

"There has been no disclosure of who the new shareholders are by
Mirabela Nickel, in fact they have deliberately blacked out all
the names on their recent announcement," says the letter.  "We
believe it is our right to know if any directors, or existing
shareholders, have been given an unfair advantage."

KordaMentha made the following statement to Data Room in response
to the Mbn Action Group letter.

"One of the statutory roles of administrators is to investigate
possible breaches of the law, including any failure on the part of
directors to fulfill their duties," said KordaMentha.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Football Scholarships
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that a plaintiffs
firm already engaged in class action litigation with the National
Collegiate Athletic Association is targeting the sports
organization once again, this time over the issue of football
scholarships.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro on March 5 sued the NCAA and five of
the nation's biggest collegiate athletic conferences on behalf of
a former football player who said the organizations colluded to
cap the value of scholarships below the actual cost of attending
member schools.

Former West Virginia University running back Shawne Alston is the
named plaintiff in the putative class action, which would include
all scholarship football athletes who have played in the five
named conferences since February 2010.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, contends that Mr. Alston's athletic
scholarship was worth "substantially less" than what it cost to
attend the Morgantown, W.Va., campus.  While "grants-in-aid"
typically cover tuition, fees, books, housing and meals, they
don't include money for trips home, laundry or other incidental
expenses.  Mr. Alston, now pursuing a master's in business
administration, said he needed to take out a $5,500 loan in his
final year at West Virginia to pay the bills, even though he was
receiving a "full-ride" scholarship.

"The NCAA's conduct violates the federal antitrust laws," Hagens
Berman partner Jon King -- jonk@hbsslaw.com -- wrote in the
complaint.  "The artificial cap on grants-in-aid is set well below
what schools would choose to offer to athletes in the absence of
collusion.  And it is clear that among members of the Power
Conference Defendants, non-collusive scholarship offers would rise
to at least cover the full Cost of Attendance, and likely much
more."

Donald Remy, the NCAA's chief legal officer, said in an email
Wednesday afternoon that his organization was "evaluating" the
lawsuit "as it relates to similar cases filed by the very same
plaintiffs' counsel."

Hagens Berman also represents Alston in a New Jersey federal court
lawsuit challenging video game maker Electronic Arts for its use
of college athletes' likenesses.  Hagens Berman attorneys are also
leading plaintiffs' claim in a Northern District class action
challenging the NCAA's ban on athletes profiting from the use of
their names and images in video games.

The athletic conferences named in the lawsuit filed on March 5 are
the Big Ten, the Big 12, the Southeastern, the Atlantic Coast and
the Pac-12, which includes UC-Berkeley and Stanford University.


NATIONAL UNION: Accused of Illegally Selling Group Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------
Arie Waiserman v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA, d/b/a National Union Fire Insurance Company,
American International Group, Inc. (AIG), Healthextras, Inc.,
Healthextras, Llc, Healthextras Benefits Administrators, Inc.,
Catamaran Health Solutions, LLC, f/k/a Catalyst Health Solutions,
Inc., Healthextras Insurance Agency, Inc., Alliant Insurance
Services, Inc., f/k/a Driver Alliant Insurance Services, Inc.,
Alliant Services Houston, Inc., f/k/a JLT Services Corporation,
Alliant Insurance Services Houston, LLC, f/k/a Capital Risk, LLC,
f/k/a Jardine Lloyd Thompson, LLC, and Virginia Surety Company,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00667-SVW-CW (C.D. Cal., January 28, 2014)
arises from the alleged wrongful conduct of the Defendants toward
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in the state of
California and the United States of America, including:

   (a) the illegal selling and underwriting of group insurance to
       consumers, who were not members of any lawful, blanket
       group for which the sale of the insurance product could be
       authorized; and

   (b) the false and deceptive advertising, solicitation, sale,
       and post-sale marketing of disability insurance that is
       illegal under California law.

Arie Waisennan, is a resident of Reseda, California, who purchased
and entered into an insurance contract, which was advertised under
the name HealthExtras, with the Defendants that purportedly
provided him with a $1,000,000 lump sum Accidental Permanent and
Total Disability Benefit in the event that he became permanently
disabled and could not return to work.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, doing
business as National Union Fire Insurance Company, is a member of
American International Group, Inc.  National Union is a
Pennsylvania corporation based in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Paul Sizemore, Esq.
          Laurie E. Kamerrer, Esq.
          SIZEMORE LAW FIRM, PLC
          2101 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3290,
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 322-8811
          E-mail: paul@sizemorelawfirm.com
                  kamerrer@sizemorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq.
          HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C.
          5613 Duraleigh Road, Suite 151
          PO Box 90698
          Raleigh, NC 27675
          Telephone: (919) 277-0161
          Facsimile: (919) 277-0162
          E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com

               - and -

          Joseph Jay H. Aughtman, Esq.
          AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          1772 Platt Place
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 215-9873
          Facsimile: (334) 213-5663
          E-mail: jay@aughtmanlaw.com

Defendants National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA
and American International Group Inc. are represented by:

          Sean A. Commons, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West Fifth Street Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: scommons@sidley.com

Defendant Virginia Surety Company Inc. is represented by:

          Neal R. Marder, Esq.
          Ali R. Rabbani, Esq.
          Shawn R. Obi, Esq.
          Stephen R. Smerek, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 615-1700
          Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
          E-mail: nmarder@winston.com
                  arabbani@winston.com
                  sobi@winston.com
                  ssmerek@winston.com


NEW PEKING: Dist. Court Adopts Judge's Ruling in "Shiu" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
MAN WEI SHIU and DAN FENG LIN, Plaintiffs, v. NEW PEKING TASTE
INC. d/b/a New Peking Taste Restaurant, GEN XU SHU,) XIAO MEI
WANG, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, ABC CORPORTATION, Defendants, NO. 11-CV-
1175 (NGG) (RLM), (E.D.N.Y.) filed in March 2011, alleges numerous
violations of federal and state employment law arising from their
employment at Defendant New Peking Taste Restaurant, owned by
Defendant Xu and his wife, Defendant Wang. In 2012, the court
struck Defendants' Answer because they had failed to comply with
discovery obligations. The Clerk of Court subsequently noted their
default, and Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. The court
referred this motion to Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann. On
October 24, 2013, Judge Mann filed her report and recommendations
that the court grant the motion for default and award $16,365.00
in damages to Plaintiff Shui, $18,806.94 in damages to Plaintiff
Lin, and $17,454.46 in attorney's fees and costs for both
Plaintiffs. The Defendants subsequently objected, but only as to
the damage calculations.

In a February 11, 2014 Memorandum and Order entered by District
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/D7QpIgfrom Leagle.com, Judge Garaufis adopted in
full Judge Mann's Oct. 24 report and recommendations.

The court agrees with Judge Mann's assessment of the evidence
relating to damages, and thus, awards $16,365.00 in damages to
Plaintiff Shui, $18,806.94 in damages to Plaintiff Lin and
$17,454.46 in attorney's fees and costs for both plaintiffs. The
Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment and close this case.


NET FOOD: Recalls Dried Apricots Due to Undeclared Sulfites
-----------------------------------------------------------
Net Foods Import & Export at 711 2nd Street, Secaucus, NJ 07094 is
recalling Net Food Brand Turkey Diced Apricots because they
contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic
reactions if the consume this product.

The recalled Net Food Brand Turkey Dried Apricots comes in 16.1
oz. clear plastic containers with the following UPC Code
8697445250019. The product was sold nationwide and is a product of
Turkey.

The recall was initiated after a routine sampling by the NYS
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of Net Food Brand
Turkey Dried Apricots which did not declare sulfites on the label.

The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to cause severe reactions in some asthmatics. Analysis of
the dried apricots revealed they contained 4955 ppm per serving.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with the
problem. Consumers who have purchased Net Food Brand Turkey Dried
Apricots should return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 347-
484-2256, Sevki Uzundal, Net Food Import & Export.


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Calls Class Without Prior Consent, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-
00636-PSG-CW (C.D. Cal., January 28, 2014) alleges that that
Defendant called the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone without
her prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Northstar Location Services, LLC is a New York limited liability
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joan M. Borzcik, Esq.
          Kimberly Diane Howatt, Esq.
          GORDON AND REES LLP
          101 West Broadway, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
          E-mail: jborzcik@gordonrees.com
                  khowatt@gordonrees.com


PACKAGING TAPE: Recalls 2,800 Air Movers and Blowers
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Packaging Tape Inc. of Wausau, Wis., announced a voluntary recall
of about 2,800 air movers/blowers. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The air mover/blower's thermal switch can fail and cause the motor
to overheat, posing a fire hazard.

Packaging Tape is aware of eight reports of incidents, including
four reports of fire, one of which was associated with about
$225,000 reported in property damage.

The recall involves air movers/blowers that are used to dry floors
in commercial and residential buildings. The air movers' molded
plastic housing measures about 18 inches high by 18 inches deep by
16.5 inches wide and has a 25-foot yellow electrical cord. They
have an on/off switch located on the left side of the front of the
unit. Models OPS-2500-CF and OPS-2500-CFR are black and model OPS-
2200Y-CF is yellow. The model number is available on the sales
invoice.  The CleanFreak.com logo and phone number are printed on
a white label with green lettering on the front of the unit and on
a silver or yellow label on the back of the unit.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/pewC0C

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
at Packaging Tape warehouses in Wisconsin and online at
www.CleanFreak.com, www.AirMovers.com,www.FloorBuffers.com  and
www.PTIPackaging.com from February 2008 through December 2010 for
about $145.  The importer is OPS America, of Loretto, Minn.

User should stop using the recalled air movers/blowers and contact
Packaging Tape to receive a full refund.


PACIFIC 9: Sued for Allegedly Misclassifying Port Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Hawes, writing for Land Line, reports that two new class
action lawsuits have been filed against two Southern California-
based drayage companies by a former port driver who worked for
both companies.

This comes just days after a report was released by labor groups,
which was critical of port companies that allegedly misclassify
port drivers as independent contractors.

The companies named in separate class action complaints were
Pacific 9 Transportation Inc. of Carson, Calif., and Coast Bridge
Logistics Inc. of Compton, Calif.  Both drayage companies haul
containers to and from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

The named plaintiff in both cases is Victor Castro, who drove for
both Pacific 9 and Coast Bridge.  The similar complaints state
that both companies misclassify drivers as independent
contractors, fail to pay wages and overtime and fail to provide
meal and rest breaks to its employee drivers and crew members.

According to court documents, both complaints seek to include
members in the class, including current and former port drivers of
both companies, dating back four years prior to the filing of the
suits.

Mr. Castro claims in both complaints that the companies employed
him and others as independent contractors "even though the work
performed and conditions of employment were that of an employee."

Mr. Castro maintains that the port workers drove company-owned
trucks.  The company "directs and controls the way the drivers
perform their work, including controlling their schedule, where
they deliver product and how they work."

The lawsuits were filed on Feb. 24 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Cheryl Bame, public relations spokeswoman for the law firm
Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP of Los Angeles, Calif., told Land Line
recently that this is the fourth class action lawsuit the firm has
filed against Southern California-based trucking companies
regarding misclassification claims.

Ms. Bame said Pacific 9 pays its drivers a fixed price per
delivery, but does not provide "any employee benefits because they
wrongfully misclassify them as independent contractors.

"In fact, the employees are controlled . . . and cannot be
reasonably characterized as independent contractors," Ms. Bame
told Land Line in late February.  She said Mr. Castro, who worked
for Pacific 9 and Coast Bridge, is bringing these actions "to
recover lost wages as a result of this wrongful practice."


PAIN FREE: RecallS "Reumofan Plus" Due to Undeclared Ingredients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Woodland Park, CO-based Pain Free By Nature is recalling "Reumofan
Plus" Tablets purchased through their website at
www.painfreebynature.com because they contain undeclared active
pharmaceutical ingredients: methocarbamol and diclofenac.  Use of
this product could result in serious and life-threatening
injuries.

Reumofan Plus is used as a treatment for muscle pain, arthritis,
osteoporosis, bone cancer and other conditions. This product comes
in thirty (30) tablet containers and is packaged in a green and
gold box. Reumofan Plus was distributed nationwide through
internet sales.

The recall was initiated after the US Food and Drug Administration
discovered that the product was distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of the active pharmaceutical ingredients,
making it an unapproved drug.

Pain Free By Nature did not manufacture the product but did
distribute to customers nationwide. Distribution has been
completely terminated by the company.

Consumers that have Reumofan Plus should be aware that the product
may pose a serious health risk. Consumers who are taking these
products or who have recently stopped taking Reumofan Plus should
immediately consult a health care professional. Consumers who have
purchased the thirty (30) tablet containers of Reumofan Plus are
urged to return all unopened bottles to; Pain Free By Nature, LLC,
Attn: Nilsen, 211 West 11th Street, Harper, KS, 67058. Refunds
will be mailed immediately following processing.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at (719) 235-
8864, Monday thru Friday, between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00p.m. MST.
Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting Program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

     * Online: http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm

     * Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm
Mail to address on the pre-addressed form.

     * Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the US Food
and Drug Administration.


PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Lipitor Suit Over Jurisdiction Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that 261 women who blame
Lipitor for diabetes sued drug maker Pfizer in the wrong court,
U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert ruled.  Judge Gilbert dismissed
their suit on Feb. 25, after St. Louis lawyer John Driscoll passed
up a chance to correct jurisdictional defects.  Judge Gilbert
dismissed it without prejudice, so plaintiffs can sue elsewhere.

Mr. Driscoll filed the suit on Feb. 7, for 23 women from Texas, 21
from Florida, 17 from Missouri, 16 from Ohio, 15 from New York, 14
from North Carolina, 11 each from Maryland and Kentucky, ten from
Georgia, nine each from Mississippi, Alabama, and West Virginia,
seven each from Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and
California, and 61 from 21 other states and the District of
Columbia.  He claimed Pfizer concealed the relationship between
Lipitor and diabetes.

"At all times, defendant knew or should have known that Lipitor
was and is hazardous to human health," the suit alleges.

Mr. Driscoll argued that the court could exercise jurisdiction
"because defendant is present in the State of Illinois."

"Requiring defendant to litigate this claim in Illinois does not
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
and is permitted by the United States Constitution," he wrote.

Judge Gilbert didn't permit it.  On Feb. 12, he ordered Mr.
Driscoll to amend the complaint.

"A pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction," Judge Gilbert wrote.  "The
plaintiffs' pleading lacks such a statement.

"A corporation is a citizen of both the state of its principal
place of business and the state of its incorporation.

"The relevant pleading must affirmatively allege the specific
states of incorporation and principal place of business of a
corporate party.

"The complaint fails to allege the defendant's citizenship."

He wrote that jurisdiction further requires a minimum amount in
controversy.

"The complaint fails to allege the amount in controversy in this
case," Judge Gilbert wrote.

No new complaint arrived, and Judge Gilbert dismissed the original
for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute.

A separate mass action from Mr. Driscoll started in federal court
but hasn't proceeded.

On Dec. 13, he sued drug maker Bayer for 44 women claiming
injuries from Mirena, a flexible plastic contraceptive device.
The docket showed no further entries as of March 4, not even for
issuing a summons.

Eight plaintiffs in that suit came from North Carolina, five from
Texas, three from Ohio, and two each from Georgia, Pennsylvania,
California, Arizona, Missouri, Montana, Michigan, and South
Dakota.  South Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, New Hampshire,
Kentucky, Oregon, Illinois, Nebraska, Washington, New York,
Tennessee, and Maryland each produced a plaintiff.


PFIZER INC: Recalls Effexor Bottles Due to Packaging Error
----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is voluntarily recalling one lot of 30-count Effexor
XR(R) (venlafaxine HCl) 150 mg extended-release capsules, one lot
of 90-count Effexor XR (venlafaxine HCl) 150 mg extended-release
capsules and one lot of 90-count Greenstone LLC-branded
Venlafaxine HC1 150 mg extended-release capsules.

This action is being taken because of a pharmacist report that one
bottle of Pfizer's Effexor XR contained one capsule of Tikosyn(R)
(dofetilide) 0.25mg in addition to the Effexor XR capsules.

Although Pfizer has not received any other such reports, these
three lots are being voluntarily recalled as a precaution because
they were packaged on the same line.

The use of Tikosyn by an Effexor XR/Venlafaxine HCl patient, where
the contraindications and drug-drug interactions with Tikosyn have
not been considered by the prescribing physician, could cause
serious adverse health consequences that could be fatal.

While there is a very low probability that other bottles of
Effexor XR contain a Tikosyn capsule, Pfizer has initiated this
voluntary recall as a precaution.

Effexor XR is a prescription antidepressant indicated for the
treatment of major depressive disorder, general anxiety disorder,
social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder with or without
agoraphobia.

Tikosyn is a Class III (cardiac action potential duration
prolonging) antiarrhythmic drug. It is used to treat irregular
heartbeats (such as atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter
(AFL)) and to maintain normal sinus rhythm (normal heartbeat) in
patients with AF or AFL of greater than one week duration who have
been converted to normal sinus rhythm.

This recall is to the patient level and involves Pfizer lot
numbers V130142 and V130140, which both expire in October 2015,
and Greenstone lot number V130014, which expires in August 2015.
These products were distributed nationally to wholesalers,
distributors, certain government agencies, patient assistance
programs and retailers, such as pharmacies and hospitals. These
direct customers are being notified by UPS next day mail, and
Pfizer is arranging for the return of all recalled products.
Wholesalers, distributors, government agencies, patient assistance
programs and retailers with product that is being recalled should
stop distribution and promptly return the product to Stericycle
Inc. Please contact Stericycle at 1-888-345-0481 for instructions
on returning product.

Pharmacists should immediately quarantine, discontinue
distribution of and return all recalled lots of these products, as
well as notify any of their customers to whom they distributed the
products. Patients with affected product should notify their
physicians and/or return product to their pharmacies.

Patients with questions regarding the return of product should
contact Stericycle at 1-888-345-0481 (Monday to Friday 8am to 5pm
ET). Patients with questions regarding this recall can contact
Pfizer Medical Information at 1-800-438-1985 (Monday to Thursday
9am to 8pm ET or Friday, 9am to 5pm ET).

Patients should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking
this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-
1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the
address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-
0178

Tikosyn can cause serious side effects, including a type of
abnormal heartbeat called Torsade de Pointes, which can lead to
death. If an Effexor XR/Venlafaxine HCl patient thinks they may
have mistakenly ingested a Tikosyn capsule, they should
immediately contact their physician or hospital. Patients should
also watch for signs of abnormal heartbeat, and inform their
physician or hospital if they

     * feel faint
     * become dizzy, or
     * have a fast heartbeat


PLUM ORGANICS: Recalls World Baby Line Pouch Due to Damaged Spouts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plum Organics is voluntarily recalling a limited quantity of two
varieties of its World Baby line of pouch products due to
intermittent damage to the plastic spouts during manufacturing.

There is a possibility that small fragments could loosen, detach
and present a choking hazard if the product is consumed. These
products should not be given to children. Plum has received
approximately 14 consumer complaints about damaged spouts. No
injuries have been reported to date. Out of an abundance of
caution, Plum is removing all affected pouches from the
marketplace.

The recalled products include World Baby Italy and World Baby
Thailand varieties and can be identified by the following "Best
By" dates on the package:

     * World Baby Italy-Zucchini & Spinach with Pasta Marinara
with "Best By" date of 09Sep14 (Sept. 9, 2014).

     * World Baby Thailand-Roasted Pumpkin & Coconut Rice with
"Best By" date of 10Sep14 (Sept. 10, 2014).

Approximately 12,000 cases of the recalled products were shipped
nationwide to grocery, mass and online retailers in the United
States. No other Plum products are affected by this recall.

The company announced the recall after discovering damage to the
top rim of the spout in some pouches. The damage should be plainly
visible as a depression in the rim, possibly with a fragment of
plastic attached to the damaged area.

Consumers who have purchased affected products can contact the
Plum Organics Consumer Hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at
866-535-3774 or send an email to info@plumorganics.com to request
reimbursement. For more information visit:
http://www.plumorganics.com/March2014Recall


PUERTO MADERO: Fails to Pay Class for All OT Hours, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Farias v. Puerto Madero International Corporation, Oscar
D. Cremasco, Carlos M. Pablovich, and Genaro Pena, Individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-20328-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 28, 2014) accuses
the Defendants of failing to compensate the Plaintiff, and those
similarly situated employees, for all overtime hours worked in a
work week.

The Individual Defendants managed, owned or operated Puerto Madero
International Corporation, doing business as P.M. Buenos Aires
Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 305
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 726-0060
          Facsimile: (305) 726-0046
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


QUAKER OATS: Fairness Hearing in Labeling Suit Moved to June 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg granted a joint motion for
administrative relief in IN RE QUAKER OATS LABELING LITIGATION,
ASE NO. 5:10-CV-00502-RS, (N.D. Cal.), pursuant to a court order
dated February 19, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/nZOrq2from Leagle.com.

The Court adjourned the Fairness Hearing from May 8, 2014, to
June 26, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. at the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, in Courtroom 3, Phillip
Burton Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 17th Floor,
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, to
determine whether the settlement of the Litigation pursuant to the
terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and finally approved
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(e). The Court
will hear any arguments regarding, or objections to, Class
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses and incentive awards for Plaintiffs at that time. Papers
in support of final approval of the Settlement Agreement and Fee
Application will be filed with the Court according to these
modified deadlines for filings in advance of the June 26, 2014
Fairness Hearing:

* Class Counsel must file their Fee and Incentive Award
  Application by May 13, 2014;

* Objections to the Settlement Agreement and Fee and Incentive
  Award Application must be filed with the Court by May 27, 2014;

* Requests for Exclusion will be sent to the Class Action
  Administrator on or before May 27, 2014;

* A notice of appearance must be filed by any person who files an
  objection and wants to be heard at the Fairness Hearing by
  May 27, 2014;

* The Parties will file their papers in support of final approval
  of the Settlement Agreement by June 12, 2014;

* Papers in response to objections to the Settlement Agreement or
  Fee Application must be filed with the Court on or before June
  19, 2014;

* The Class Action Administrator will file a list reflecting all
  timely Requests for Exclusion with the Court no later than June
  19, 2014;

* Before the Fairness Hearing, the Defendant will file a
  certification with the Court stating the date or dates on
  which the CAFA Notice to attorney generals became effective.

The Court reaffirmed and incorporated all other findings and
provisions set out in the Order Preliminarily Approving the Class
Action Settlement, Provisionally Certifying a Settlement Class for
Settlement Purposes, Appointing Class Counsel, Directing the
Issuance of Notice to the Class, and Scheduling a Fairness
Hearing.


RUSSELL & SMITH: Warehouseman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Martinez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Russell & Smith Ford, Inc. d/b/a Russell &
Smith Ford d/b/a Russell & Smith Auto Group, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00192 (S.D. Tex., January 28, 2014) is a collective action brought
on behalf similarly situated employees to recover unpaid overtime
wages from the Defendant.  The Company employed Martinez as a
warehouseman from April 2012 through November 2013.

Russell & Smith Ford, Inc., doing business as Russell & Smith
Ford, doing business as Russell & Smith Auto Group, is a Texas
corporation.  Russell & Smith is an automobile sales and service
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net


SANITATION SALVAGE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelvin Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sanitation Salvage Corporation, and Steven Squitieri,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00594-DLI-VVP  (E.D.N.Y.,
January 28, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former
employees all of the overtime wages to which they were entitled
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants were first established in 1978 and incorporated in
New York.  They are a private company in the area of recycling and
waste materials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          Lawrence Office Park
          Building 2, Suite 220
          168 Franklin Corner Road
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


SHIV SHAKTI: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages and Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Monroy, Adiela Munoz, Pedro Bastidas, Gilardo Bastida-Lopez,
Cecilio Villareal, and Martin Maracara, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Shiv Shakti Inc. d/b/a Boulevard
Motor Inn, Sitaram L. Patel, Kiran Patel, Cripol Anthony Kameshar,
and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-00605-ILG-MDG (E.D.N.Y.,
January 28, 2014) allege that, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Boulevard Motor Inn is a New York domestic business corporation
with a principal place of business in Elmhurst, New York.  The
Individual Defendants are owners, officers, directors, managers,
supervisors or proprietors of Boulevard Motor Inn.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Bettanin" Suit in Kentucky Over Toning Shoes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Bettanin, 1430 22nd Ave. S. Apt. 6, Wisconsin Rapids, WI
54495 v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd.,
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers
Fitness Group 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA
90266, Case No. 3:14-cv-00071-TBR (W.D. Ky., January 28, 2014)
alleges that in contrary to the Defendants' advertisements,
Skechers toning shoes provide no additional health benefits than
do regular athletic and walking shoes.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II with its principle place of business in Manhattan
Beach, California.  Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures
toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  These
shoes have a pronounced rocker bottom sole.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Ivy" Suit in Kentucky Over Shape-Up Shoes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Ivy, 4507 30TH Street, Meridian, MS 39307 v. Skechers,
U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA
90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd.,
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00070-TBR (W.D. Ky., January 28, 2014) alleges that Skechers
made numerous misrepresentations, and continues to make those
representations, regarding the efficacy and health benefits of
Shape-ups.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II with its principle place of business in Manhattan
Beach, California.  Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures
toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  These
shoes have a pronounced rocker bottom sole.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Woolard" Suit in Kentucky Over Toning Shoes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melva Woolard, 5800 NC Hwy 99N, Pantego, NC 27860 v. Skechers,
U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA
90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd.,
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00073-TBR (W.D. Ky., January 28, 2014) accuses Skechers of
making numerous misrepresentations regarding the efficacy and
health benefits of its toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups
and Tone-ups.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II with its principle place of business in Manhattan
Beach, California.  Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures
toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  These
shoes have a pronounced rocker bottom sole.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Misrepresents Efficacy of Shapeups, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Goldstein, 30 Carriage Court, Syosset, NY 11791 v.
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan
Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach
Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00074-TBR (W.D. Ky., January 28, 2014) alleges that in addition
to misrepresenting the efficacy and health benefits of Skechers
Shapeups, Skechers also made numerous misrepresentations about the
safety of Shape-ups, which served to lull consumers into believing
that these shoes were safe despite their unbalanced appearance.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II with its principle place of business in Manhattan
Beach, California.  Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures
toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  These
shoes have a pronounced rocker bottom sole.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: "Morrison" Suit Seeks Damages Relating to Shape-Ups
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Morrison, 491 Bridge Rd. 2723, Florence, MA 01062 v.
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan
Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach
Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00069-TBR (W.D. Ky., January 28, 2014) seeks punitive and
exemplary damages in connection with the Plaintiff's injuries that
were caused by the Defendants' alleged defective products --
toning shoes.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II with its principle place of business in Manhattan
Beach, California.  Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures
toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  These
shoes have a pronounced rocker bottom sole.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SKECHERS USA: Toning Shoes Cause Chronic Injuries, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Hawley, 8720 Church Rd., Union City, PA 16438 v.
Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., 228 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan
Beach, CA 90266; Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., II, 228 Manhattan Beach
Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266; and Skechers Fitness Group 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00072-TBR (W.D. Ky., January 28, 2014) alleges that Skechers
intentionally designs its toning shoes to create instability and
to change gait mechanics.

Ms. Hawley contends that it is well established in the medical
literature that changing one's gait can and does cause chronic
injuries.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II with its principle place of business in Manhattan
Beach, California.  Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures
toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  These
shoes have a pronounced rocker bottom sole.  Skechers markets and
promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless
health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jill F. Endicott, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8057
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: jill.endicott@dinsmore.com


SOMICH DELI: Owes Class Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Fajardo, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Somich Deli Inc. d/b/a P.J. Bernstein Deli
Restaurant, Alex Slobodski, Leo Vaynber, and John Does #1-10, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00525-PGG (S.D.N.Y., January 28, 2014) alleges that
the Plaintiff and the proposed class are entitled to: (i)
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum
wage, (ii) unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for
which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by
law, and (iii) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSAs because
the Defendants' violations were willful.

Somich Deli Inc., doing business as P.J. Bernstein Deli
Restaurant, is a New York corporation based in New York City.  The
Individual Defendants are owners or part owners and principals of
P.J. Bernstein.  The Doe Defendants represent the other owners,
officers, directors, or managing agents of the Defendants, whose
identities are unknown at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          Facsimile: (212) 563-9870
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


STREAM ENERGY: Faces Racketeering Class Action in Houston
---------------------------------------------------------
The Dallas Morning News reports that Stream Energy and its
marketing arm Ignite face a class-action lawsuit in a Houston
federal court charging that Stream and Ignite sell through a
pyramid scheme in violation of federal racketeering laws.

The recipients of any potential settlement include hundreds of
thousands of independent associates who worked for Ignite selling
Stream electricity contracts between 2005 and 2011.

Houston lawyer Scott M. Clearman, who filed the case, says in a
worst-case scenario, if Stream has to pay a major settlement, "It
could close the company."

Business experts say the ramifications of this lawsuit are so deep
that a Stream loss in the case could wreak havoc across the entire
multilevel marketing industry.

Chairman and co-founder Rob Snyder tells The Watchdog the suit is
"distressing." The allegations are untrue, he says.

The company is appealing and several Stream officials said they
expect an appeals court to dismiss the class-action certification.

Mr. Snyder says there is no pyramid scheme because the company
sells a true product and uses established multilevel marketing
systems to build its massive sales force: "We sell electricity,
and we pay for word-of-mouth advertising through our associates,"
he says.

Mr. Clearman's 5-year-old lawsuit against Dallas-based Stream
tells a different story.  The lawyer charges that the company's
sales setup benefits those at the top.  He cites federal
racketeering laws because, he says, phone and mail were used to
perpetrate the fraud in a conspiracy led by Stream and Ignite
leaders.

Although promises of big income gains are made to bring sales
people in, at least 25 percent of those who invest to get started
in the sales program don't make their money back, his lawsuit
claims.

Stream chairman Snyder explains that it's natural for sales team
leaders at the top of a hierarchy to make more money than low-
level associates.

The lawyer suing Stream and Ignite points to a $329 entry fee to
join the sales program and a $29 monthly fee to host a sales
website.  He says many never make their money back.  He cites
dozens of sales recruitment meetings in the lawsuit where promises
of great wealth were made to hopeful participants.


TEKTRO USA: Recalls 2,000 Spyre Mechanical Disc Brake Calipers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tektro USA/TRP of Ogden, Utah, announced voluntary recall of about
2,000 Spyre and Spyre SLC dual-piston mechanical disc brake
callipers. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell
a recalled consumer product.

The brake cable actuator arm can over-rotate, dislocating parts,
causing the brake calipers to fail. Lack of brakes results in loss
of control and a crash hazard, posing a risk of injury to the
rider and others.

Tektro USA/TRP has received one report of a brake caliper failing
in this manner. There have been no reports of injuries or property
damage.

The recall includes Spyre and Spyre SLC dual-piston mechanical
disc brake calipers sold as original and aftermarket equipment in
2013. Spyre calipers have a black anodized caliper body and a
silver actuator arm with "Spyre" on it. Spyre SLC calipers have a
polished aluminum caliper body and a black composite actuator arm
with "Spyre SLC" on it. Recalled calipers have a fastening screw
with a hollow six-pointed star-shaped head with no markings on it
and a 3 millimeter pad adjust screw on the outward side. The
recalled calipers were also sold as original equipment on bicycles
manufactured or distributed by BTI, Diamond Back Bicycles, Giant
Bicycles, Hans Johnson Co (HJC), Kona, Marin Bikes, Quality
Bicycle Products, Raleigh America.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/k04lX4

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Retail bicycle shops nationwide and online at universalcycles.com,
tektro-usa.com and trpbrakes.com from April 2013 to December 2013
for about $90 for the Spyre caliper and about $110 for the Spyre
SLC caliper.

Consumers should immediately stop riding bikes equipped with the
recalled brake calipers and return the calipers to the original
place of purchase or Tektro USA/TRP for a free replacement with an
improved version.


THERAPEDIC OF NEW ENGLAND: Recalls Mattresses
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Therapedic of New England, of Brockton, Mass., announced voluntary
recall of about 3,700 Therapedic twin and full-size mattresses.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame
standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Therapedic brand twin and full size Comfort
Deluxe and Comfort Supreme style mattresses. "Therapedic" and the
style name are printed on a label on the left of the top of the
mattress. The date of manufacture and TEP Bedding GRP Inc., 161
Grand Valley Avenue, Orwell, Ohio 44076 are printed on a white
label hanging on the side of the mattress. The recalled mattresses
were manufactured in 2013.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/h3kHEU

The recalled products were manufactured in United States by TEP
Bedding Group Inc., of Orwell, Ohio under contract for Therapedic
of New England, of Brockton, Mass., and sold at BJ's Wholesale
Clubs in Ohio and western New York from January 2013 through
November 2013 for about $100 for the twin size and about $230 for
the full size mattresses.

Therapedic of New England is mailing free mattress covers to
consumers who purchased the mattresses. Consumers should
immediately place the covers over the mattress to bring it into
compliance with the federal flammability standard.  Consumers with
the recalled mattresses who do not receive the mattress covers
should contact Therapedic of New England to receive the free
covers.


THORATEC CORP: Updates HeartMate II(R) Label, Training Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thoratec Corporation has initiated a voluntary worldwide Medical
Device Correction in order to update its labeling and training
materials for the HeartMate II(R) LVAS Pocket System Controller
(the "Pocket Controller").

This safety advisory is being issued because some patients and
caregivers have experienced difficulties with the process of
changing from a primary system controller to their backup system
controller. These difficulties have resulted in four deaths and
five reports of loss of consciousness or other symptoms of
hypoperfusion.  Of these nine events, eight occurred in patients
who were converted to the Pocket Controller after being originally
trained on an older model, the EPC System Controller. Two of the
deaths occurred in patients who attempted to exchange system
controllers while alone and, contrary to the labeling, without
contacting the hospital first.

The Urgent Medical Device Correction Letter sent to hospitals on
March 4, 2014 communicated the reported incident rate over the
past year and a half since the introduction of the Pocket System
Controller in August 2012.

Thoratec's investigations of these reports have not revealed any
failures of the devices to meet specifications or deficiencies in
quality control procedures. No product needs to be returned to
Thoratec.

Consumers who have the HeartMate II LVAS Pocket Controller should
immediately contact their doctor for retraining on use of the
device and to receive updated Patient Handbook information.

Physicians who prescribe the HeartMate II LVAS Pocket Controller
should immediately review the updated labeling and training
materials provided in the Urgent Medical Device Correction Letter
with all clinical personnel responsible for training patients and
caregivers on the use of the Pocket System Controller. All
patients using the Pocket Controller and their caregivers should
be retrained on the use of the device and be provided with updated
Patient Handbook information.

The Urgent Medical Device Correction Letter applies to all
HeartMate II LVAS Pocket Controllers manufactured and distributed
to date in the United States and worldwide. Distribution was
initiated in the European Union in August 2012, and in the United
States and Canada in May 2013. The Pocket Controller has been
prescribed for 2,142 patients either at the time of the
implantation of the HeartMate II LVAD, or as a replacement for an
older System Controller model. This latter patient population,
those receiving the Pocket Controller as a replacement for an
older model, is at a higher risk of experiencing difficulty in the
controller exchange process. These patients may not have received
adequate training regarding the differences between the two
controllers, especially differences related to the connection of
the driveline.

The HeartMate II Pocket System Controller can be identified by the
catalog number located on the labels of the various packaging
configurations. The following device catalog numbers are affected
by this action:

     * HeartMate II Implant Kit with Pocket Controller: Catalog
Numbers 106015 and 106016

     * Pocket Controller: Catalog Numbers 106762 and 106017

     * HeartMate II LVAD Pump and Pocket Controller Kit: Catalog
Number 107801

     * Pocket Controllers that have been removed from packaging:
Model Number 105109 (found on side of each unit)

Hospitals with ongoing HeartMate II LVAS patients using the Pocket
System Controller should contact Thoratec if they have any
questions.

Clinicians and patients with questions may contact the company at
1-800-528-2577, or if calling from outside the USA, 1-925-847-8600
(7 days a week, 8-5 Pacific Time).

Thoratec has informed the FDA and other national competent
authorities of this action.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

     * Online: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

     * Regular Mail: use postage-paid FDA form 3500 available at:
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm Mail to MedWatch 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787

     * Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178


TNUVA: Facing Class Action for Overcharging White Cheese
--------------------------------------------------------
Ora Coren, writing for Haaretz, reports that the Tnuva dairy firm
was sued in Jerusalem District Court on Feb. 27 for about half a
billion shekels ($142.9 million), over allegations that it took
advantage of its monopoly position to overcharge the public on two
of its dairy products.

A major focus of the lawsuit is a claim that Tnuva improperly
overcharged for its 5% white cheese -- a popular thick spreadable
dairy product that is a staple of the Israeli kitchen.  The
lawsuit is seeking to have the court rule that the case can
proceed on behalf of all purchasers of 5% white cheese in the
seven years before price controls on the product were imposed last
January.

Tnuva issued a statement in response saying it had not yet
received the lawsuit and was therefore not in a position to
comment.

The suit, which was filed by Yaron Zelekha -- the former
accountant general at the Finance Ministry who is now dean of the
business management department at the Ono Academic College -- did
not seek damages for the more distant past because such a claim
would be barred by the statute of limitations.  The suit does
include an additional claim, however, that Tnuva overcharged for
38% sweet cream from June 2009 -- when government price controls
were lifted -- until January 2014, when they were reimposed.

Due to its commanding position in the market for 5% white cheese
and 38% sweet cream, Tnuva was declared a monopoly in 1998.  The
ruling imposed special legal restrictions on its ability to charge
prices that are deemed unreasonable.  Tnuva commands about a 50%
share of the white cheese market and 70% of the sweet cream
market.


UNITED STATES: Vietnam Veterans With PSTD File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary E. O'Leary, writing for New Haven Register, reports that
Conley Monk, the 65-year-old longtime New Haven resident, is one
of five Vietnam combat veterans and three organizations that have
filed a class action suit in federal court seeking a review of all
Vietnam era veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress
disorder, but who received less-than-honorable discharges.
Because of that discharge, he had not been able to get medical
care at the Veterans Affairs medical center, obtain educational
benefits or help with home loans available to other veterans.

The suit, if approved, would represent tens of thousands of
veterans across the United States, according to Virginia
McCalmont, a student at the Yale Law School working with in its
Veterans Legal Services Clinic that brought the suit.

"What we are asking for is a fair review process.  We are asking
the court to require the Boards of Correction of Military Records
for each service branch to implement medically appropriate
standards for considering applications that raise PTSD,"
Ms. McCalmont said March 3 at a press conference at the law
school.

The organizations they represent are the Vietnam Veterans of
America, Vietnam Veterans of America Connecticut State Council and
the National Veterans Council for Legal Redress.  It was brought
against the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force.  He said he tried as
far back as the 1970s to get the rules updated with no luck.

PTSD wasn't officially recognized as a medical disorder until
1980.  A statute requiring a physical examination, if a vet can
reasonably claim to have PTSD prior to an administrative
discharge, didn't go into effect until a few years ago.

Mr. McCalmont said on March 3 a veteran in the same situation
would be examined and likely given a medical discharge.

"Medical science and the law took awhile to catch up with
reality," said U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who has been
supportive of the clinic's efforts taken on behalf of Vietnam
veterans.

Mr. Monk said his discharge was tied to use of morphine in the
military as that he self-medicated to ease the symptoms of PTSD.
When he returned home, Mr. Monk said, he got into treatment in a
methadone maintenance program.  He has worked over the last few
decades as a counselor at the APT, Addiction Prevention Treatment,
center, as well at the Yale-New Haven Hospital psychiatric unit
and counseled the homeless at Columbus House.

Mr. McCalmont said under the suit veterans would still have to
appeal directly to the correction boards "but they would do so
knowing that their applications would be thoroughly considered and
that is exactly what these veterans desire."

Mr. Blumenthal said he will be asking Secretary of Defense Chuck
Hegal to revamp the review process and make it fair and just.
"Give PTSD the medical recognition that it deserves.  That's a
matter of basic fairness and he can do it," he said.  He said he
will reiterate "that these veterans were wounded in war and then
wounded again by their country that denied them medical benefits
to cure the injury that they suffered in war."  He said the black
mark of a less than honorable discharge follows these men for a
lifetime and puts them at risk for homelessness, joblessness and
drug addiction, but Mr. Hegal has the ability to cure this
injustice.

"Nobody ought to be more sympathetic than a former Army sergeant.
He knows what it is like to be an enlisted man, the way Conley
Monk does," Mr. Blumenthal said of Mr. Hegal.

"The irony here is that it (PTSD) is now recognized. The Army and
the Marine Corps, in particular, are really making gigantic
strides in recognizing and treating these invisible wounds of
war," Blumenthal said.

He said 30 percent to 50 percent of the men and women in combat
suffer from PTSD.  He asked how a whole class of people are
excluded from a fair review because they suffered from it before
it was recognized as a treatable disease.

The senator said the country needs to review the laws related to
medical benefits, regardless of discharge status.  But he added
that we are "resource restrained" and he couldn't commit to this
change now.

Asked why it has taken more than 30 years to get to this lawsuit,
Mr. Blumenthal said even during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars PTSD
went unrecognized until the end of the last decade.

Mr. Monk questioned the fairness of universal amnesty granted to
draft evaders in the 1970s when the same consideration was not
extended to veterans facing less than honorable discharges.

"At that time, I felt the Vietnam veterans should have been first,
a veteran who yielded to the call of the country unlike a lot of
people who refused to go," he said.

The clinic has been working on the issue for years analyzing the
outcomes of the cases before the correction boards.

Mr. Blumenthal said the correction board only approves changes in
cases with PTSD cases less than 5 percent of the time, while non-
PTSD reviews have been successful closer to 40 percent and 50
percent.

"There is a clear disparity which I think establishes some of the
evidence that is needed for this lawsuit about discrimination,
about the arbitrary and capricious nature of the process and the
lack of due process," Mr. Blumenthal said.


WEISSMAN NOWACK: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos M. Fraga and Sabrina Fraga, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco,
P.C., a Georgia professional corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-14035-
JEM (S.D. Fla., January 28, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234-5150
          Facsimile: (772) 234-5321
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com


ZLP MANUFACTURING: Recalls Hornet Zip Line Trolleys
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
ZLP Manufacturing, of Milwaukie, Ore., announced voluntary recall
of about 2,000 LP Hornet zip line trolleys. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The retaining pin can release and cause the two side plates of the
trolley to separate and fall off the zip line, posing a fall
hazard.

ZLP has received two reports of the trolley falling off a zip line
when the retaining pin released. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the ZLP Hornet zip line trolley. The trolley
has yellow, triangular side plates with ZLP Hornet cut into one of
the plates.  There are rollers at two corners of the side plates
and a handle through the center with black handle grips. The
yellow side plates are held together by a T-shaped retaining pin.
The pin can be released by pushing a blue push-button on the end
of the pin.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://is.gd/i9HxUr

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
online at ZLP Manufacturing online at www.zlpmanufacturing.com and
www.backyardziplines.com from November 2010 through July 2013 for
about $150.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled trolleys and
contact ZLP manufacturing to receive a free repair kit containing
a replacement retaining pin.


* SEBI Opts to Halt Financial Assistance to Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Business Standard reports that the Securities and Exchange Board
of India (Sebi) has decided to stop providing financial assistance
to class action suits.

From now on, investor associations wishing to file class suites
should approach the Centre through the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs (MCA), according to the minutes of the Sebi board meeting
on February 13.

"Some have commented that since the class action suits would be
supported by MCA as well, it may result in misuse of funds.
Therefore, Sebi may refrain from introducing such a provision,"
said the minutes of the board meeting.

According to experts, Sebi's move might make it difficult for
investors looking for legal aid.  "Getting funding from the
government may not be very easy unless the applicants have
sufficient clout . . . Sebi will not be that bureaucratic,
although it may take time," said a person who works with investors
and deals with issues of malpractices in listed firms.

Sebi had introduced the regulation in 2009 by which its Investor
Protection and Education Fund could be utilized towards "aiding
investors' associations recognized by the Board to undertake legal
proceedings in the interest of investors in securities that are
listed or proposed to be listed".


* WV Lawmakers Say Proposed Rule to Harm Black-Lung Patients
------------------------------------------------------------
Frederic J. Frommer, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that seven Democratic members of Congress are urging the Labor
Department to change a proposed rule that they say would harm
black-lung patients.

In a Feb. 28 letter to Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, released on
Feb. 27, the lawmakers say that the rule would make it harder for
miners to receive medical reports.  The lawmakers, including West
Virginia Senators Jay Rockefeller and Joe Manchin, cite a section
of the rule that would change evidence standards in cases before
administrative law judges.

The Labor Department declined to comment on the letter.

Black lung disease is a chronic illness caused by inhaling coal
dust.  According to the Labor Department, it has caused or
contributed to the deaths of more than 75,000 miners since 1968.

Under current regulations, a miner can receive copies of medical
reports from experts by showing they need the material to prepare
their case and they can't get it elsewhere without undue hardship.

The lawmakers said the proposal would impose a tougher standard
for miners to meet to get access to the reports.

"Changing this evidentiary standard in this manner would make it
all-but-impossible for miners to receive copies of medical reports
that were prepared by coal operators' doctors or their experts,"
the lawmakers write.  They argue that the change could make it
easier to conceal information needed to adjudicate black-lung
benefits claims.

In addition to Rockefeller and Manchin, the letter was signed by
Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Robert Casey of Pennsylvania; and
Reps. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, George Miller of California
and Joe Courtney of Connecticut.

"Under no circumstances should we implement a rule that imposes an
even heavier burden on miners and their survivors, and rolls back
the minimal rights they are currently afforded to receive copies
of these medical reports," the lawmakers wrote.

The lawmakers credit the department for its ongoing efforts to
protect miners from black lung disease, and they say the agency
has taken an "important step in the right direction" with a new
pilot program to allow long-term miners to compile additional
medical evidence in support of their claims.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Accrued $127-Mil. for Mask Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company has accrued $127 million for respirator mask/asbestos
liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by
examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii)
apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g.,
whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic
claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g.,
the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the
number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed
against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled
claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend
against current and future claims.

Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii)
the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of
defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv)
changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and
appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of
other co-defendants and insurers.

As a result of the Company's on-going review of its accruals and
the greater cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
the Company increased its accruals in 2013 for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities by $48 million. In 2013, the Company
made payments for fees and settlements of $47 million related to
the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. As of December 31, 2013,
the Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities
of $127 million (excluding Aearo accruals). The Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which the liability may
exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i)
inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have
not yet been asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert
claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are
typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a
defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and
several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple
factors described that the Company considers in estimating its
liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments described
that may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
liabilities.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$58 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on
an analysis of its numerous policies, including their exclusions,
pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its
experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of
each claim and remaining coverage, and records an amount it has
concluded is likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect
the timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including
(i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent
to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii)
the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings
with respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance
coverage.

On January 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory
judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers
(Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. -- both part
of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims. The action, in the District Court
in Ramsey County, Minnesota, sought declaratory judgment regarding
coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of covered
costs among the policies issued by the various insurers. The
action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the Company's
insurers. The plaintiffs, Continental Casualty and Continental
Insurance Co., as well as a significant number of the insurer
defendants named in the amended complaint had been dismissed
because of settlements they had reached with the Company regarding
the matters at issue in the lawsuit. In July 2013, the Company
reached agreements in principle with the remaining insurers in the
lawsuit. The Company and those insurers have been in the process
of preparing formal settlement agreements. After all of the
settlement agreements have been executed, the Court will issue
dismissal orders at which time this matter will be concluded.
During 2013, the Company received payments of $29 million from
settlements with insurers.

The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for
respirator mask claims. Once the claims-made insurance coverage is
resolved, the Company will have collected substantially all of its
remaining insurance coverage for respirator mask claims.

3M Company (3M) is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of
Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal
Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Recorded $25-Mil. for Aero Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, has recorded $25 million
as the best estimate of the probable liabilities for product
liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-
related asbestos and silica-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies
("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including
personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall
and certain respiratory protection products.

As of December 31, 2013, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business
(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company, through its Aearo
subsidiary, has recorded $25 million as the best estimate of the
probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-
related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for
settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal
arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a
subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor
Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the
number of years each company sold respiratory products under the
"AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American
Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the
individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is
further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and
Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as
Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any
product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica,
or  silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995.
Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular
respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold,
Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out
of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos,
silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these
arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to
exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or
after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the
quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional
claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by
its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its
participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able
to meet its obligations in these matters.

In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a
lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.

Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's
liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:
(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant
changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,
(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group
including exhaustion of available coverage limits, and/or (ix) a
determination that the interpretation of the contractual
obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is
inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these
potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of
liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the
developments described were to occur, the actual amount of these
liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly
larger than the amount accrued.

Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of
claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of
allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,
and the several possible developments that may occur that could
affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability
may exceed the accrual the Company has established.

3M Company (3M) is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of
Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal
Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Had 2,600 Pending Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., had approximately 2,600 pending asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily
injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From
1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a
high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos
personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seeks compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims").

During 2013, the Company received approximately 1,700 new filings
and disposed of approximately 1,700 claims. As of December 31,
2013, the number of asbestos-related claims pending against the
Company was approximately 2,600.

Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31,
2013, approximately 80% of plaintiffs either do not specify the
monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an
amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the
trial court. Approximately 16% of plaintiffs specifically plead
damages above the jurisdictional minimum up to, and including, $15
million or less, and 3% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
greater than $15 million but less than $100 million. Fewer than 1%
of plaintiffs specifically plead damages equal to or greater than
$100 million.

Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the
assertion of monetary damages. The Company's experience resolving
hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an
extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be
alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits
or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable
is determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiff's
asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against the
Company and other defendants, the defenses available to the
Company and other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which
the claim is made, and the plaintiff's medical history and
exposure to other disease-causing agents.

In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation
regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria
established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims
include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable
probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's
former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in
1958.

The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon
its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of
lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and
they are not included in the description of pending matters or in
the following description of disposed matters.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
December 31, 2013, has disposed of the asbestos claims of
approximately 393,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average
indemnity payment per claim of approximately $8,600. Certain of
these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over a
number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately
$12 million at December 31, 2013 ($24 million at December 31,
2012) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment
per claim. The Company's asbestos indemnity payments have varied
on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary
considerably over time. As discussed, a part of the Company's
objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos
claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of
claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in
the Company's administrative claims handling agreements has
generally reduced the number of marginal or suspect claims that
would otherwise have been received. In addition, certain courts
and legislatures have reduced or eliminated the number of marginal
or suspect claims that the Company otherwise would have received.
These developments generally have had the effect of increasing the
Company's per-claim average indemnity payment over time.

The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability
(i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs
plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning
with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993,
the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.3 billion
through 2013, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-
related liability. The Company's ability to reasonably estimate
its liability has been significantly affected by, among other
factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the
United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have
filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant
bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future
disease incidence and claiming patterns against the Company, and
the success of efforts by co-defendants to restrict or eliminate
their liability in the litigation.

The Company has continued to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments
and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of
pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The
material components of the Company's accrued liability are based
on amounts determined by the Company in connection with its annual
comprehensive review and consist of the following estimates, to
the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred
and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos
claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability
for asbestos claims not yet asserted against the Company, but
which the Company believes will be asserted in the next several
years; and (iii) the legal defense costs likely to be incurred in
connection with the foregoing types of claims.

The significant assumptions underlying the material components of
the Company's accrual are:

   (a) the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants
       who were exposed to the Company's asbestos-containing
       insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958;

   (b) the extent to which claims are resolved under the Company's
       administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to
       those set forth in those agreements;

   (c) the extent of decrease or increase in the incidence of
       serious disease cases and claiming patterns for such cases;

   (d) the extent to which the Company is able to defend itself
       successfully at trial or on appeal;

   (e) the number and timing of additional co-defendant
       bankruptcies; and

   (f) the extent to which co-defendants with substantial
       resources and assets continue to participate significantly
       in the resolution of future asbestos lawsuits and claims.

The Company conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos-
related liabilities and costs annually in connection with
finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless
significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an
earlier review. If the results of an annual comprehensive review
indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is
insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs,
then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the
accrued liability. The Company believes that a reasonable
estimation of the probable amount of the liability for claims not
yet asserted against the Company is not possible beyond a period
of several years. Therefore, while the results of future annual
comprehensive reviews cannot be determined, the Company expects
the addition of one year to the estimation period will result in
an annual charge.

The Company's reported results of operations for 2013 were
materially affected by the $145 million fourth quarter charge for
asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to
be substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise
materially affect the Company's results of operations for the
period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of
significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has
affected and may continue to affect the Company's cost of
borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic
acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating
cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to
pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and to fund its
working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short-
term and long-term basis.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a manufacturer of glass containers with 81
glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. It produces glass
containers for beer, ready-to-drink low alcohol refreshers,
spirits, wine, food, tea, juice and pharmaceuticals. The Company
also produces glass containers for soft drinks and other non-
alcoholic beverages outside the United States. It manufactures
these products in a range of sizes, shapes and colors. It has four
geographical segments: Europe, North America, South America, and
Asia Pacific. On September 1, 2010, it completed the acquisition
of Brazilian glassmaker Companhia Industrial de Vidros (CIV). On
December 23, 2010, the Company acquired Hebei Rixin Glass Group
Co., Ltd. On December 7, 2010, the Company acquired the majority
interest in Zhaoqing Jiaxin Glasswork Co., LTD. On March 11, 2010,
the Company acquired the majority interest in Cristalerias
Rosario.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Insurance Covers Majority of PI Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of the IDEX Corporation's settlements and legal costs
related to asbestos personal injuries, except for costs of
coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a
portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries and seeking money damages, allegedly as
a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that
contained asbestos. These components were acquired from third
party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the
subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2013, the majority of the
Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of
coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a
portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot
predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to
continue to cover its settlements and legal costs, or how insurers
may respond to claims that are tendered to them. Claims have been
filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Most of the
claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The
balance have been settled for various insignificant amounts. Only
one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the affected
business unit. No provision has been made in the financial
statements of the Company for these asbestos-related claims, other
than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the
Company does not currently believe these claims will have a
material adverse effect on it.

IDEX Corporation (IDEX) is an applied solutions business that
sells an array of pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems
and components and engineered products to customers in a variety
of markets worldwide. IDEX operates in three business segments:
Fluid & Metering Technologies, Health & Science Technologies and
Fire & Safety/Diversified Products. Fluid & Metering Technologies
segment consist of Banjo; Energy and Fuels; Chemical, Food &
Process and Water & Waste Water. Health & Science Technologies
segment consist of IDEX Health & Science; IDEX Optics and
Photonics; Precision Polymer Engineering; Gast; Micropump and
Materials Process Technologies. Fire & Safety/Diversified Products
segment consist of Fire Suppression; Rescue Tools and Band-It. In
July 20, 2012, it acquired Matcon Group Limited. In March 2013, it
announced the acquisition of FTL Seals Technology, Ltd. On April
11, 2012, it acquired the stock of PPC. On April 30, 2012, it
acquired the stock of ERC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Paid & Accrued $278.4-Mil for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. has paid and accrued $278.4 million in defense and
indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement for asbestos-
related product liability 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, 2013.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies who have
historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the
Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of
many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We
believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in
general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction
products that were manufactured many years ago and contained
encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation
and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these
products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of December 31,
2013 and 2012, the Company had approximately 17,000 and 16,000
pending asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively.
Of the approximately 17,000 outstanding claims at December 31,
2013, approximately half were pending in jurisdictions that have
undergone significant tort and judicial reform activities
subsequent to the filing of these claims."

The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2013, of the approximately 1,500
claims resolved, 297 (20%) resulted in payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2012,
of the approximately 2,400 claims resolved, 308 (13%) resulted in
any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance
carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to
the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the
Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for
potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004,
primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the
alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.

A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies against the Company and certain of
its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a
number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company
has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance
carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay
specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously
pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

In August 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a jury
verdict against the Company in an asbestos-related personal injury
action with damages of $35.0 million, $32.5 million of which was
non-compensatory and will not be recoverable through insurance if
the verdict is upheld. The Company has appealed the verdict. The
Company posted a surety bond of $55.0 million related to the
appeal. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this pending
litigation and therefore cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
possible loss, if any, that could result from this action.

Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or
future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be
enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated
nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously
defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's
significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the
date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos-
related product liability claims are likely to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.

To date, the Company has paid and accrued $278.4 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and
has received $124.8 million in cash and notes from insurers. The
net balance of $153.6 million, is expected to be fully recovered,
of which approximately $20 million is expected to be recovered
within one year. Timing of recovery is dependent on final
resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to or
additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2012, insurers
owed $111.0 million in association with these claims.

In addition to the $153.6 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $96.7 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at December 31, 2013. The
Company also has a related asset of $96.7 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be
fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior
to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to,
which, more-likely-than-not, will occur subsequent to December 31,
2014. At December 31, 2012, the comparable value of the accrued
liability and associated insurance asset was $85.6 million.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded total
accrued liabilities of $96.7 million related to the estimated
settlement of existing claims.

The 2013 increase in the accrued liability and associated
insurance asset is primarily due to an expected higher rate of
claim settlement based on recent claim activity.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, in
excess of those for which it has accrued, because it cannot
predict how many additional claims may be brought against the
Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to indemnify) in
the future, the allegations in such claims, the possible outcomes,
or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at
the State or Federal levels.

BorgWarner Inc. is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. On January 31, 2011, the Company acquired 100% of the
stock of Haldex Traction Holding AB (Haldex Traction Systems) of
Haldex Group. In July 2012, the Company sold its spark plug
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $190MM Net Reserves in 2013
----------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s has $190 million in net asbestos
reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013.

The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others
seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim
filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking
asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to
contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a
moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.

Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It
is possible that the filing of other direct actions against
insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It
is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings,
including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these
actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of
liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain
jurisdictions.

TPC had entered into settlement agreements, which are subject to a
number of contingencies, in connection with a number of these
direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements). For a full
discussion of these settlement agreements, see the "Asbestos
Direct Action Litigation" section of note 16 of notes to the
consolidated financial statements.

Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

In the third quarter of 2013, the Company completed its annual in-
depth asbestos claim review, including a review of active
policyholders and litigation cases for potential product and "non-
product" liability, and noted the continuation of the following
trends:

   * continued high level of litigation activity in certain
     jurisdictions involving individuals alleging serious
     asbestos-related illness;

   * while overall payment patterns have been generally stable,
     there has been an increase in severity for certain
     policyholders due to the continued high level of litigation
     activity;

   * continued moderate level of asbestos-related bankruptcy
     activity; and

   * the absence of new theories of liability or new classes of
     defendants.

While the Company believes that over the past several years there
has been a reduction in the volatility associated with the
Company's overall asbestos exposure, there nonetheless remains a
high degree of uncertainty with respect to future exposure from
asbestos claims.

The Home Office and Field Office categories, which account for the
vast majority of policyholders with active asbestos-related
claims, experienced a slight increase in the number of
policyholders with open asbestos claims at December 31, 2013
compared with December 31, 2012, while net asbestos-related
payments in these categories decreased slightly in 2013 compared
with 2012. Payments on behalf of policyholders in these categories
continue to be influenced by the high level of litigation activity
in a limited number of jurisdictions where individuals alleging
serious asbestos-related injury continue to target defendants who
were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation.

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

The completion of these reviews and analyses in 2013, 2012 and
2011 resulted in $190 million, $175 million and $175 million
increases, respectively, in the Company's net asbestos reserves in
each period. In each year, the reserve increases were primarily
driven by increases in the Company's estimate of projected
settlement and defense costs related to a broad number of
policyholders in the Home Office category and by higher projected
payments on assumed reinsurance accounts. The increase in the
estimate of projected settlement and defense costs resulted from
payment trends that continue to be moderately higher than
previously anticipated due to the impact of the current litigation
environment discussed. Notwithstanding these trends, the Company's
overall view of the underlying asbestos environment is essentially
unchanged from recent periods, and there remains a high degree of
uncertainty with respect to future exposure to asbestos claims.

Net asbestos losses paid in 2013, 2012 and 2011 were $218 million,
$236 million and $284 million, respectively. Approximately 1%, 6%
and 19% of total net paid losses in 2013, 2012 and 2011,
respectively, related to policyholders with whom the Company had
entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company's
liability.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded a total
net asbestos reserves of $2,350 (in millions).

The "policyholders with settlement agreements" category includes
structured settlements, coverage in place arrangements and, with
respect to TPC, Wellington accounts. Reserves are based on the
expected payout for each policyholder under the applicable
agreement. Structured settlements are arrangements under which
policyholders and/or plaintiffs agree to fixed financial amounts
to be paid at scheduled times. Coverage in place arrangements
represent agreements with policyholders on specified amounts of
coverage to be provided. Payment obligations may be subject to
annual maximums and are only made when valid claims are presented.
Wellington accounts refer to the 35 defendants that are parties to
a 1985 agreement settling certain disputes concerning insurance
coverage for their asbestos claims. Many of the aspects of the
Wellington agreement are similar to those of coverage in place
arrangements in which the parties have agreed on specific amounts
of coverage and the terms under which the coverage can be
accessed.

The "home office and field office" category relates to all other
policyholders and also includes unallocated IBNR reserves and
reserves for the costs of defending asbestos-related coverage
litigation. Policyholders are identified for the annual home
office review based upon, among other factors: a combination of
past payments and current case reserves in excess of a specified
threshold (currently $100,000), perceived level of exposure,
number of reported claims, products/completed operations and
potential "non-product" exposures, size of policyholder and
geographic distribution of products or services sold by the
policyholder. In addition to IBNR amounts contained in the
reserves for "home office and field office" policyholders and the
costs of litigating asbestos coverage matters, the Company has
established a reserve for further adverse development related to
existing policyholders, new claims from policyholders reporting
claims for the first time and policyholders for which there is, or
may be, litigation and direct actions against the Company. During
2012, $502 million of reserves included in "Policyholders with
settlement agreements" were reclassified to the unallocated IBNR
component in the "home office and field office" category as a
result of the U.S. District Court ruling on March 1, 2012 that the
conditions of the Direct Action Settlements had not been
satisfied. For a full discussion of these settlement agreements
see the "Asbestos Direct Action Litigation" section of note 16 of
notes to the consolidated financial statements. The "assumed
reinsurance and other" category primarily consists of reinsurance
of excess coverage, including various pool participations.

On January 29, 2009, the Company and PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG"),
along with approximately 30 other insurers of PPG, agreed in
principle to an agreement to settle asbestos-related coverage
litigation under insurance policies issued to PPG. The tentative
settlement agreement has been incorporated into the Modified Third
Amended Plan of Reorganization ("Amended Plan") proposed as part
of the Pittsburgh Corning Corp. ("PCC," which is 50% owned by PPG)
bankruptcy proceeding. Pursuant to the proposed Amended Plan,
which was filed on January 30, 2009, PCC, along with enumerated
other companies (including PPG as well as the Company as a
participating insurer), are to receive protections afforded by
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code from certain asbestos-
related bodily injury claims. Under the agreement in principle,
the Company has the option to make a series of payments over the
next 20 years totaling approximately $620 million to the Trust to
be created under the Amended Plan, or it may elect to make a one-
time discounted payment, which, as of March 31, 2014, would total
approximately $493 million (approximately $464 million after
reinsurance). The agreement in principle with PPG is subject to
numerous contingencies, including final court approval of the
Amended Plan, and the Company has no obligation to make the
settlement payment until all contingencies are satisfied.

A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at:

http://is.gd/VNrh1m

The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range
of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, Government units,
associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three
business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and
International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business
Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty
insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily
in the United States. The Financial, Professional and
International Insurance segment includes surety and financial
liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based
underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products
that are marketed on a domestic basis. In November 2013, the
Company completed the sale of its wholly owned subsidiary The
Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company to The Travelers
Companies, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co-Op City Wants Fibro Removal Mandate Repealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer H. Cunningham, writing for New York Daily News, said CO-
OP City's operator has appealed to Mayor de Blasio to change a New
York policy that has required residents to spend millions for
asbestos removal that the managers insist is unnecessary.

RiverBay Corp., the operator of the sprawling complex near the
Hutchinson River Parkway, has urged the mayor to repeal the city
Department of Environmental Protection policy, which requires the
asbestos abatement and costs about $5 million a year.

"Now it is time for you, Mayor de Blasio, to do the right thing
and immediately rescind the punitive directive requiring Co-op
City to abate an asbestos problem that does not exist," RiverBay
attorney Stephen Kaufman, a former state Assemblyman, urged in a
letter to the Mayor. "Why is Co-op City forced to spend millions
for unnecessary work?"

In 2005, a city inspector found a benign form of asbestos in the
glue that was used to plaster tiles to floors of Co-op City
apartments 40 years ago, the letter said.

Since then, about 50,000 residents of the complex -- the largest
housing development in New York City -- have been paying through
the nose for the remediation, even though some 75,000 tests found
no evidence of airborne asbestos in in the complex.

Kaufman, in the letter, wonders why Co-op City has been singled
out.

"Co-op City is being selectively punished for a problem that does
not exist, when other garages, city buildings and Mitchell Lama
developments built with the same tiles have not been required to
do this expensive and unnecessary abatement work for a nonexistent
problem," Kaufman wrote.

The Mayor's Office did not respond to requests for comment.

But last year, when he was Public Advocate, de Blasio questioned
whether Co-op City's asbestos abatement was necessary and asked
Environmental Protection Commissioner Carter Strickland to justify
the abatement order, disclose the size of the problem and name
other buildings that had asbestos removed based on the same
testing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claimed Life of Torquay Man and Brother
--------------------------------------------------------------
Torquay Herald Express reported that an 85-year-old died in a
hospital in Torquay, Devon, England, on Christmas Day from an
asbestos-related disease, the coroner has heard.

Arthur Henry Smith worked for many years in London for the sugar
company Tate & Lyle.  He would load sacks of sugar onto trucks
while his younger brother, Henry, worked as a fitter.

An inquest into his death held in Torquay found that exposure to
asbestos during his working life led him to develop mesothelioma
later.  The coroner was told that Mr Smith worked for the company
between 1953 and 1988.

Before he died he recalled a busy factory where he would commonly
be covered in dust.  His brother would use asbestos paste to lag
pipes. Henry died of mesothelioma at the age of 58.

Mr Smith, who was born in Canning Town in London, was married to
Freda and lived at Perinville Road, Torquay.  He was a retired
driver's mate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Melling Station Cleared of Deadly Dust
-------------------------------------------------------
The Dominion Post reported that commuters in Melling, New Zealand,
will be able to grab a coffee and tickets from the station again
after the building was cleared of asbestos dust.

The small Lower Hutt train station was closed in December last
year after asbestos dust was found in public areas of the building
during a routine check of all stations.

Greater Wellington regional council spokesman Wayne Hastie said
the building had been thoroughly cleaned and tests since had shown
it was clear of asbestos dust.

The coffee kiosk and ticket agency would be open again.  The
signal box at Taita station and some parts of Upper Hutt, Trentham
and Woburn station buildings also tested positive for asbestos
dust, Mr Hastie said.

The signal box is being used again after cleaning removed asbestos
dust, and the affected areas at Upper Hutt, Trentham and Woburn
stations were all non-public access areas so had been sealed and
would be cleaned, he said.

The roof at Trentham Station has been replaced.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Settlement Won't Affect Walpole Superfund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brittney McNamara, writing for Wicked Local, reported that cleanup
at the asbestos contaminated Superfund site on South Street, in
Walpole, Massachusetts, will continue as planned with money
secured in a settlement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and one of the original contaminators.

The EPA ordered W.R. Grace and Company to pay upwards of $54
million to fund cleanup costs for land contaminated with asbestos
during the company's factory days as part of a post-bankruptcy
settlement. The money will be spread out between 39 sites in 21
states, including continuing the cleanup at the Walpole Blackburn
and Union Privileges Superfund site on South Street.

EPA spokeswoman Emily Zimmerman said the money will not change
anything at the Walpole site, as W.R. Grace had already been
involved in negotiations to help fund the cleanup.

"Basically, the settlement doesn't really change what's happening
in Walpole at the South Street site," Zimmerman said. "Grace has
always been doing work there prior to the settlement. They've been
participating in negotiations all along."

The Superfund site, deemed as a national priority for cleanup in
1994, was once the home to rubber tire and insulation factories
that disposed of asbestos in the ground, contaminating soil,
sediments and groundwater. The town is currently eyeing the land
for future municipal use, with plans to build a new police station
and senior center once the property is cleaned up and legally
acquired.

Though it won't change much, the settlement will, however, act as
assurance that the company will continue to fund the EPA cleanup,
Zimmerman said. Part of the money will also be used to recover
costs already incurred by the EPA.

As part of their deal to emerge from bankruptcy, W.R. Grace, a
Maryland-based specialty chemical supplier company, agreed to pay
an extra $9 million to federal agencies including the Department
of Interior and the Army. The company and 61 of its affiliates
filed for bankruptcy in 2001. In 2003, the EPA filed claims
against the companies to reimburse the agency for costs already
run up while cleaning sites they contaminated.

W.R. Grace shares the financial responsibility at the Walpole site
with Tyco, BIM Investment Corp., and Shaffer Realty Nominee Trust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Blocks Salvage, Demolition of Merrimac Mill
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Eddings, writing for Eagle-Tribune, reported that the owner
of the former Merrimac Paper Co. mill in Massachusetts, has been
removing machinery, equipment and metals from the complex since
buying it for $1 in 2010, disregarding the liens the city has on
the property and several orders from the state to stop, state
Attorney General Martha Coakley alleges in a request for a court
order blocking the salvage operation.

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Bonnie MacLeod ordered mill owner
David Padellaro to stop salvaging pipes, turbines, transformers,
metals, pumps and other valuables from the South Canal Street
complex until she can hear Coakley's complaint that the work is
releasing cancer-causing asbestos into the air.

MacLeod also blocked Padellaro from demolishing a cluster of three
or four mill buildings destroyed in a fire until she can hear
Coakley's argument that the demolition, like the salvage
operation, must be done according to regulations that would
contain the asbestos and other toxins at the 134-year-old mill.

"Mr. Padellaro has willfully ignored MassDEP's enforcement actions
and exposed workers and potentially others to a public safety
hazard and an unnecessary environmental risk," Kenneth Kimmell,
the commissioner of the state Department of Environmental
Protection, said in a statement he issued with Coakley after Judge
MacLeod granted their request for a temporary restraining order
stopping the salvage operation. "With this action, we are hopeful
that this site, located within an environmental justice community,
will finally be safely cleaned up."

Padellaro's lawyer, Sal Tabit, said Padellaro is "working right
along with the city and DEP" to remediate the property. He said
Coakley's claims are "simply allegations, like any complaint."

MacLeod stopped work at the former mill until Feb. 24, when she
will hear Coakley's request for an injunction that would further
delay the work until a trial can be held on her allegations that
Padellaro's salvaging operation has "put workers and the public at
risk" and violated environmental laws, including the state Clean
Air Act.

Coakley is seeking an order directing Padellaro to obtain the
permits the DEP requires for demolishing contaminated buildings.
She also is asking the judge to freeze all of his assets,
including the mill and its equipment, any other real estate he may
own, "all household and office furnishings" and his bank accounts.

Freezing Padellaro's assets could provide a source of money to pay
the $86,000 the DEP says it has spent to monitor the mill and to
hire the contractors who entered the property to inventory the
environmental contaminants in August 2012.

Padellaro also owes $26,000 in DEP fines.

The contractor who inspected the site in 2012, Shaw Environmental
Inc. of Louisiana firm, found high levels of asbestos in 13 of the
mill's 28 buildings, and said it was unable to fully inspect nine
of the buildings because they were near collapse. Inspectors for
Shaw also inventoried the equipment that disappeared during what
it said was Padellaro's "extensive metal salvaging operation,"
which occurred despite several DEP directives to stop out of
concern it was spreading asbestos and structurally damaging the
buildings.

Coakley said in her complaint that Padellaro continued the
salvaging operation as recently as Feb. 3.

The $86,000 the DEP is attempting to recover would be a fraction
of the cost of demolishing the three or four buildings destroyed
in a fire Jan. 13. City Building Commissioner Peter Blanchette
said the bill for that clean-up could reach $500,000. Much more
would be needed to safely remove asbestos from about a dozen other
contaminated buildings on the four-acre complex.

State arson investigators have not determined the cause the fire.
Blanchette ordered the charred building demolished the day after
the investigators left, but the order Judge MacLeod's issued will
delay that.

Obtaining the court order is the most aggressive step the state
has taken against Padellaro since he bought the mill four years
ago in what local officials then described as a tax dodge for its
previous owner, Andover developer Stephen Stapinski.

Stapinski bought it at a bankruptcy auction in 2005 and sold it to
Padellaro after he was unable to get city approvals for a
residential and commercial complex. The $3 million in back
property taxes, water bills and interest Stapinski owed when he
sold the property now surpasses $5 million. The city placed a lien
on the property in an effort to collect the bills, but has not
seized the property because of the environmental and other
liabilities it poses. Besides the buildings and land, the liens
attach the equipment inside, City Attorney Charles Boddy said.

The company Padellaro formed to buy the property was dissolved by
the Secretary of State last year after it failed to file annual
reports.

Coakley's 35-page complaint provides a detailed account of
Padellaro's alleged defiance, including what she said was his
years' long refusal to comply with DEP directives and regulations
or to correct the violations that city and state inspectors
regularly found.

"During most, if not all, of those inspections, MassDEP staff
explained to Padellaro that his salvage, demolition and solid
waste storage activities at the site are being conducted in
violation of the Clean Air Act (and other environmental
regulations) and that he is putting his workers at risk of
dangerous asbestos exposure and potential building collapse,"
Coakley's complaint says, referring to 11 inspections by the DEP
over the last four years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Government Issues Fibro Warnings for Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma MacDonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
owners of 1,049 homes in Canberra, Australia, that were exposed to
Mr Fluffy asbestos in the 1970s will be urged by the ACT
Government to have their homes professionally inspected for
remnants of the potentially lethal insulation.

This is despite these residences being part of a $100 million
clean-up program that took place between 1988 and 1993 and
targeted roof cavities of houses with Mr Fluffy insulation in
them.

Residents will receive a letter warning them that "it is likely
that some insulation material remains in these homes, including in
places such as internal and external wall cavities, sub-floor
spaces and underneath cornices."  It is believed the warning
follows disturbing findings of the extent of asbestos
contamination in a home on Bradfield Street in Downer, which was
accidentally missed during the Commonwealth's original removal
program. Last July it was encased in a plastic bubble, pulled
apart and buried in an asbestos dump at a cost to ACT taxpayers of
more than $2 million.

ACT Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe, on behalf of the
government, has written the letter, which strongly warns all
homeowners against any renovation or even minor disturbance of
their walls, sub-floors or eaves, until their homes have been
inspected by a licensed asbestos assessor.

The cost of such an inspection will be about $700.

The loose amosite asbestos that was used as a cheap form of
insulation installed in the 1960s and '70s by "Mr Fluffy" Dirk
Jansen and his sons, is now known to be among the deadliest forms
of asbestos as it is easily airborne and its minute particles are
difficult to contain.

Mr McCabe said that while the Downer house was at an extreme end
of the danger spectrum in that it had never had the original loose
asbestos removed from its roof and it had been left to dissipate
and deteriorate over two decades, it "confirmed what we have
always known, which is that there can still be material behind the
walls".

ACT Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations Minister Simon
Corbell said homeowners had been reminded about asbestos safety in
1993 and 2005 but the government was now "stepping up" its
"proactive program".

"People may think, 'well my home has been remediated as part of
the program so there is no need for concern'," Mr Corbell said.
But it was critical in homes that had been exposed to Mr Fluffy
that owners understood the risk.

"I am not interested in creating some sort of panic - that would
be unjustified.

"These homes are not unliveable if they are managed," he said.
Meanwhile, he had instructed his directorate to strengthen the
information made available to prospective buyers regarding a
home's potential to contain remnant loose asbestos.

"There is already information on the title, and you can make
further inquiries on the building file, which should be done as
part of the conveyancing, but I have asked my officials on how we
can strengthen further the information made available on the title
- I think we can do more in terms of that advice and that work is
ongoing." Mr Corbell said he was not in a position to speculate
whether this information would potentially devalue a home when it
came on the market.

He also noted that the ACT government was not liable for any
further remediation of homes.

"The program was never represented as saying it would completely
clean the property - it was always very clear it would clean the
most accessible part of the property but there was no guarantee or
warranty on the remainder of the property," he said.

He blamed the ACT's asbestos contamination on "inaction on the
part of various federal governments prior to self government".

"The ACT government will continue to pursue the federal government
for contributions to the clean-up of asbestos and other
contaminated materials that were dumped under their watch."

A hotline has been set up through Canberra Connect on 13 22 81.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Toxins Make DIY Risky
--------------------------------------------
Rachel Young, writing for The Press, reported that kiwis dabbling
in "do-it-yourself" house repairs may be exposing themselves to
toxins, with a study showing an increase in asbestos-related
diseases among home renovators.

Canterbury, New Zealand, medical officer of Health Dr Alistair
Humphrey said an Australian study showed an increase in the number
of people suffering asbestos-related diseases after exposure to it
during home maintenance and renovation.

"I think it is something we will see more of worldwide and we
certainly are likely to see it in New Zealand. The pattern is
likely to be replicated everywhere."

Asbestos, a known carcinogen, can cause mesothelioma, a rare fatal
cancer of the lining of lungs or abdominal cavity, lung cancer,
asbestosis or scarring of lung tissue, and pleural plaques.

The study, published in the Medical Journal of Australia, looked
at 1631 cases of malignant mesothelioma in Western Australia
between 1960 and December 2008.  It found for both men and women,
home renovators accounted for the largest proportion of all non-
occupational cases, with 8.4 per cent of malignant mesothelioma
cases in men and 35.7 per cent of cases in women between 2005 and
2008 attributed to home renovation.

Humphrey said tradespeople knew how to deal with asbestos, unlike
the average person.  The worry was asbestos was being covered up
or becoming airborne when people cut into it without realizing
what it was, he said.

"A baby might crawl around in it for a few months and that would
be chronic exposure to that child and that's a potential cause [of
an asbestos-related disease]."

University of Otago associate professor David McBride, who
specialises in occupation and environmental medicine, said
asbestos was common in homes, particularly those built before the
mid-1980s.  He agreed home renovators were likely to be the "next
wave" in asbestos-related diseases, particularly as people became
more interested in renovation as shown by the increased amount of
reality televisions about it.

"People shouldn't work with it [asbestos] themselves but we can't
stop them. But, you need high grade respiratory protection."

Fireplaces, ceilings, roofs and linoleum were areas where asbestos
could be found.

If someone came across white material or anything unidentifiable
they should immediately get it checked by a professional.  McBride
said there was debate as to how long someone had to be exposed to
it for it to be harmful.

The study found some renovation activities, particularly those
involving power tools, could produce short-term, high
concentrations of asbestos fibres.  Major renovations might
increase background fibre concentrations in the medium term,
contributing to increased cumulative exposure.

However, in most instances in the study, exposure was limited to a
single task, which may have lasted for only a few days.

Humphrey said reality shows, such as The Block, were a great way
of educating people about safety but they also encouraged people
to partake in these activities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sufferers' Adult Children Urged to Contact Center
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "We want all adult children
of a diagnosed victim to call so that the center can educate them
on compensation and how to protect their loved one."

"Because of the age of the average diagnosed victim of
mesothelioma is around 70, and because mesothelioma is such an
aggressive form of cancer we are urging the adult children of the
diagnosed victim to call us at 866-714-6466, so we can list the
items that should be in place to make certain the diagnosed victim
receives the best possible financial compensation."

The Victims Center fears that each year hundreds of victims of
mesothelioma or their family receive no compensation because
either the diagnosed victim passed away before there was time
to begin the mesothelioma compensation claims process, or because
they picked the wrong type of attorney to advance a mesothelioma
compensation claim. To change this from happening to any more
diagnosed victims, the group is urging the adult son, daughter, or
wife of diagnosed victim of mesothelioma to call them anytime at
866-714-6466 for on the spot help, and resources.

Things A Wife, Adult Son, Or Daughter Must Have In Place To
Protect A Diagnosed Victim Of Mesothelioma Compensation Claim From
The Mesothelioma Victims Center:

The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "The two most important
things a victim of mesothelioma must have in place is an actual
diagnosis proving the victim has mesothelioma, and immediate
access to the nation's most skilled and experienced mesothelioma
compensation attorneys. If a possible victim of mesothelioma is
too weak to have a biopsy done, we will give the family
instructions on what things must be in place to protect the victim
and family. Families of diagnosed victims of mesothelioma should
be concerned about compensation, and we are always available to
help a diagnosed victim, or their family members with one call to
866-714-6466." http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

Information About Mesothelioma For Diagnosed Victims And Their
Families From The Mesothelioma Victims Center:

The average age for a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is 72 years
old.  Victims of mesothelioma are frequently misdiagnosed with
pneumonia. This year between 2,500 and 3,000 US citizens will be
diagnosed with mesothelioma*. Mesothelioma is 100% attributable to
exposure to asbestos*.

One-third of diagnosed victims of mesothelioma served in the US
Navy. Other high-risk work groups for exposure to asbestos
include: shipyard workers, oil refinery workers, manufacturing
workers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, machinists, or
construction workers. Typically the exposure to asbestos occurred
in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s.

The states with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include:
Pennsylvania, Maine, New Jersey, West Virginia, Florida, Wyoming,
and Washington. However, based on the calls the Mesothelioma
Victims Center receives diagnosed victims could be in any state
including: California, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio,
Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North
Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico,
Arizona Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.

The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "If you call us at 866-714-
6466, we will see to it that you have instant access to the
nation's most skilled mesothelioma attorneys who consistently get
the best compensation results for their clients."

Media Contact:
M. Thomas Martin
866-714-6466


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Defense Verdict in Cigar Fibro Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Kentucky appellate court
has upheld a defense verdict in favor of Lorillard Tobacco Co. and
Hollingsworth & Vose Co. in a case that involved exposure to both
asbestos-containing cigarettes and on-site exposure at one of the
defendant's plants.  In a Feb. 14, 57-page order, the Kentucky
Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff's contentions that the
instructions given to the jury were improper and that the
plaintiff was wrongfully precluded from presenting a number of
evidentiary items.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Austin Demolition Raises Fibro Concerns
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Villarreal, writing for My Fox Austin, reported that a
demolition project in East Austin, Texas, raises asbestos
concerns.

Fairway Street and Montopolis Drive see a lot of traffic.  Not
just cars, but people -- and children walking on foot.

"It's not safe. This corner's not safe right now," said Danny
Perez, the President of the Montopolis Neighborhood Association-El
Concilio.

"We knew a year back that there was asbestos on this property,"
Perez added. "The concern is why are they removing all this debris
without being contained."

This vacant building is set to be demolished by A & R Demolition,
which hired M and Jo Abatement to rid the property of asbestos.

Danny said, "I asked the guy that was removing, the supervisor,
ask him don't you know that there's a lot of businesses. He says,
well, you're going to be contained to some of it anyways, in the
air. I said, really? That's your answer?"

Danny's worried people in the neighborhood are going to get sick.

"You can see the air's blowing today," said Perez.

The most common way for asbestos to enter the body is through
breathing.  Larger fibers usually get trapped in the nose hairs,
but some asbestos fibers are so small they can go deep into the
lungs.

Sandra Orozco also lives and works in the area.  Sandra said,
"I've been real light-headed, real weak and . . . throwing up,
throwing up."

The property used to be fenced in.  Sandra thinks the neighborhood
kids might want to peek inside.

"I got my four little ones . . . at my store, we always have
little kids -- 5, 6, 7 and they go in by themselves, without
parents," said Sandra.

Perez said, "Look, look, between now and 6 there's going to be
about 30 buses coming through here."

When we first arrived, crews were piling up debris from inside --
not putting the trash into containers.

"Now he's worried," said Perez. "It took for ya'll to come out
here, so people could see what's going on. I never got a letter
saying that this was gonna be happening . . .  There was bad
communication with the City of Austin and the neighborhood here."

Supervisors would not go on camera, but a rep with Terracon, who
is overseeing the abatement says the crew were only wearing dust
masks, adding once the official abatement process starts, they'll
be testing to make sure levels are not dangerous.

The report said if you develop an asbestos-related disease,
statistics show it probably won't develop until many years after
your first exposure.

Some research also shows there really is no "safe" level of
asbestos exposure, noting even bystanders have developed asbestos-
related illnesses in the past.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundreds Displaced After Fibro Find in Apartments
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Denver reported that hundreds of people are in the process of
moving out of their apartments because they're contaminated with
asbestos.  Crews found asbestos beneath the carpet in the hallways
of The Overlook at Mile High apartments located at 14th Avenue and
Irving Street in Denver, Colorado.  The owners are putting the
tenants up in hotels until the asbestos mitigation work is
complete, but it could take weeks to be completed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mansfield Care Provider Fined for Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad reported that a Mansfield care provider has been ordered to
pay fines and costs of EUR24,000 after it admitted failing to
properly manage the risk of exposing workers to asbestos.

Debdale Specialist Care Ltd, which runs Thistle Hill Hall care
home on Debdale Lane, Mansfield Woodhouse, in the United Kingdom,
pleaded guilty on the first day of a trial at Nottingham Crown
Court.

The court ordered the company to pay a EUR4,000 fine and EUR20,000
towards prosecution costs after it admitted breaching sections
2(1) and 33 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 between
September 2005 and April 2012.

Environmental Health Officers from Mansfield District Council
began an investigation after receiving a report from the Health
and Safety Executive in March 2012.

Prosecuting for Mansfield District Council, Chris Geeson told the
court there was no proper asbestos management plan in place at
Thistle Hill Hall. This would have ensured that people working in
areas where asbestos was present were aware of it and did not do
anything to risk their health.

Council officers served a prohibition notice on the company which
prohibited anyone other than an asbestos specialist from entering
the loft areas.

A full asbestos survey in May 2012 revealed there were a number of
asbestos-containing materials in the loft areas of the building.

These materials were said to pose a higher risk and the survey
recommended that they were removed. By this stage three
maintenance staff had worked in the loft areas over several years
without any knowledge of the presence of asbestos.

Debdale Specialist Care Ltd subsequently engaged a specialist
company, which removed a significant number of asbestos-containing
materials from the loft areas and helped it to implement an
asbestos management plan.

Sentencing, His Honour Judge Sampson noted that the company had
accepted that the presence of asbestos in the loft areas was not
managed effectively and to the extent required by law. He noted
several aggravating features including; the length of time the
employees worked in the loft areas without the benefit of an
adequate asbestos management plan; the late guilty plea and the
failure to retain and act upon a full asbestos survey, principally
by failing to appoint anyone with the specific task of overseeing
asbestos safety until 2008.

In mitigation, he accepted that the company had a good health and
safety record generally, that the failure to carry out an asbestos
survey and implement an asbestos management plan was negligent
rather than intentional, and that proper steps were taken to
remedy deficiencies when they came to light.

Bev Smith, corporate director of regeneration and regulation at
Mansfield District Council, said: "The Council takes very
seriously the health and safety of people at work. We will ensure
employers meet their statutory responsibilities under current
legislation and as this case demonstrates, will take appropriate
action when this is not the case."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Waste Plan Worries New Zealand MP
--------------------------------------------------------
NZ City reported that New Zealand's First's Denis O'Rourke says
toxic waste from Christchurch is going to be dumped in Southland
when it should go to a purpose-built site in Canterbury.

Asbestos waste from the Christchurch rebuild is going to be carted
560km in modified shipping containers to be dumped near Winton in
Southland, an MP says.

NZ First's Denis O'Rourke says it should be stopped.

"The neighbours around the Southland landfill at Browns have now
been told to expect the asbestos, but they weren't consulted," he
said.

"Nor have the many communities along the route, including Timaru,
Oamaru, Dunedin and Invercargill been consulted."

Mr O'Rourke says the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority gave
an undertaking that the toxic asbestos waste would be dumped in
the purpose-built Kate Valley landfill in Canterbury.  He raised
the issue in parliament, and was told by Earthquake Recovery
Minister Gerry Brownlee that the waste wouldn't be dumped into any
landfills that weren't certified.

Mr Brownlee said he wasn't aware of any contracts for it to be
taken to Southland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Probe Into Fibro Find at Primary School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Irwin, writing for Northcote Leader, reported that asbestos
was found at Wales Street Primary School, in Australia, in rooms
used by Prep students and staff with the school's principal moved
to a regional office while an investigation takes place.

Department of Education spokesman Simon Craig said recent testing
at the school revealed asbestos in dust samples in the carpet in a
room used by Preps and the art and craft room in the building
known as Block C, but no detectable levels of airborne asbestos.

The tests followed building renovation works over the summer
holidays.

Mr Craig said the school's principal Christopher Sexton had been
moved to the regional office while "assisting the Department with
the investigation", with former Preston Girls Secondary College
principal Judi Benney appointed as acting principal.

The Education Department issued the following statement aimed at
reassuring parents: "Department of Health experts have advised
that the risk to any staff that accessed Block C and two classes
of Prep students who used the Library (Prep room) in the first
week of school term is low."

Block C remains off-limits while the department and Worksafe
continue investigations.

Parents were invited to attend an information meeting, with a
further meeting organised for another day.

School Council president and parent Natasha Kinsman said she and
other parents were upset and angry with the Education Department,
which had failed to remove the building despite requests over the
years.

"If the department had provided a new building, the old building
wouldn't have needed renovation and this would never have
happened," Ms Kinsman said.

"As a parent at the school, I'm very annoyed we have a building
with asbestos at all."

Acting principal Ms Benney sent a letter to parents introducing
herself and informing them about the asbestos incident.

The department refused to elaborate on why Mr Sexton was removed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Files Lung Cancer Case in St. Clair County
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Brakken, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reported that numerous companies are facing suit over claims
repeated exposure to asbestos resulted in lung cancer and death.

Ruth Curl, individually and as special administrator of the estate
of John Curl, deceased, filed an asbestos lawsuit Feb. 3 in St.
Clair County Circuit Court against Ameron International Corp. and
more than two dozen other companies.

The plaintiff alleges that John Curl served in the U.S. Army from
1958 until 1962, worked as a laborer from 1962 until 1963 at
Zeller Corp. and was employed by General Motors Central Foundry as
an electrician from 1964 until 1999.

The suit does not indicate where Ruth Curl resides.

It states that during the course of John Curl's various
employments, he was exposed to asbestos containing products. The
plaintiff contends the defendants were negligent and knew or
should have known that asbestos could cause injury or death. John
Curl developed lung cancer and eventually died as a result of the
asbestos exposure, according to the complaint.

Ruth Curl is seeking more than $50,000 in damages.

The plaintiff is being represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry
Julian of Gori Julian & Associates PC.

St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 14-L-140.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corette Power Plant Shuts Down After Fibro Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clair Johnson, writing for Billings Gazette, reported that PPL
Montana recently shut down its J.E. Corette power plant in
Billings, Montana, and sent workers home after a steam tube failed
on the boiler and damaged asbestos-containing insulation. A
subsequent windstorm also whipped up materials.

Dave Hoffman, a PPL Montana spokesman, said that the 154-megawatt
coal plant will be off-line until environmental contractors on
site complete remediation and the company can evaluate necessary
repairs.

On Feb. 3, a steam tube on top of the boiler failed and a steam
leak damaged some siding and insulation on the rear wall of the
boiler, Hoffman said. He said some of the insulation contained
asbestos, an insulating material known to be a carcinogen.

The company sent all workers, approximately 26 to 30 employees,
either home or to its Billings office while the environmental
contractors worked at the site, Hoffman said.

Workers returned when the contractors declared areas clean,
Hoffman said. The employees came back "piecemeal" depending on
their jobs in the plant, he said.

Then on Feb. 12, a strong wind blew around insulation and metal
sheeting that had been on the side of building, Hoffman said. When
the wind kicked up, the clean areas were not as easy to identify,
so the company again sent workers home as a precaution for health
and safety, he said.

Employees remain on call, Hoffman said.

No one was injured during either event, he said.

Environmental contractors remain at the site and are "working
around the clock," he said.

The plant is scheduled to be mothballed by April 2015.

Hoffman did not know when the plant would return to operations and
said it had been running at full capacity.

"We've made all the regulatory notifications," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Released in Explosion, Fire
--------------------------------------------------------
NL Times reported that three people have been taken to hospital
after a fire broke out in a flat in Ridderkerk, Zuid, Holland.

Another five people were treated for smoke inhalation.

The fire followed an explosion in a home on the second floor of a
flat complex on the Stadhouderslaan. The resident of that
apartment has been taken to hospital with burn wounds. Part of the
flat complex has been evacuated.

Some asbestos came free during the fire, regional news sites
report. This has to be cleared by a specialized business.
Residents in the area are being warned. "If you have walked on the
street in front of he home last night or this morning, rinse your
shoes with water."

The fire department has managed to get the fire under control
fairly quickly. Six homes had to be evacuated, most of the
residents were able to find a place to spend the night.  It is
unclear what caused the explosion but it produced a lot of smoke,
press office Novum reports.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County's First 2014 Fibro Trial Begins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that opening statements began in a rare asbestos trial in Madison
County Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs' courtroom, three months
after its last trial.

Madison County, dubbed the nation's "epicenter" of asbestos
litigation by the American Tort Reform Association, typically
averages about one trial every other year, so this one should come
as a surprise.

Brothers Tom King, Jr. and Brian King, from Tennessee, are
representing their father, Tom King, Sr., on behalf of the lawsuit
he filed Jan. 8, 2013, just before he died from inoperable
mesothelioma on May 23, 2013, at age 71.

Defendants Crane Co. and John Crane Inc. are the only two left of
the original 119 defendants in the negligence lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, Tom King was a machinist mate for the
United States Navy from 1959-1962 and again from 1965-1969,
serving on the USS Forrestal, USS Tallahatchie County and the USS
Hollister.

King's job in the Navy was to change gaskets, repair pumps and
repair valves. Part of his job required him to scrape out the dry,
baked asbestos from gaskets in order to replace them with new
ones. He used a wire brush and a scraper to clean the asbestos
from the old gaskets.  He was also exposed to asbestos packing,
which was used in valves and pumps as a sealant to prevent
leaking.

Prior to opening statements, counsels for Crane Co. and the
plaintiffs addressed a motion in limine requesting an order
prohibiting the defendant from presenting circumstantial evidence
regarding King's asbestos exposure to insulation aboard the Navy
ships.

Plaintiff attorney Allyson Romani of Shrader & Associates argued
that Crane Co. should only be permitted to pursue insulation
asbestos exposure if its attorneys could bring solid evidence
supporting their claims. She believes the defense is ignoring sole
proximate cause.

She further alleges the information is misleading as pipe
insulation was just a small portion of King's work. His day-to-day
activities involved working with chrysotile valves, gaskets and
packing, she says.

However, Jeff Hebrank of HeplerBroom stepped in briefly to argue
on Crane Co.'s behalf. He explained that the defense does not have
the burden of proof and, therefore, can rely on circumstantial
evidence.

Stobbs decided to allow insulation exposure arguments in court.

During opening statements, attorney Jim Lowery represented Crane
Co. and presented his argument that the pipe insulation must have
caused King's illness. He supported the company's products,
claiming they were safe and could not have caused King's
mesothelioma.

"You're looking for a cause?" Lowery asked. "That's the cause, the
insulation."

The insulation aboard the ship was friable amosite asbestos
insulation, which means it could be easily crushed to a powder in
someone's hand.

All asbestos-containing products sold or manufactured by Crane Co.
were encased and were considered safe, he said. In fact, gaskets
and packing aren't even banned today, he said.

Gaskets and packing weren't considered in published studies until
1991 and were declared acceptable and not dangerous, he said

Frank Wathen of Shrader & Associates, who delivered opening
statements for the plaintiffs, prepared for Crane Co.s inclusion
of insulation asbestos exposure allegations by telling the jury
that the defense will present excuses -- blaming other companies'
asbestos-containing products, saying the Navy was liable to warn
and claiming their gaskets are safe.

"What Crane Co. is telling you is, 'It's OK to poison someone a
little bit,'" Wathen said.

"To this day, Crane Co. will come into court and say their gaskets
are safe."

Lowery responded by saying he brings only facts.

"Keep in mind that these will be facts, and facts are not
excuses," Lowery said.

Lowery also argued that the Navy chose to use asbestos gaskets and
packing, not Crane Co.

Crane Co. had products that didn't contain asbestos and could have
offered those products if the Navy hadn't already made it very
clear that their military specifications, Mil-Specs, required
asbestos-containing products. The Navy also dictated the warnings,
or lack thereof, of the products.

"We followed precise military specifications because if we didn't,
the Navy wouldn't buy it," Lowery said.

"The Navy controlled every aspect of Mr. King's life and workspace
on the ship . . . If the navy gave you an order, boy you did it,"
he continued.

The Navy was one of the largest consumers of asbestos products at
the time due to fire protection. Regulations required the military
to use asbestos as a fire retardant.

Asbestos was also lightweight, allowing for faster ships and the
ability to store more ammunition.

When the ships were ordered, asbestos was used in more than 3,000
products, from oven mitts and fake snow to insulation and joint
compound.

Asbestos was common, and the Navy made sure to know everything
there was to know about asbestos, Lowery said. With that, it still
didn't consider asbestos-containing gaskets and packing dangerous,
he added.

In Wathen's opening statements, presented to a jury of six men and
six women with one female alternate, he argued that Crane Co.
created a gasket material called Cranite, which contained 75 to 85
percent chrysotile and amphibole asbestos.

"To this day, Crane Co. contends that asbestos in its products is
safe," Wathan said.

The sheets did not come with warnings and continued to be sold
until the mid 1980s, which Wathan considers negligent due to the
studies on asbestos dangers released years in advance.

"This case is about business as usual for Crane Co.," Wathen said.

He added that chrysotile fibers, specifically, get stuck in the
lungs and are easily transferred from the inside of the lungs to
the lining.

"The bottom line is," Wathan said, "asbestos, and all types of
asbestos, cause cancer, cause asbestosis and can kill you."

After opening statements, Tom King, Jr. gave a tearful testimony
about his fond memories of his father and what he knew of his
father's career in the Navy.

"He was the cornerstone of our family," King said, "and it's like
somebody pulled a pin and everything collapsed."

Tom King, Jr.'s father left the Navy in order to spend more time
with his family and moved back to Tennessee.

Just after leaving the Navy, he went to college for environmental
engineering and chemistry and got a job in water treatment. He was
remembered for his love of the outdoors and reading.

Tom King, Sr. had been living with prostate cancer for several
years, but Wathen said it was manageable and had not spread at the
time of King's death.

He was eventually diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2012. After
stints of chemotherapy and radiation, King died in May 2013.

"Prostate cancer did not kill Tom King," Wathen said.
"Mesothelioma killed Tom King."

Crane Co. attorney Rebecca Nickelson of HeplerBroom cross-examined
the witness, pointing out that after Tom King Sr. was diagnosed
with prostate cancer, he refused conventional medicine and opted
to try natural remedies like healthy eating.

Tom King Jr. said his father had stacks of books about prostate
cancer to fully educate himself on the diagnosis.

Edward Burns of O'Connel, Tivin, Miller & Burns LLC represents
John Crane, Inc. but did not deliver opening statements.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkhamsted Woman Dies of Industrial Disease
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hemel Today reported that a woman died from a form of asbestos
poisoning despite having had no noteable contact with the material
in her memory, an inquest heard.

Joyce Davis, 76, of Chiltern Park Avenue, Berkhamsted, in
Hertfordshire, United Kingdom, had metastatic mesothelioma,
meaning the disease spread around her body before her death on
October 24.

Ms Davis' husband had been a carpenter during his working life and
there is a chance she may have come into contact with asbestos
through his clothing, although he died earlier of a cancer
unrelated to the industrial disease.

Questions were also raised about the replacement of former Tesco
store assistant Ms Davis' garage roof and whether this could have
caused the asbestos contamination, but this took place within the
last eight years and was therefore ruled out by coroner Edward
Thomas.

According to family present at Herts coroner's court Ms Davis, who
was born in Darlington and spent some of her childhood being
brought up in orphanages, knew she was terminally ill, and was
receiving palliative care.  She died at home. Mr Thomas recorded a
narrative verdict, saying: "It is a very sad case, because it is
such a dreadful disease. It's a shame not to be able to link it to
an exposure, but that is not unusual."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Exposed to Fibro Urged to Contact Center
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "We are 100% focused on
making certain US Navy Veterans, or individuals who were exposed
to asbestos in the trades have instant access to the nation's best
mesothelioma compensation attorneys. We fear that too many
diagnosed victims of mesothelioma and their family members fail to
realize the absolute best possible financial compensation for a
mesothelioma compensation claim is the result of having one of the
nation's most skilled mesothelioma attorneys representing them.
This is especially true for Veterans of the US Navy, construction
workers, or trades workers who were exposed to asbestos decades
ago at a shipyard, a construction job site, or a industrial, or
manufacturing workplace."

Before hiring a mesothelioma attorney, please call the
Mesothelioma Victims Center at 866-714-6466 to compare the
qualifications of the mesothelioma attorneys they suggest to
anyone else in the country.

When the Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "Much better
compensation results for diagnosed victims of mesothelioma" they
are talking about hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of
dollars in mesothelioma compensation, because the attorneys they
suggest really are the best mesothelioma compensation attorneys in
the nation. The extremely skilled mesothelioma attorneys they
suggest almost immediately visit the diagnosed victim in their
home with the goal to get every possible detail about the
individual's exposure to asbestos. It is this vital information
that becomes the foundation for the most successful mesothelioma
compensation claims. Attention to detail, and extremely skilled
legal resources, is something the Mesothelioma Victims Center
offers seven days a week. For more information a diagnosed victim
of mesothelioma or their family members are strongly encouraged to
contact the Mesothelioma Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466.

Important note: Why does the Mesothelioma Victims Center mention
US Navy Veterans and mesothelioma so frequently? The Mesothelioma
Victims Center says, "We mention US Navy Veterans when we are
talking about mesothelioma so frequently because a very
significant percentage of diagnosed victims of mesothelioma were
at least initially exposed to asbestos while serving in the US
Navy."

Information About Mesothelioma For Diagnosed Victims And Their
Families From The Mesothelioma Victims Center:

The average age for a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is 72 years
old.  Victims of mesothelioma are frequently misdiagnosed with
pneumonia. This year between 2,500 and 3,000 US citizens will be
diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is 100% attributable to
exposure to asbestos.

One-third of diagnosed victims of mesothelioma served in the US
Navy. Other high-risk work groups for exposure to asbestos
include: shipyard workers, oil refinery workers, manufacturing
workers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, machinists, or
construction workers. Typically the exposure to asbestos occurred
in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s.

The states with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include:
Pennsylvania, Maine, New Jersey, West Virginia, Florida, Wyoming,
and Washington. However, based on the calls the Mesothelioma
Victims Center receives diagnosed victims could be in any state
including: California, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio,
Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Idaho,
Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.

The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "If you call us at 866-714-
6466, we will see to it that you have instant access to the
nation's most skilled mesothelioma attorneys who consistently get
the best compensation results for their clients."

For more information about a rare form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos called mesothelioma, please visit the US
Centers For Disease Control's web site:

Media Contact:
M. Thomas Martin
866-714-6466


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UA Law Alum Wins Largest Ever Ohio Fibro Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Weiner, writing for Legal News, reported that John Mismas,
a former teamster who graduated from The University of Akron
School of Law in 2003, recently won the largest jury award for an
asbestos case in Ohio history, totaling $27.5 million.

The case, John Panza, et al. v. Borgwarner Morse Tech Inc., The
"et. al." comprised 14 total defendants, although only one of
them, the Kelsey-Hayes Company (a subsidiary of TRW), lost at
trial.

The trial lasted 11 days; the jury was out for four-and-a-half
hours.

Defendant's counsel was Baker Hostettler, which utilized attorneys
from both their Cleveland and Denver offices. The firm has not yet
responded to a request for a comment on the case.

Visiting Judge Harry Hanna, who presides over asbestos cases in
Cuyahoga County, was the judge. Asbestos judges are appointed by
the Ohio Supreme Court as visiting judges, said Mismas.

John Panza is an English professor at Tri-C, and the drummer for
the Cleveland alt-rock trio Blaka Watra. He suffers from
mesothelioma, a rare and highly aggressive form of cancer most
commonly caused by exposure to asbestos.

Mismas said Panza has already lost one lung to the disease, and
his outlook is bleak.

"Mesothelioma is always fatal," said Mismas, who has dedicated
much of his legal career to the plaintiff's side of asbestos
cases.

Panza never worked in asbestos, but he had been exposed to it
through his father's clothing. His father worked at Eaton Airflex
Brake Company. Eaton was immune from this law suit under Ohio law;
Kelsey-Hayes is liable for the entire amount.

Panza was 40 years old when he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
2012. His father had died of lung cancer in 1994 at the age of 52,
having worked at Eaton Airflex for over 30 years.

The defendant Kelsey-Hayes Co. was in the case as the successor to
National Friction Products, which was the last remaining defendant
at the time of the verdict.

The jury award was broken down into three components: Panza
received $515,000 in economic damages and $12 million in non-
economic damages. Panza's wife, co-plaintiff Jane Panza, was
awarded $15 million for loss of consortium.

Mismas said that the complaint had asked for $25 million, but that
the jury had asked during their deliberations if they could award
more than the amount prayed for in the complaint.  He also said
that the way that the Panzas have handled their situation, "has
made me a better person. He is a very optimistic guy." Panza
continues to teach and play through his disease, and Mismas said
he found himself attending Blaka Watra shows. The attorney often
bonds with his asbestos clients, he said.

Second-hand asbestos cases are very challenging, said Mismas. "I
knew that it would be a tough case," he said. "One of the toughest
cases to try."

At trial, Mismas needed to convince the court to find some
difficult, and some unique, procedural holdings. This was the
first living mesothelioma case that he had seen, he said, to have
a directed verdict to exceed Ohio's damage caps

"It is easier to find an exception to the damage caps rule in
cases where the plaintiff is deceased," said Mismas.

Ohio's damage caps are under R.C. 2315.08, with the exceptions to
those caps under section (B) of that rule. Mismas brought the
motion for a directed verdict under (B)(3)(a), the exception for
"permanent and substantial physical deformity."

Panza had had a lung removed and had undergone other radical
surgery, as well as radiation, to the point that his body was
covered with scars. Mismas, in arguing for the directed verdict,
showed the court photos of him, but also had Panza show the
courtroom those scars, and the judge granted the directed verdict.

People who are damaged by asbestos are almost always, "working
class folks," Mismas said.

Dedicated to this cause, he helps other asbestos lawyers out
around the country and lectures on the topic, including lecturing
at Akron Law, his alma mater. He has also, he said, attended
numerous funerals of asbestos victims, where he is occasionally a
pallbearer.

Although this was a very large verdict, Mismas said that he is in
this field to help people, and that, "the money is just a bonus."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs' Exposure Experts Take Stand in Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the second day of a Madison County, Illinois, asbestos trial
was devoted to establishing the late plaintiff's medical history
and informing the jury about asbestos and its consequences.

Brothers Tom King, Jr. and Brian King brought the suit to Madison
County last year on behalf of their father Tom King, Sr., months
before he died from mesothelioma on May 23 at age 71.

Crane Co., a company that supplied the U.S. Navy with mechanical
gaskets and valves, and John Crane, a designer and manufacturer of
mechanical seals, are the remaining defendants at trial from the
original of list of 119 defendant companies.

According to the lawsuit, Tom King was a machinist mate for the
U.S. Navy from 1959-1962 and again from 1965-1969, serving on the
USS Forrestal, USS Tallahatchie County and USS Hollister.

King's job was to change gaskets, repair pumps and repair valves.
Part of his job required him to scrape out dry, baked chrysotile
asbestos from gaskets in order to replace them with new ones. He
used a wire brush and a scraper to clean the asbestos from the old
gaskets. He also was exposed to asbestos packing, which was used
in valves and pumps as a sealant to prevent leaking, according to
testimony.

Trial is under way in Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs' court -- the
nation's busiest asbestos docket. The second day of testimony was
split between two plaintiffs witnesses, Dr. Arnold Brody and Dr.
Carlos Bedrossian.

While King worked specifically with chrysotile asbestos contained
in gaskets and packing, defense counsel alleged his exposure to
insulation aboard the ships was the cause of his mesothelioma.

However, both experts agreed in their testimonies that all
asbestos fiber types can cause mesothelioma.

Bedrossian, an expert pathologist, compared the situation to
varying calibers of ammunition. He explained that it doesn't
matter if someone is shot with a .38 caliber or a .22 caliber, "a
bullet is a bullet." Either way, someone is shot and risks a high
probability of dying.  He said the various asbestos exposures only
"adds more weight" to King's potential of getting sick.

Brody, professor and vice chairman of the Department of Pathology
at the Tulane University's School of Medicine, explained how the
human body has natural defense mechanisms to protect the lungs
from asbestos damage.

As part of those defenses, asbestos fibers sometimes get caught in
the lymph fluid flow within the lungs and can travel to the lining
of the lungs, which is where mesothelioma forms.

Due to the nature of travel to the lining, Brody said chrysotile
asbestos is more easily removed to the lining of the lungs because
it breaks down.

"Fibers that are smaller are more likely to be transported in the
fluid flow," Brody said.

Once the asbestos fibers make their way to the lining of the
lungs, a latency period sets in as the damaged cells do their
dirty work, he said. Mesothelioma typically takes decades to
develop into a cancer, because a damaged cell has to come into
contact with asbestos fibers five to 15 times before it loses
control of cell growth and develops into a cancer, he said.

During cross examination by Crane Co. attorney Rebecca Nickelson,
Brody said he recognizes that some scientists deny that chrysotile
asbestos will cause mesothelioma, but says there is still debate
in the scientific community.

"They're respected scientists," Brody said, "that doesn't mean
they are right about that."

Bedrossian, cross examined by Crane Co. attorney Jim Lowery, said
some experts are "under the false impression that chrysotile is
harmless. There is no harmless poison."

However, Nickelson said amosite asbestos is the most predominant
fiber recovered from the lungs of those who were exposed to a
variety of asbestos types.

In an effort to pin the mesothelioma development on more potent
asbestos fibers, the defense counsel pointed out King's exposure
to insulation asbestos fibers.

However, Brody said it is impossible to narrow down which fiber
caused mesothelioma, comparing it to an attempt to determine which
cigarette individually caused lung cancer. They all contributed
equally despite the variety, he said.

"So if he was exposed to both, how are you possibly going to
separate that?" Brody asked during cross examination. He continued
by saying that all exposures caused errors in the lung cells that
resulted in illness.

Bedrossian agreed that it is not scientifically possible to know
which product contributed, joking that the fibers don't tell
doctors which product they each belonged to

He added that even a single fiber could come in like a "suicide
bomber," causing all of the damage to establish mesothelioma.

Bedrossian had the opportunity to look at King's medical records
and reports, which revealed that King had bi-lateral pleural
plaque -- a significant sign that he was exposed to asbestos.

King's mesothelioma had metastasized to other organs, including
his bones and liver, at the time of his death.

During cross examination, defense attorney Jim Lowery raised the
question of whether or not King's metastases could be attributed
to his prostate cancer.

Lowery said King repetitively refused traditional treatment for
his prostate cancer, including hormone therapy and chemotherapy,
despite his doctors' urging.

Instead, King chose to fight his illness with alternative medicine
and manage it on his own. He was even told specifically that he
was increasing his risk of his illness spreading and that his
cancer would not be treated with alternative medicine, according
to his medical records.

Bedrossian said that while many doctors do not support alternative
medicine, it was King's right to choose which type of therapy to
do, especially because traditional medication is like pumping more
poison into the body and could be just as risky as doing nothing
at all.

Lowery explained that prostate cancer has a tendency to
metastasize in the bones, which could shorten a patient's life
expectancy to just one to three years.

Bedrossian could not verify the specific shortened life
expectancy, but agreed one-to-three years was fair. However, he
concluded by saying that while prostate cancer can be serious, it
doesn't hold a candle to the threats posed when more dangerous
severe illnesses are present.

Regardless of the damage King's prostate cancer had on his body,
Bedrossian said cancer diagnosis in the bone specifically named
mesothelioma as the culprit, and the radiologist was confident
that the new sites containing cancerous cells were the result of
mesothelioma.

During Bedrossian's cross examination, Lowery used several
hypothetical situations, including scenarios where gaskets were
the sole asbestos exposure and where insulation was the sole
exposure. The plaintiff's counsel objected each time, creating
tension in the courtroom.

Lowery moved on to questions relating to past testimonies, which
Wathen objected on the grounds that the defense was trying to make
him appear inconsistent. Stobbs agreed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AgustaWestland Directors in Chopper Fibro Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gazzetta del Sud reported that prosecutors in Turin, Italy, placed
a dozen former and current directors of Italian helicopter
manufacturer AgustaWestland under investigation over problems
related to the presence of asbestos in helicopters supplied to the
Italian armed forces and police.

Investigators are concentrating on what has been described as a
'delay' by the company in flagging up the problem, which
reportedly concerns all army and police choppers.

AgustaWestland, a subsidiary of Italian aerospace and defence
giant Finmeccanica, only made a full report in September 2013,
prior to which reports had only been partial.

The probe concerns AgustaWestland managers from the 1990s to last
year. They now face possible charges of culpable disaster. The
investigation comes on the heels of a separate probe into
allegations of kickbacks in exchange for a contract to supply 12
AW-101 helicopters outfitted for VIP use to the Indian government
that led to the resignation of Finmeccanica CEO Giuseppe Orsi last
year.

India froze payments on the choppers in early 2013 after only
three had been procured in the wake of claims that bribes had been
paid to Indian officials to secure the contract. It subsequently
cancelled the $770 million deal at the start of this year but has
agreed to take part in an arbitration process. In January Indian
media reported that the government was considering blacklisting
AgustaWestland but that a final decision would be taken after
consultations with the justice and defence ministries and the
Central Investigation Bureau (CBI).

Sources at the Finmeccanica subsidiary denied knowledge of the
matter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Fines Man for Improper Trailer Demolition
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chronicle reported that an Oregon man has been fined $6,000
for demolishing a trailer without first checking for asbestos.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued the
penalty to Richard R. Wilson of Brookings, Ore. for failing to
have an asbestos survey performed on a mobile home he had
demolished by JC Land Clearing Inc. also of Brookings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Looks for Answers to Husband's Fibro Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warrington Guardian reported that a heartbroken widow is demanding
answers amid claims asbestos exposure could have caused her
husband's death from lung cancer.

Teresa Morris, aged 75, says husband of 59 years Derek 'died in my
arms' at their home on Helmsdale Lane, Great Sankey, in United
Kingdom, in May last year.  It would have been their 60th wedding
anniversary on Valentine's Day.  He did not smoke and his death is
being linked to periods working in factories where lethal asbestos
may have been present.

She said: "He used to say different things about asbestos but I
didn't pay much notice because you don't think something like this
is going to happen to you.

"He would clean pipes and it would come off but he had no idea of
the damage it would cause.

"He started complaining of pain in his back and doctors thought it
was a water infection, then they thought it was arthritis.

"MRI scans showed asbestos in his lung.

"The phone call to say it was cancer shocked both of us.

"Derek thought he was just over weight, it was terrible for all of
us.

"His body rejected chemotherapy and doctors said there was nothing
else to do.

"After a couple of weeks, he gave up and died in my arms
surrounded by our family."

The 'fun-loving' holiday lover, who had three daughters, eleven
grandchildren and five great-grandchildren, was employed in two
factories in the town.  He worked in the maintenance department of
Thames Board Mills in Arpley Meadows from 1958 to 1966.

The family man also worked at the Lever Brothers factory on
Liverpool Road, Great Sankey, from 1966 to 1997.

Manchester law firm Pannone says asbestos exposure could have
happened at one or both locations. It is considering legal action.

Mrs Morris says she is determined to find answers on why workers
were not protected from asbestos, in her husband's memory.

"Workers like Derek should have been warned about this but they
weren't told about the dangers," she added.

"I just miss him being here, and I want other families who may
have been affected to know."

Patrick Walsh, from Pannone solicitors, said, "We know Derek
Morris was exposed to asbestos at Thames Board Mills when he
undertook asbestos insulation work.

"It is also possible that his work at Lever Brothers brought him
into contact with asbestos and I would be most grateful if people
who worked at either Thames Board Mills or Lever Bros could call
me on 0161 909 6436 or e-mail patrick.walsh@pannone.co.uk so that
I can learn more about how widespread the use of asbestos was. All
calls will be treated in the strictest confidence."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Latrobe Elementary School to Get Fibro Exam
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Federoff, writing for TribLive, reported that as a part of
a larger district-wide facilities assessment, Latrobe Elementary
School, in Pennsylvania, will be given a thorough examination for
asbestos. The Greater Latrobe school board approved the measure.

The board discussed the study, which was approved at a cost not to
exceed $4,500, at its regular meeting.

Operations and facilities director Ken Millslagle said there are
no concerns about safety at the school regarding the mineral
fiber, which was used in decades past for building materials, but
this long-term assessment requires extra attention because of
testing costs.

Regular asbestos screening is done every three years on the
building as required by the federal Environmental Protection
Agency.

This facilities assessment is more thorough and completed about
every 10 years as a part of the district's strategic plan,
Millslagle told board members. Axis Architecture of North
Huntingdon will conduct the facilities assessment.

The board also awarded the asbestos study to Pittsburgh-based
Center for Environmental and Occupational Training for the
Ligonier Street school, parts of which were built in 1912, 1936
and 1964, the oldest of the district's five buildings, Millslagle
said.

"This has to be done separately because this is very specialized,"
he said after the meeting. "That's part of what makes it
difficult, because you're assessing a building from multiple
stages."

In other business, the board approved $38,788 in change orders for
the $9.5 million athletic complex as construction continues after
delays because of the weather.

The changes, including storm pipe, electrical fixture and
ventilation work, have been completed.

The board also approved additions to the school academic calendar
to include June 9 and 10, to make up for the district's
cancellations in addition to the already scheduled three snow
days.

Graduation will remain on June 11 with a June 12 rain date.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal/OSHA Halts Work on Palace Hotel in Ukiah
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glenda Anderson, writing for The Press Democrat, reported that the
latest in a long, fitful series of efforts to salvage historic
Palace Hotel in Ukiah, California, has hit a snag.

The state Division of Occupational Safety and Health has halted
construction work on the Palace Hotel over concerns about asbestos
and lead contamination.

Work cannot continue until the hotel's owner hires a licensed
asbestos contractor to oversee removal of asbestos inside the
building, Cal/OSHA spokesman Peter Melton said.

"We want to protect the employees," he said.

The problem is expected to be remedied within 30 days, said Norm
Hudson, a Windsor contractor who began overseeing work on the
building two years ago.

It's not the first time work on the hotel has been stalled.

Marin County real estate agent Eladia Laines, first with partners,
then on her own, has been promising to restore the 122-year-old
landmark for more than two decades.

But the hotel has been vacant and in decline since Laines and her
former partners bought it in a 1990 bankruptcy sale for $115,000.
The nearly 60,000-square-foot, three-story building takes up most
of a city block and has been a scourge on downtown improvement
efforts.

Laines periodically has made repairs and promises. In 2009, she
announced plans to build shops on the ground level and
condominiums above, a plan she still hopes to pursue with the help
of yet-to-be-located investors.

The city, meanwhile, has spent more than $100,000 in staff time
and on studies for the hotel, including feasibility studies and an
appraisal. One study found the hotel may be worth less than the
cost of tearing it down.

Officials hoped the studies would stimulate progress, possibly a
sale of the building, but little happened.

Following years of failed effort to gently prod progress, the City
Council two years ago ordered Laines to take steps toward
rehabilitating the building or face having the city seize, and
possibly demolish, the structure, which was declared a nuisance.

Since then, Laines has been required to give regular updates to
the council, showing that progress is being made.

The council gave her another reprieve.

So far, nearly 125 tons of water-damaged wood and lathe plaster
have been removed from the hotel, Hudson said. He's also taken
steps to halt rain from entering the building.

There's a long way to go, but Hudson is hopeful.

And he's not alone. Hudson said some 6,000 people have been
following progress on the hotel through photos posted online on
Flickr.  Hudson wasn't always optimistic. He initially turned down
requests to work on the hotel

"I said 'I'll be dead before that's done, I'm not interested,'" he
recalled.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Inmate's Motion to Amend Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Contrell Plummer seeks to substitute the Illinois
Department of Corrections for several named Defendants.  Judge
Stephen C. Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denied the Plaintiff's motion to amend,
noting that the claims against IDOC were dismissed with prejudice
and are no longer a part of the suit.  To the extent the Plaintiff
seeks to amend his Complaint to add claims against various
individuals for alleged inhumane living conditions at Menard
Correctional Center, those claims are unrelated to the current
claims against Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Magid Fahim, and Fe
Fuentes, and do not belong in the instant case, Judge Williams
said.  The Plaintiff alleges that these new individuals subjected
him to inhumane conditions by housing him and other inmates in
cell houses with excessive dust, mold, and mildew, exposure to
lead pain, leaking lead pipes, and exposure to asbestos.  These
are entirely new claims which must be brought in a new suit after
exhausting his administrative remedies against these individuals,
Judge Williams ruled.

The case is CONTRELL PLUMMER, Plaintiff, v. WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES, INC., FE FUENTES, and MAGID FAHIM, Defendants, CASE NO.
11-CV-682-MJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Williams' memorandum and order dated March 5, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/0qRZEvfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owner Required to Remediate Unsafe Indiana Bldg.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Long appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of the City of Logansport, through its Building
Commissioner, requiring Long to comply with a previous order
issued by the City to raze a building she owns.

In 1999, Long purchased a former school building from the City's
school corporation and informed the City that she wished to
rehabilitate the property for use as her family's personal
residence.  The building contained asbestos so its rehabilitation
would include asbestos remediation.  Long performed no renovation
on the property for over two years.  The City's Building
Commissioner had declared the building to be unsafe according to
Indiana building law and City ordinances and ordered Long to,
among other things, remediate the asbestos in the building.  Long
was unable to perform the required remediation and renovations so
she was sued by the City for compliance.  The trial court granted
summary judgment to the City and ordered Long to carry out steps
in a compliance order and to post a $150,000 performance bond.

The Court of Appeals of Indiana in a memorandum decision dated
Feb. 17, 2014, affirmed the trial court's summary judgment ruling,
noting that many of Long's attempted arguments have been waived
for failure to present cogent argument.  On the central issue of
whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the
City and required Long to comply with the July 16, 2010 order, the
Court of Appeals concluded there are no genuine issues of material
fact and that the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.

The case is SONIA LONG, Appellant, v. CITY OF LOGANSPORT, BUILDING
COMMISSIONER, Appellee, NO. 09A04-1305-PL-249 (Ind. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' Decision penned by Judge
Michael P. Barnes is available at http://is.gd/c4SNYkfrom
Leagle.com.  Judges Elaine B. Brown and Margret G. Robb concurred
with Judge Barnes' decision.

Sonia Long, of Elkhart, Indiana, Appellant appeared pro se.  Randy
Head, of Logansport, Indiana, served as attorney for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Awarded Summary Judgment in PI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The late Laverne E. Hostetter and his wife Eliza Hostetter filed
an asbestos suit against a number of defendants, including
ArvinMeritor, Inc., which moved for summary judgment pursuant to
Super. R. Civ. P. 56.

After reviewing the materials submitted by both parties in the
light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Presiding Judge Alice P.
Gibney of the Superior Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC,
granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground
that there are no issues of material fact because, as a matter of
law, the Plaintiff is unable to establish the causation element of
her prima facie case against the Defendant.  As a result, the
Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The case is LAVERNE E. HOSTETTER AND ELIZA HOSTETTER, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., C.A. NO. PC 12-0650 (R.I.
Super.).  A full-text copy of Judge Gibney's decision dated March
5, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/S8dGQqfrom Leagle.com.

John E. Deaton, Esq., Jerome H. Block, Esq., and Holly C.
Peterson, Esq., for Plaintiff.  Holly M. Polglase, Esq., and
Anthony J. Sbarra, Jr., Esq., for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Peraica" Suit Tolled
----------------------------------------------------------------
The time to perfect appeal in IN RE: NEW YORK COUNTY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION relating to PERAICA v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -
CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-473 (N.Y. App. Div.) is adjourned to the
September 2014 term.  A full-text copy of the order is available
at http://is.gd/FRsaUifrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Rulings Issued in "Quirin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued three
orders in the case captioned MARILYN F. QUIRIN, Special
Representative of the Estate of RONALD J. QUIRIN, Deceased,
Plaintiff, v. LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 13 C 2633 (N.D. Ill.), which involves allegations of
occupational and product exposure to asbestos.  The Plaintiffs
alleged that the deceased was exposed to asbestos while smoking
Kent cigarettes, which had a "Micronite" filter that contained
asbestos, and while telephone installer and supervisor.

In her Feb. 28, 2014, memorandum opinion and order, Judge
Gottschall denied defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC's motion to
exclude expert testimony, finding that the expert testimony in
question is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).  A
full-text copy of the Feb. 28 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/lUbegPfrom Leagle.com.

In her March 6 memorandum opinion and order, Judge Gottschall
ruled that Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose
Company's experts may not offer opinions relying on the testing
performed by Dr. John Killian or the Laboratory of Industrial
Hygiene.  If Lorillard and H&V wish to offer opinions relying on
the work of Dr. David Kendall and Dr. Ernest Fullam, they may move
the court for a Daubert hearing on that evidence.  Judge
Gottschall denied Quirin's motion with respect to testing
conducted by the Armour Research Foundation.  Judge Gottschall
ruled that Dr. John Pauly's testimony regarding the testing
performed by Lorillard and various contractors in the 1950s is
admissible, as is his rebuttal testimony. His testimony regarding
testing performed by Dr. James Millette and Dr. William Longo is
not.  A full-text copy of the March 6 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/I7VCDlfrom Leagle.com.

In her March 7 memorandum opinion and order, Judge Gottschall
denied another of Georgia-Pacific's motion to exclude expert
testimony, work practice studies, and Tyndall lighting videotapes
by Quirin's expert, Dr. Millette, holding that the testimony and
work practice studies admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence
702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579
(1993).  A full-text copy of the March 7 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/KyvUKqfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avondale Gets Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled VEDROS, ET AL v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING,
INC., ET AL, Section: J., CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1198 (E.D. La.),
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted motions for partial summary judgment
filed by Defendant Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc.
(hereinafter "Avondale"), Albert L. Bossier, Jr., J. Melon
Garrett, OneBeacon America Insurance Company, American Employers
Insurance Company, James Bull, Roy Barkdull, C. Edwin Hartzman,
Hettie "Dawes" Eaves, Henry "Zac" Carter, and Ewing Moore.

The action arises from the death of Sally Gros Vedros due to
mesothelioma.  Alton Gros, Vedros's father, worked at Avondale as
a welder from 1943 to 1976, and Vedros claims to have spent many
years washing her father's work clothes, which allegedly resulted
in Vedros's secondary exposure to insulation dust containing
asbestos.  Vedros also worked at Avondale from 1960 to 1963 in the
purchase department, and she claims that she was directly exposed
to asbestos while she worked at Avondale.  Before her death,
Vedros filed suit against many defendants, including Avondale and
the Avondale Interests.  After Vedros died, her children joined
the suit as plaintiffs.  The Defendants have filed the motions for
partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims that are based
on theories of intentional tort, fraud, and conspiracy.

With respect to claims based on intentional fraud, the Court
agreed with the Defendants, holding that, even considering the
facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and assuming that
the Defendants were aware that there was a major risk, or even a
probability, that Vedros would contract mesothelioma, the
Plaintiffs have failed to bring sufficient evidence whereby a
reasonable jury could conclude that Vedros's contracting
mesothelioma was "inevitable or incapable of failing" and was thus
substantially certain to result from the Defendants' conduct.

With respect to claims based on fraud, the Court found that the
Plaintiffs have failed to submit sufficient evidence and have thus
failed to satisfy their burden of proof.

With respect to claims based on conspiracy, the Court said there
is no substantive tort for civil conspiracy in Louisiana.
Therefore, to the extent that the Plaintiffs' complaint attempts
to state a cause of action for conspiracy, their conspiracy claims
against Avondale and the Avondale Interests should be dismissed
with prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's order and reasons dated
March 7, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/UsaORFfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Interpleader in "Torres" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (No. IV) relating to MARIA TORRES, Administratrix of
the Estate of Ruben Torres, Deceased, et al., v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL
CORPORATION, et al., CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL DOCKET NO. 875, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 95-1173 (E.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Interpleader.  A full-text copy of the
magistrate judge's February 25, 2014, order is available at
http://is.gd/iHm2bzfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford May Win Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, in the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit styled LISA GRANDE, individually and as successor-
in-interest to THE ESTATE OF GERALD BRANTLEY, Deceased, Plaintiff,
v. BORG-WARNER MORSE TEC, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
12CV540-GPC(JMA) (S.D. Calif.), tentatively denied in part
defendant Ford Motor Company's motion for involuntary dismissal
and granted in part Ford's motion for evidentiary sanctions
against the Plaintiff for failure to produce evidence or otherwise
respond to Ford's requests for production of the 1979 Ford Courier
manual.  The Court said it is tentatively prepared to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims related to asbestos exposure from Decedent's
1979 Ford Courier.

The Court also tentatively granted Ford's motion for summary
judgment, tentatively finding that the Plaintiff has failed to
present sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that
the Decedent was occupationally exposed to either originally-
installed asbestos-containing Ford parts or Ford replacement parts
during his employment at Schaefer Chevron.  In particular, the
Court is prepared to find that (1) the Plaintiff has not
introduced evidence that Schaefer Chevron purchased Ford-
manufactured replacement parts, and (2) the evidence the Plaintiff
has introduced regarding the Decedent's exposure to originally-
installed asbestos-containing Ford parts during the Decedent's
employment at Schaefer Chevron is too speculative to withstand
summary judgment.

Furthermore, the Court tentatively found that the Plaintiff has
not offered sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the
Decedent either (1) removed original Ford-installed asbestos-
containing brakes from Decedent's 1963 Ford Country Squire, or (2)
purchased replacement brakes for the 1963 Ford Country Squire
manufactured by Ford.  The Court is therefore prepared to find
that the Plaintiff has failed to raise triable issues of fact
regarding the Decedent's exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by Ford.

In addition, the Court tentatively denied Crane Co.'s motion for
summary judgment, tentatively finding that the Plaintiff has
raised triable issues of fact regarding the Decedent's exposure to
Crane Co.'s asbestos-containing products.  Furthermore, the Court
tentatively finding that triable issues of fact exist on the
availability of punitive damages.  However, the Court tentatively
granted Crane Co.'s request to sever the issue of punitive damages
for trial.

Judge Curiel said his rulings are tentative as the motions are set
for hearing on a future date.

A full-text copy of Judge Curiel's March 6, 2014, order providing
tentative rulings is available at http://is.gd/EGCitnfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Awarded to Cummins in PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Manuel L. Real of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, on March 7, 2014, issued an uncontroverted
facts and conclusions of law, in the case captioned PAUL OLDS,
Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. CV12-08539 R(MRWX) (C.D.
Calif.), holding that under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, summary judgment is warranted with respect to defendant
Cummins, Inc., because the evidence shows no genuine issue of
material fact.  The Plaintiffs' claims, according to Judge Real,
failed due to a lack of proof of exposure to an asbestos-
containing Cummins product and there is no evidence that the
Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos as a result of contact with any
product manufactured, sold, or distributed by Cummins.

A full-text copy of Judge Real's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/kKvfzVfrom Leagle.com.

GABRIEL A. JACKSON, Esq. -- gaby@jjr-law.com -- STUART E. SUPOWIT,
Esq. -- ssupowit@jjrlaw.com -- ANTHONY C. CHIOSSO, Esq. --
achiosso@jjrlaw.com -- and LISA A. JONES, Esq., at JACKSON JENKINS
RENSTROM LLP, in San Francisco, California, Attorneys for
Defendant, CUMMINS, INC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awarded Summary Judgment in NY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York, on Feb. 18, 2014, issued two
rulings favorable to Crane Co., a defendant in a U.S. Navy
veteran's asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned
DWIGHT CREWS and PEGGY CREWS, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATION; ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BW/IP INTERNATIONAL,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Byron Jackson
Pumps; CARVER PUMP COMPANY; CBS CORPORATION, formally known as
Viacom, Inc., successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation formerly
known as Westinghouse Electric Corp.; CLARK RELIANCE CORPORATION;
CRANE CO.; ELLIOT TURBO-MACHINERY COMPANY; FLOWSERVE CORPORATION,
also known as BW/IP International, Inc., as successor-in-interest
to Byron Jackson Pumps; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; ICON MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, individually and
as successor in interest to Jerguson Valve and Gauge Company; IMO
INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
Delaval Steam Turbine, Inc.; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; JOHN CRANE,
INC.; NATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known as North
Brothers, Inc.; PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION; ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
CORP.; SEQUOIA VENTURES, INC. also known as Bechtel Corporation;
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; WARREN PUMPS, LLC; WEINMAN PUMP AND
SUPPLY COMPANY; and YARWAY CORPORATION, Defendants, NO. 7:12-CV-
1678 (FJS/DEP)(N.D.N.Y.).

In his first memorandum-decision and order, Judge Scullin granted
Crane Co. summary judgment, holding that given the facts of the
case and the lack of sufficient evidence to indicate that Crane
Co., rather than Defendant John Crane, Inc., supplied the
allegedly asbestos-containing materials to which the Plaintiffs
was exposed aboard the USS Wright and the USS Bainbridge, the
Court found that the Plaintiff has come forward with nothing more
than conclusory allegations and speculation, which are sufficient
to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether Crane Co. supplied
the asbestos-containing replacement gaskets and packing materials
to which the Plaintiff was exposed.  A full-text copy of Judge
Scullin's Decision is available at http://is.gd/xxpFTGfrom
Leagle.com.

In his second memorandum-decision and order, Judge Scullin denied
the Plaintiff's motion to remand, finding that the federal defense
of Crane Co., which moved the lawsuit from the New York Supreme
Court, Jefferson County, to the District Court, is colorable and
Crane Co. has established that a causal connection exists between
the conduct it performed under the federal direction and the
Plaintiff's defective design and failure-to-warn claims.  A full-
text copy of Judge Scullin's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Z2EaWkfrom Leagle.com.

MICHAEL COHAN, ESQ. -- MCohan@NapoliBern.com -- and KARDON A.
STOLZMAN, ESQ. -- KStolzman@NapoliBern.com -- at NAPOLI BERN RIPKA
SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs.

ANGELA DIGIGLIO, ESQ. -- angela.digiglio@klgates.com -- ERIC R.I.
COTTLE, ESQ. -- eric.cottle@klgates.com -- and NICOLE M. KOZIN,
ESQ. -- nicole.kozin@klgates.com -- at K & L GATES LLP, New York,
New York, Attorneys for Defendant Crane Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Allen" Suit Remanded to Wash. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, remanded to the Pierce
County Superior Court the asbestos-related personal injury
captioned WESLEY G. ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. AII ACQUISITION, LLC, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. C14-5132 RBL (W.D. Wash.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Leighton's Feb. 18, 2014, order is available at
http://is.gd/cQ8aMOfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Court Affirms Verdict v. Crane Co.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' decedent, William Paulus, died from mesothelioma
caused by asbestos exposure.  After trial, a jury found defendant
and respondent Crane Co. 10% responsible for the plaintiffs'
damages.  Crane appeals, arguing: (1) the plaintiffs failed to
introduce expert testimony that Crane's asbestos alone (as opposed
to acting in combination with others' asbestos) constituted a
substantial factor in the development of the decedent's
mesothelioma; and (2) the trial court erred in not reducing the
damages awarded against it to account for settlements the
plaintiffs could obtain from other potentially liable parties'
bankruptcy trusts.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three, through Justice H. Walter Croskey, rejected both arguments
and affirmed, holding, among other things, that considering the
amount of fibers released per cubic centimeter of air and the
frequency with which the decedent cut gaskets from Cranite and
removed worn Crane bonnet gaskets over many years, the jury had a
sufficient basis on which to conclude that the decedent's exposure
to Crane's asbestos products constituted a substantial factor in
increasing his risk of mesothelioma.

The case is ELAINE M. PAULUS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v. CRANE CO., Defendant and Appellant, NO. B246505 (Cal. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Justice Croskey's Opinion dated Feb. 21,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/U74wNUfrom Leagle.com.

Geoffrey M. Davis, Esq. -- geoff.davis@klgates.com -- Nicholas P.
Vari, Esq. -- nick.vari@klgates.com -- and Michael J. Ross, Esq.
-- michael.ross@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates, for Defendant and
Appellant.

Plaintiffs and Respondents are represented by:

         Brian P. Barrow, Esq.
         Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett
         301 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 1950
         Long Beach, California 90802
         Tel: 562.590.3400
         Fax: 562.590.3412


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Court Affirms Ruling in "Martinez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed a ruling by the Superior
Court in one of the 32 cases filed against E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company, Inc., by Argentine nationals who claim that they were
exposed to asbestos while working in textile plants located in
Berazategui, Argentina, and Mercedes, Argentina.  At the time of
the alleged exposures, which began in the early 1960's, the plants
were owned by DuPont Argentina Sociedad Anomina ("DASA").  DASA,
now known as DASRL, has its principal place of business in
Argentina, and is great-great-grand-subsidiary of DuPont.

The plaintiff-appellant, Maria Elena Martinez, is the wife of now
deceased Argentine textile plant worker Santos Roque Rocha.  Her
complaint alleges that her husband suffered injuries while
employed by DASRL.  The Superior Court dismissed Martinez's
complaint for failure to state a claim under Superior Court Civil
Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to join a necessary party under
Superior Court Civil Rule 19, and on forum non conveniens grounds.

Justice Randy Holland, writing for the majority of the Supreme
Court, found that the Superior Court acted within its discretion
in determining that the relevant forum non conveniens analysis
tipped overwhelmingly in favor of dismissal.  Thus, the Supreme
Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court on the basis of
the forum non conveniens analysis set forth in its opinion dated
December 5, 2012.  Justice Carolyn Berger dissented.

The case is MARIA ELENA MARTINEZ, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of SANTOS ROQUE ROCHA, deceased,
Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
INC., Defendant Below, Appellee, NO. 669, 2012 (Del.).  A full-
text copy of Justice Holland's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/vPAFidfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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.  Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *