/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140328.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 28, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 62 Headlines ADT CORP: "Fitzhenry" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ALABAMA: DFCS Faces Class Action Over Food Stamp Backlog AMAZON.COM INC: "Allison" Suit Moved to M.D. Tennessee ASIANA AIRLINES: Initial Conference in Air Crash Suit on April 11 AUSTRALIA: Centaur's Equine Class Action Funding in Doubt BARCLAYS BANK: Newport News Fund Sues Over Rates Manipulation BRITISH AIRWAYS: Passenger Seeks Compensation for Delayed Flight CHOCOLATE FASHION: Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Polinovsky Case DYNIA & ASSOCIATES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act EAGLE ROCK: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Texas FOREST PHARMA: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of Antidepressants FORGE GROUP: Bentham IMF Reviews Administrator's Report FUTUREWEI TECH: Dist. Ct. Adopts Magistrate Judge's Report GEICO GENERAL: Illegally Debits Funds From Accounts, Suit Says GENERAL MOTORS: Michaels Law Group Files Class Action in Calif. HALLIBURTON CO: High Court Hears Arguments in Erica P. John Fund HOMESITE GROUP: Removed "Brown" Suit to W.D. Arkansas HULU: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Subscription Renewals ILUKA RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action J.M. SMUCKER: Motion to Dismiss "Randolph" Suit Denied JOHNS HOPKINS: Dr. Nikita's Patient to Continue Class Action JPMORGAN CHASE: Madoff Settlement Gets Final Court Approval LIFELOCK INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Arizona LINCOLN NATIONAL: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed MA LABORATORIES: Jury Trial in "Lou" Suit to Proceed on April 21 MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Court Denies Class Cert. in Dealers' Case MILOS BY COSTAS: Class Wants Payment of Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages MISSION BAY: Motion to Dismiss Overtime Class Action Denied MONTEREY, CA: Case Mgmt. Conference in Allen Suit Adjourned NAT'L COLLEGIATE: College Athletes File Antitrust Suit in NJ NAT'L FOOTBALL: Webster Suit Stayed Pending Class Action Ruling NEW YORK: Court Adopts Plaintiffs' Discovery Plan in "Nunez" Suit R.C. BIGELOW: Court Narrows Claims in Misbranding Class Action ROOS FOODS: FDA Suspends Food Facility Registration SAINT CHARLES, MO: "Bethmann" Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri SENECA SAWMILL: Sued for Not Paying Workers for All Hours Worked ST. CLAIR COUNTY HOSPITAL: Med Tech Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages SYNAGRO DRILLING: Does Not Pay OT for Hours Above 40, Suit Claims TOYOTA MOTOR: Courts Approve Unintended Acceleration Settlement TRADER JOE'S: Court Narrows Claims in Mislabeling Suit TWIN AMERICA: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime URBAN OUTFITTERS: Dist. Court Dismisses "Hancock" Class Action WALLABY YOGURT: Bid to Dismiss "Morgan" Class Action Denied WAVE COMM: Summary Judgment Bid in "Johnson" Suit Okayed WEIGHT WATCHERS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York WELLS FARGO: Maryland Court Dismisses "Cannon" Suit * Consumers in California Seek to Raise Malpractice Award Cap * New Class Action Rules for Businesses Proposed in Australia * Serious Recalls of Medical Devices Up More Than 900%, FDA Says * Two People Face Fine in Mass. Over Improper Asbestos Removal Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's NARCO Has $955MM Fibro Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Bendix Has $656MM Fibro Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 12,302 Unresolved Bendix Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Group Had $10MM Reserves for Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 45,150 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Piedmont Office Realty Properties Contain Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Co. Properties Contain Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Has 11,100 Fibro Claims as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Says Targeted Aggressively in Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Recorded $4.4-Mil CARO Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsin City Hall Closed for Fibro Testing ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Finding at Former Younkers Disputed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Diseases Among Firefighters Devastating ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare at Aldercar Community School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Engineer Testifies for Defense in Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thorbury Parents Demand Answer Over Fibro Scare ASBESTOS UPDATE: Video Deposition of Deceased Claimant Viewed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madisonville Demolition Sparks Fibro Probes ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Didn't Warn Fibro Victim, Ship Doctor Says ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Still Present in Mid-Ulster Schools ASBESTOS UPDATE: Patient Can Pursue PI Suit on Second Disease ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co-Op City Wants Relief From Deadly Dust ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Was Sacked for Complaining on Fibro ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert on Fibro Cancer Spoke at House of Lords ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gauteng to Pay Locals to Remove Fibro Roofing ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Doctor Testifies for Crane Co. in Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in New Freight Trains ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Sydney Muslim School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Next in Plans to Revive Odeon ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former SMU Student Sentenced to Federal Prison ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Rep Claims Products Were Safe in Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Recycler Faces Alleged Fibro Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Care Worker Killed by Fibro in Church ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Jury for Defendant in Fibro Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa's Fibro Inspectors Overloaded ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dockyard Workers Poisoned by Fibro Paid GBP35MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed From Former Bega Town Hall ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Steelworker's Death Linked to Fibro Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Needs to Stop Fibro Coming Into NZ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-Tipper Caught Dumping Fibro in Grimsby ASBESTOS UPDATE: Men Charged With Improper Fibro Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Rules in Favor of Defendant in Fibro Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: Louisiana Court Dismisses Fibro Survival Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms $6.5MM Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court to Decide "Bare Metal Defense" Issue ASBESTOS UPDATE: Relatives of Okla., Ill. Laborers File Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Veterans Curtail Effort to Stop Fibro Bill ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Starts Behind Newark City Hall ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Close Two Ainslie Businesses ASBESTOS UPDATE: Breckenridge Council OKs Fibro Survey Proposal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro to Blame for Death of Dunmow Dad ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legal Firms Call for Fibro Schools Register ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Says Bid to Remand Must Be Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Refuses to Remand "Smith" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants 5,974 Bids to Dismiss "Jacobs" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Denies Magnavox Bid to Dismiss "Bailen" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies H&V Bid to Junk "Correnti" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Workers' Compensation Suit Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Refuses to Dismiss "Horvath" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Viad Corp. Wins Summary Judgment in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. App. Court Affirms Ruling in "Durham" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Bid to Dismiss "Bova" Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Granted Leave to Amend NY PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Awarded Summary Judgment in "Vedros" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Refuses Review of Death Claim Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Junk "Willis" Suit Partially Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Recommends Denial of Bid to Remand PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Grants Bid to Junk "Vedros" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court to Deny Bid to Junk "Davis" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. Court Affirms Ruling in "Paulus" Suit ********* ADT CORP: "Fitzhenry" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The purported class action lawsuit titled Fitzhenry v. The ADT Corporation f/k/a ADT Security Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-08708, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:14-cv-80180-DMM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 Facsimile: (312) 729-5289 E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com - and - Geoffrey Jonathan Moul, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL BASIL LLP 1533 Lake Shore Drive Columbus, OH 43204 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: moul@mmmb.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles Sanders McNew, Esq. MCNEW P.A. 2385 NW Executive Center Drive, Suite 100 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 299-0257 Facsimile: (561) 299-3705 E-mail: mcnew@mcnew.net - and - John A. Leja, Esq. POLSINELLI SHUGHART P.C. 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 873-3670 E-mail: jleja@polsinelli.com - and - David P. Reiner, II, Esq. REINER & REINER PA 9100 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 901 Miami, FL 33156-7815 Telephone: (305) 670-8282 Facsimile: (305) 670-8989 E-mail: dpr@reinerslaw.com ALABAMA: DFCS Faces Class Action Over Food Stamp Backlog -------------------------------------------------------- 11Alive News has learned that the Department of Family and Children's Service has been hit with a class-action lawsuit accusing the troubled agency of failing to process applications for programs like food stamps and Medicaid in a timely manner. DFCS has been struggling to clear an enormous backlog of more than 165,000 unprocessed applications since the end of February. The situation was so dire that the federal government threatened to cut funding to the food stamp program if the problem wasn't fixed. A DFCS spokesperson says the agency has spent roughly a million dollars in overtime to help clear the backlog. But the agency concedes it's struggling to meet the ongoing demands for service. So, DFCS hired Cambria Solutions, a consulting firm, to help overhaul and improve its application process. DFCS says it has entered into a $250,000 initial contract with Cambria to begin to address the problem. AMAZON.COM INC: "Allison" Suit Moved to M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit captioned Allison, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01612, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville). The Tennessee District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00308 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Town Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. Scott P. Tift, Esq. Seth Marcus Hyatt, Esq. David W. Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC 217 Second Avenue, N Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com stift@barrettjohnston.com shyatt@barrettjohnston.com dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com - and - Adam J. Berger, Esq. Rebecca Jane Roe, Esq. SCHROETER, GOLDMARK & BENDER 810 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-8000 Facsimile: (206) 682-2305 E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com roe@sgb-law.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 S 6th Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Senthia Santana, Esq. Steven R. Maher, Esq. MAHER LAW FIRM, PA 631 W Morse Boulevard, Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 839-0866 E-mail: sdtowery@maherlawfirm.com smaher@maherlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Alison B. Willard, Esq. Rebecca Eisen, Esq. Theresa Mak, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: awillard@morganlewis.com reisen@morganlewis.com tmak@morganlewis.com - and - Joseph A. Nuccio, Esq. Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 919-6600 Facsimile: (609) 919-6701 E-mail: jnuccio@morganlewis.com rrosenblatt@morganlewis.com - and - Chelsea D. Petersen, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-3993 E-mail: cdpetersen@perkinscoie.com - and - John E. Anderson, Esq. Morris Reid Estes, Jr., Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC Fifth Third Center 424 Church Street, Suite 1401 Nashville, TN 37219-2392 Telephone: (615) 244-6538 E-mail: janderson@dickinsonwright.com restes@dickinsonwright.com - and - Robert Earl Boston, Esq. K. Coe Heard, Esq. WALLER, LANSDEN, DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP Nashville City Center 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-6380 Facsimile: (615) 244-2804 E-mail: bob.boston@wallerlaw.com coe.heard@wallerlaw.com - and - Andrew G. Madsen, Esq. Brent D. Knight, Esq. Michael Zuckerman, Esq. William F. Dolan, Esq. JONES DAY (CHICAGO OFFICE) 77 W Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-1692 Telephone: (312) 269-4084 E-mail: amadsen@jonesday.com bdknight@jonesday.com mzuckerman@jonesday.com wdolan@jonesday.com - and - Thomas Matthew Brennan, Esq. MCKAY CHADWELL 600 University Street, Suite 1601 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 233-2800 Facsimile: (206) 233-2809 E-mail: tmb@mckay-chadwell.com ASIANA AIRLINES: Initial Conference in Air Crash Suit on April 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers set the initial conference in the case styled as, IN RE: AIR CRASH AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ON JULY 6, 2013, MDL NO. 2497, (N.D. Cal.), to April 11, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1, United States Courthouse, Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, in Oakland, California. Judge Gonzalez's February 19, 2014 Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/xSyETRfrom Leagle.com, further held that the Yang Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Remand Proceedings Pending Decisions by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is denied. In an order issued on February 18, the JPML denied reconsideration of its initial transfer order centralizing litigation in the Northern District of Calif. Court. Thus, the Yang Plaintiffs' request to stay remand proceedings pending issuance of that order is moot. "As to the Yang Plaintiffs' request that the Court stay remand proceedings pending a decision from the Northern District of Illinois on a motion for reconsideration, the Court denies that request," Judge Gonzalez added. "Moving forward will permit prompt resolution of any jurisdictional questions properly before the Court." Thus, to the extent that a party seeks to bring a motion related to questions of remand over which this Court has jurisdiction, the parties must comply with this briefing schedule: Opening Papers: March 7, 2014 Opposition Papers: March 21, 2014 Reply: March 28, 2014 Hearing: April 11, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. AUSTRALIA: Centaur's Equine Class Action Funding in Doubt --------------------------------------------------------- Ben Butler, writing for The Age, reports that doubts are rising that alleged Ponzi scheme Centaur Litigation, which has been funding a AUD250 million Australian class action lawsuit, can meet its payment obligations. Cayman Islands-registered Centaur is the ultimate source of funding for a Federal Court case against the government over an outbreak of equine flu that rocked the NSW racing industry in 2007. Centaur, which claims to have raised about AUD160 million from investors, is under investigation by Hong Kong authorities following allegations last month by specialist financial website OffshoreAlert that it is a Ponzi scheme. It is funding the case in a joint venture with its spin-off, Jersey-registered Argentum Capital, and has so far made all payments due to Maurice Blackburn, which is running the equine flu case. In a letter to investors sent on March 21, the fund's manager, British Virgin Islands company Buttonwood Legal Capital, said it had still yet to receive written "assurances from Centaur that it is able to meet its current obligations". Argentum, which has separate management, is believed to have the cash needed to meet its share of the legal bill. Buttonwood said its board -- Australians Simon Franklin and Stuart Hackett and Briton Brendan Terrill -- received a draft internal audit report on Centaur's affairs on March 14 and was ''seeking legal advice on the next steps as well as clarifying certain issues raised''. Separately, QBE denied any relationship with Centaur or its offshoot Argentum Capital, despite being named as one of Argentum's lawsuit insurers in an October 3, 2011 fund-raising document. Centaur issued the private placement memorandum to raise GBP5 million that was in turn ploughed into Argentum. The memo said Argentum "leverages a panel of insurers that include Brit, QBE, AmTrust and First Assist". However, a QBE spokesman said the company was "surprised" to be mentioned and was "not previously aware of the private placement memorandum". He said QBE "has never insured a case where either Argentum or Centaur have been noted as funders" but it was possible it had written reinsurance for other companies named on the panel. Maurice Blackburn said the equine flu case would go ahead even if a new funder had to be found. BARCLAYS BANK: Newport News Fund Sues Over Rates Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------- Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Barclays Bank PLC, Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, UBS AG, and UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00752-LGS (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2014) concerns the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive scheme to manipulate the benchmark foreign exchange rates ("WM/Reuters Rates) used to set the value of trillions of dollars of investments. The WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates are frequently used to provide standardized exchange rates for contract terms for 160 different currencies, the top 21 of which are commonly referred to as the "trade currencies." These rates are the industry-wide, global standard for closing spot foreign exchange rates. Barclays Bank Plc is a British public limited company with its corporate headquarters in London, England. Barclays is licensed by the New York Department of Financial Services with a foreign representative office in Long Island City, New York. The Defendants are the largest foreign exchange dealers in the world, responsible for the vast majority of foreign exchange trading. In the last two years, the Defendants accounted for nearly 70% of all foreign exchange transactions, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Lawrence A. Sucharow, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. Christopher Keller, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Michael W. Stocker, Esq. Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: lsucharow@labaton.com gasciolla@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com mstocker@labaton.com rvandermeulen@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com - and - Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010-1601 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com - and - Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP (NYC) 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by: Joseph Serino, Jr., Esq. Eric Foster Leon, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (NYC) 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4913 Facsimile: (212) 446-6460 E-mail: jserino@kirkland.com eleon@kirkland.com - and - Robert S. Khuzami, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 15th St. NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005-5765 Telephone: (202) 879-5065 E-mail: robert.khuzami@kirkland.com BRITISH AIRWAYS: Passenger Seeks Compensation for Delayed Flight ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Harris, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. British Airways PLC and International Airlines Group, S.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-00813 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2014) concerns British Airways' alleged violation of Regulation No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and European Council. Under EU Regulation 261, passengers with confirmed reservations on flights departing from an airport in a member state of the European Union are entitled, with certain exceptions, to be paid by British Airways a set amount of compensation when their flights are canceled or delayed for three hours or more. Mr. Harris alleges that British Airways has failed to honor this right under EU Regulation 261 as to him and members of the proposed class. British Airways PLC is a British Corporation headquartered in the United Kingdom. British Airways is the flag airline carrier of the United Kingdom with over 30 million passengers per year. International Airlines Group, S.A. is an airline holding company formed on January 21, 2011, out of the merger between Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, S.A., and British Airways PLC. IAG is the parent company of its wholly owned subsidiary, British Airways PLC, and is a publicly traded company with shares traded on exchanges in both London and Madrid. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Henry "Hank" Bates, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72212 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@carneywilliams.com - and - Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq. Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobes.com CHOCOLATE FASHION: Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Natale Napoli, and all others similarly situated v. Chocolate Fashion, Inc. and Georges A. Berger, Case No. 1:14-cv-20456-CMA (S.D. Fla., February 5, 2014) seeks payment of overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Chocolate Fashion, Inc., is a Florida corporation that operates a business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Chocolate Fashion is a bakery and restaurant. Georges A. Berger is a corporate officer, owner or manager of Chocolate Fashion. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ena T. Diaz, Esq. ENA T. DIAZ, P.A. 999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 720 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 377-8828 Facsimile: (305) 356-1311 E-mail: ediaz@enadiazlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth Louis Minerley, Esq. MINERLEY FEIN PA 1200 North Federal Highway, Suite 420 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 362-6699 Facsimile: (561) 447-9884 E-mail: ken@minerleyfein.com DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Polinovsky Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman denied a motion for summary judgment in PAVEL POLINOVSKY, and ILONA POLINOVSKY, and HANS- PETER BAUMEISTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA, AG, Defendant, CASE NO. 11 CV 780, (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs Pavel and Ilona Polinovsky and Hans-Peter Baumeister filed this putative class action lawsuit against defendant Deutsche Lufthansa AG for its alleged failure to comply with Regulation No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and European Council ("EU 261" or "the Regulation"). The Regulation requires airlines to compensate passengers for certain delayed or cancelled flights departing from or arriving in the European Union. Their complaint alleges breach of contract and violation of EU 261. The Illinois District Court previously held that EU 261 is expressly incorporated in Lufthansa's Conditions of Carriage. Lufthansa moved for summary judgment against the Polinovskys. In a March 14, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/IFa90jfrom Leagle.com, Judge Johnson denied the request saying issues of fact exist as to whether Lufthansa took all reasonable measures to avoid the delay of Flight 467 and whether the Polinovskys' delay was unavoidable even if Lufthansa had taken all reasonable measures. Pavel Polinovsky, Plaintiff, is represented by Joseph Henry "Hank" Bates, III -- hbates@cauleybowman.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, and: Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312)782-4880 Facsimile: (312)782-4485 Ilona Polinovsky, Plaintiff, is represented by Joseph Henry "Hank" Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Daniel O. Herrera, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP. Hans-Peter Baumeister, Plaintiff, is represented by Joseph Henry "Hank" Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Defendant, is represented by Anthony U. Battista -- abattista@condonlaw.com -- Condon & Forsyth Llp, Christopher R. Christensen -- cchristensen@condonlaw.com -- Condon & Forsyth LLP, Michael J Holland -- mholland@condonlaw.com -- Condon & Forsyth, LLP, Brent R. Austin -- baustin@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Matthew J Caccamo -- mcaccamo@edwardswildman.com -- Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Michael Lee McCluggage -- mmccluggage@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP. DYNIA & ASSOCIATES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Stevens, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Dynia & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00122-RHB (W.D. Mich., February 5, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Parker, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN P. PARKER 30600 Telegraph Rd., Suite 1350 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Telephone: (248) 642-6268 E-mail: brianparker@collectionstopper.com EAGLE ROCK: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Texas ------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 21 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of holders of Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. common units on December 23, 2013 in connection with the acquisition of Eagle Rock by Regency Energy Partners LP and Regal Midstream LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regency as described below. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from March 21, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint alleges that Eagle Rock, Eagle Rock Energy G&P, LLC, the general partner of Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P., the members of LLC's Board of Directors, Regency LP and Regal breached their duties and/or aided and abetted breaches of duties in connection with the acquisition of Eagle Rock by Regency. In addition, the complaint charges Eagle Rock, LLC, GP and the Board with violations of ---- 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of these defendants' dissemination of a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Proposed Acquisition. Eagle Rock is a growth- oriented master limited partnership engaged in two businesses: (a) midstream, which includes (i) gathering, compressing, treating, processing and transporting natural gas; (ii) fractionating and transporting natural gas liquids (NGLs); (iii) crude oil and condensate logistics and marketing; and (iv) natural gas marketing and trading; and (b) upstream, which includes exploiting, developing, and producing hydrocarbons in oil and natural gas properties. On December 23, 2013, defendants announced that they had entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which Eagle Rock will contribute its midstream business to Regency for total consideration of up to $1.325 billion. The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure unitholder support for the Proposed Acquisition, on January 31, 2014 defendants issued a materially false and misleading Preliminary Proxy on Schedule 14A. The Proxy, which recommends that Eagle Rock unitholders vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition, omits and/or misrepresents material information about, inter alia, the sales process for the Company's midstream business, conflicts of interest that corrupted the sales process and the actual intrinsic value of the Company and its midstream business on a stand-alone basis and as acquired by Regency. On or about March 18, 2014, defendants caused Eagle Rock to file its Definitive Proxy on Schedule 14A. The Definitive Proxy, which reiterates the Proxy's recommendation that Eagle Rock unitholders vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition, sets April 29, 2014 as the date of the unitholder vote on the Proposed Acquisition and repeats -- without change -- the Proxy's material omissions and misrepresentations in contravention of ----14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act. Plaintiff seeks to recover injunctive and equitable relief for all holders of Eagle Rock common units on December 23, 2013. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi- employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. FOREST PHARMA: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of Antidepressants -------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for National Law Journal, reports that Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Forest Laboratories Inc. are facing multiple proposed class actions in which the plaintiffs allege antidepressants Celexa and Lexapro were unlawfully marketed to treat adolescent depression. Plaintiffs Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, of Arlington Heights, Ill., and New Mexico UFCW Union's and Employers' Health and Welfare Trust Fund, of Albuquerque, N.M., filed the putative class actions in Massachusetts federal district court. Clinical trials indicated that "Celexa and Lexapro are no more effective clinically than a sugar pill" in treating adolescent major depressive disorder, the plaintiffs argue in their complaint. The drug labels did not disclose the result of those negative clinical studies, the plaintiffs claim. "Instead of disclosing the results of the negative studies on the label, Forest decided to manipulate the situation so as to convey Celexa and Lexapro as effective treatments for pediatric" major depressive disorder, the plaintiffs said. "Forest suppressed the dissemination of one of the negative trials and doctored the data of the other to make the study appear 'positive.' Using the fraudulently 'positive' study, Forest began a widespread campaign to promote the 'positive' results to the medical community." Consumers, healthcare prescribers and third-party payors were deceived, the plaintiffs said. The plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class also paid more for Celexa and Lexapro prescriptions than they should have, the plaintiffs also said. Due to the competitive market in antidepressants medications from dozens of drugs available to treat patients, drugmakers "spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year promoting directly to consumers, third-party payors and the medical community," the complaint said. "Plaintiffs and members of the classes have suffered an ascertainable loss, in an amount to be determined at trial, in that they paid millions, if not billions, of dollars for Celexa and Lexapro that they would not have paid had Forest not engaged in unfair and deceptive conduct," the complaint said. FORGE GROUP: Bentham IMF Reviews Administrator's Report ------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Saunders, writing for The Australian, reports that the preliminary finding of Forge Group liquidator Ferrier Hodgson that the collapsed contractor may have been trading while insolvent since November could provide more ammunition for litigation funder Bentham IMF's potential class action. Bentham IMF may have leeway to increase the claim size and is looking at whether the finding could give rise to a "no transaction" case which would be based on the premise investors should not have been able to purchase shares in an insolvent company. A straightforward damage or loss value would be calculated on what investors paid for their shares from when Forge began trading insolvent. Forge went into voluntary administration on February 11 after financer ANZ pulled the pin. Ferrier Hodgson said in its administrator's report, released this month, that Forge could have been trading insolvent as early as November but noted it needed to do more work before firming up the date. Ferrier was appointed liquidator when creditors acted on the firm's recommendation to put Forge into receivership. Ferrier's final findings on insolvent trading would need to be accepted in court for a "no transaction" claim to fly. On flagging a class action last month, IMF said it would allege misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of continuous disclosure obligations, relating to CTEC projects. Forge acquired contractor CTEC in early 2012 in a disastrous move widely seen as its undoing. IMF said its case would relate to three writedowns stemming from the CTEC contracts announced between November 28 and January. The fact Forge collapsed will likely help Bentham IMF's cause as shareholders will not face a common class action conflict of deciding whether to join a case against a company they are still invested in. Law firm Slater & Gordon has signed up to run the class action. FUTUREWEI TECH: Dist. Ct. Adopts Magistrate Judge's Report ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ron Clark entered an order on February 19, 2014, adopting the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in the case ROBERT JUMA and ELENA WALSH, Plaintiff, v. FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES, USA, and HUAWEI DEVICES USA, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13-CV- 259, (E.D. Tex.) The case was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636. On October 15, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his report and recommendation which recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint be denied. The Defendants filed their objections to the report and recommendation on October 29, 2013. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Plaintiffs stated plausible claims for the purpose of defeating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. In addition, the Magistrate Judge noted that the parties spent a significant amount of briefing on the issue of whether a class action should be certified in this case, which the Magistrate Judge found to be premature at this time. The Magistrate Judge declined to consider the issue until an appropriate motion addressing the class certification issues is filed. Finally, the Magistrate Judge noted that Defendants raised several issues that were more appropriate for resolution by summary judgment motion. The Defendants first objected to the Magistrate Judge's report on the basis that the Magistrate Judge failed to consider Defendants' arguments that the Plaintiffs have no standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The Defendants contended that the Plaintiffs allege that they applied for and were interviewed for positions but were never employed by any of the three Defendants, and, for this reason, the Defendants alleged that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims based on alleged discrimination in "recruitment," "employment practices," and "evaluation policies, practices and procedures," alleged failure to prevent, investigate or properly respond to complaints of discrimination and failure to take prompt remedial action, and alleged discrimination in promotion, advancement, compensation, and discipline. After careful consideration, Judge Clark concluded that the defendants' objections are sustained in part and overruled in part. The Defendants' objections regarding the Plaintiffs' claims for "collective action" were sustained and the Plaintiffs' claims for "collective action" were dismissed. All other objections were overruled. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge is also adopted in part, and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part, according to Judge Clark's February 12, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/k55GAcfrom Leagle.com. GEICO GENERAL: Illegally Debits Funds From Accounts, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Cohen Slatkin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Geico General Insurance Company, Inc., an Iowa corporation, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-00891-RGK-JCG (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2014) alleges that Geico debits funds from the Plaintiff and Class Member's bank accounts on a recurring basis without a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Geico General Insurance Company, Inc., is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Nicholas Bontrager, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Arvin Ratanavongse, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 369 S. Doheny Drive, #415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com aratanavongse@toddflaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Esther Kyungmin Ro, Esq. Brian M. Jazaeri, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: ero@morganlewis.com bjazaeri@morganlewis.com GENERAL MOTORS: Michaels Law Group Files Class Action in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Michaels Law Group, APLC filed a class action lawsuit on March 21 against General Motors, relating to the massive recall of the company's vehicles for ignition switch failure. The lawsuit, filed in Federal Court in Los Angeles, alleges that GM knew of the safety defect in 2004, but continued to build and sell the cars to the public. In February, GM issued a recall of 1.4 million U.S. vehicles that used the faulty part. The ignition switch is prone to shutting off unexpectedly, leaving the driver without power to the car, and cutting off power steering, power brakes and airbags. GM has admitted that the faulty ignition switch has caused consumers to die. The company claims that the defect is responsible for 12 deaths, but other reports put the number at over 300. Under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations, a manufacturer has five days to report a known safety defect, or face a fine of up to $35 million. In a recent letter to NHTSA, GM admitted that it opened an internal investigation in 2005 and designed a fix for the part, but "after consideration of the lead time required, cost, and effectiveness of each of these solutions, the [investigation] was closed with no action." On March 4, 2014, Michaels Law Group founding member, Jonathan Michaels, published an article in the Los Angeles Daily Journal that helped expose the scandal. "This is an unfortunate chapter in our nation's history," said Mr. Michaels. "It is unconscionable that the company allowed products to be put in the stream of commerce, knowing that people would die." Federal prosecutors are now looking into whether GM executives should be criminally prosecuted. This comes on the heels of announcements by both the Senate and the House that congressional hearings will be conducted. The class action lawsuit seeks to recover damages for all owners of the recalled vehicles for the loss of use of their vehicle, repairs and diminished value. GM has preliminary reserved $300 million to pay out on recall claims. Mr. Michaels believes that the ultimate class action recovery will be substantially more, noting that the Toyota gas pedal lawsuit was settled for $1.6 billion. About Michaels Law Group Located in Newport Beach, California, Michaels Law Group is a full service business law firm, focusing on the automotive industry. Michaels Law Group has litigated cases against nearly every major automotive manufacturer, and is counsel on the 2013 class action case against Kia Motors relating to Kia's misstated fuel economy claims. Michaels Law Group is also representing numerous terminated Chrysler dealers in a lawsuit against the United States for violation of the U.S. Constitution, related to the 2009 termination of their franchises -- a case that many believe will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. HALLIBURTON CO: High Court Hears Arguments in Erica P. John Fund ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ellen Egan of Korein Tillery reports that the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. In the class action suit, Halliburton shareholders allege that the company falsified its financial records and misled investors about its exposure to asbestos claims, among other charges. And once the facts came to light, investors allege, the value of their stock plunged. At issue is the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption, which presumes that in an efficient market, share prices reflect information or misinformation that is available to the public. The presumption has allowed plaintiffs to maintain securities fraud suits without having to prove that each individual investor was personally misled by false statements. The fraud-on-the-market presumption was accepted by the Court in a 1988 case, Basic Inc. v. Levinson, and U.S. Courts have relied on it for the past 25 years to certify securities class actions. In Basic, the Court explained that in efficient markets, material public information is reflected in the market price of a security and investors naturally rely on that price to make investment decisions. In other words, investors would not pay a price for a stock they knew to be artificially inflated. This presumption, the Basic court held, was "consistent with, and . . . supports congressional policy." But Halliburton is now asserting that the underlying economic theory behind the fraud-on-the-market presumption is wrong, and is asking the Supreme Court to overturn Basic. Should this happen, it would mark the end of securities class actions as we know them. There's a lot at stake here. If Basic were overturned, investors would be subjected to a nearly impossible burden of proof in order to file a securities lawsuit, and it would also be almost impossible for shareholders to bind together as a class. Instead each individual investor would need to prove that if she had know the truth, she would not have purchased the stock. Consider the number of cases and the amount of investor money that could be lost if Basic is overturned. Last year, according to a recent report by economic consulting group NERA, 234 securities class actions were filed in federal court -- a 10% increase over 2012. And in the past five years alone, the aggregate losses to investors in federal filings for alleged securities violations totaled $1.065 trillion. Korein Tillery securities attorney Aaron Zigler -- azigler@koreintillery.com -- noted "Without the Basic presumption, those who commit securities fraud will be nearly immune from the consequences. The laws regulating Wall Street will be meaningless when each individual investor must prove what information led them to buy." While a decision won't be rendered until July, the plaintiffs' bar is uneasy about how the justices will rule, especially given how friendly the Court has been to business. A study published last April in the Minnesota Law Review examining how business fares in the Supreme Court found that out of the 36 justices who have presided over the Court since 1945, the two justices most likely to vote in favor of business interests are Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. The Court's pro-business leanings are on full display in recent rulings on two major class actions. In 2011, the Court reaffirmed a lower court's decision to deny class certification to a group of female employees who wanted to sue Walmart for pay discrimination. In Walmart v. Dukes, the High Court ruled that the putative class failed to show that evidence of wrongdoing was common to the group. And last May, the Court threw out an antitrust class action against Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider, on a similar argument, adding that the proposed two million-member class failed to demonstrate that damages could be measured on a class-wide, rather than an individual, basis. But there may be a glimmer of hope for Halliburton. According to a story in Am Law's Litigation Daily, the justices focused on a brief suggesting that plaintiffs be required to conduct an "event study" at the class certification stage to show that the company's misstatements had a significant impact on its stock price. While event studies aren't an ideal solution -- plaintiffs' lawyer David Boies said in Court that they can be costly and Complicated -- it's a better option than overturning Basic. If the justices permit an event study, although it will be more expensive and more complicated to prove, plaintiffs will be able to maintain a presumption that they relied on the misinformation and have the opportunity to show the case is suitable for class certification. Follow this space for updates on Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. and other class action related cases before the Supreme Court. HOMESITE GROUP: Removed "Brown" Suit to W.D. Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Brown, et al. v. Homesite Group Incorporated, Case No. 46CV-13-00282-1, from the Miller County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv- 04026-SOH to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts insurance- related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Matt Keil, Esq. John C. Goodson, Esq. KEIL & GOODSON ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 618 406 Walnut Street Texarkana, AR 75504-0618 Telephone: (870) 772-4113 Facsimile: (870) 773-2967 E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com - and - Richard E. Norman, Esq. CROWLEY NORMAN LLP Three Riverway, Suite 1775 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 651-1771 Facsimile: (713) 651-1775 E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com - and - Stephen C. Engstrom, Esq. WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM & COULTER 200 South Commerce, Suite 600 P.O. Box 71 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: (501) 375-6453 E-mail: stephen@wecc-law.com - and - Stevan Earl Vowell, Esq. Timothy J. Myers, Esq. W.H. Taylor, Esq. William B. Putman, Esq. TAYLOR LAW FIRM 303 East Millsap Road P.O. Box 8310 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 443-5222 Facsimile: (479) 443-7842 E-mail: svowell@taylorlawpartners.com tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com The Defendant is represented by: Judy Y. Barrasso, Esq. Stephen L. Miles, Esq. Susan M. Rogge, Esq. BARRASSO USDIN KUPPERMAN FREEMAN SARVER L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 589-9700 Facsimile: (504) 589-9701 E-mail: jbarrasso@barrassousdin.com smiles@barrassousdin.com srogge@barrassousdin.com - and - Marshall S. Ney, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, PLLC 5414 Pinnacle Point Drive, Suite 500 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 464-5653 Facsimile: (479) 464-5680 E-mail: mney@mwlaw.com HULU: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Subscription Renewals ------------------------------------------------------------- Deadline reports that a 52-page class-action lawsuit filed on March 21 in Los Angeles Superior Court claims that Hulu since December 2010 has made automatic renewal offers throughout California but failed to specify the terms "in a clear and conspicuous manner," charged cards or accounts without subscribers' "affirmative consent" and "failed to provide an acknowledgement that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer". Plaintiff Nathan Kruger of Beverly Hills claims all of the above violates California law. He and others who upgraded their accounts online to Hulu Plus are seeking a jury trial, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. Mr. Kruger and the class are represented by attorneys Julian Hammond and Ari Cherniak of HammondLaw in Los Angeles. ILUKA RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that mineral sands miner Iluka Resources is set to be sued over claims it deceived shareholders in 2012 leading to a fall in its share price. ACA Lawyers says it has funding for a class action in the Federal Court on behalf of shareholders who, it claims, lost money because the Perth-based miner misled investors about a drop in sales. The action relates to events on July 9, 2012, when Iluka announced a sharp downgrade in sales anticipated for the year -- to a little over half of what had been forecast just two months earlier. Iluka's share price plummeted 24 per cent in a day on the ASX, from $11.70 to $8.88. Iluka produces zircon and rutile, which are used in ceramics and paints and whose fortunes are tied to building activity, especially in China. ACA lawyer Steven Lewis said Iluka had failed to comply with its continuous disclosure obligation and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. "It will be alleged that Iluka's zircon sales forecast in May 2012 was overly optimistic and not achievable," he said. "The company had information prior to July 2012 that it could not achieve its forecast and did not keep the market informed." London-based Harbour Litigation Funding is providing funding. Harbour is also funding ACA's multi-million-dollar class action launched last month against Oz Minerals for allegedly misleading shareholders. J.M. SMUCKER: Motion to Dismiss "Randolph" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------ MELISSA LEIGH RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J.M. SMUCKER CO., an Ohio Corporation, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-80581-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN, (S.D. Fla.) is before the Court upon the Defendant's motion to dismiss the class action complaint and its motion requesting judicial notice in support of its motion to dismiss the class action complaint. The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, asserting claims arising out of Defendant's labeling of certain of its Crisco cooking oils as "All Natural". The Plaintiff stated that these oils are not "All Natural" because they are "made from genetically modified plants ("GM") or genetically modified organisms ("GMO") and are so heavily processed that they have no chemical resemblance to the ingredients from which they were derived. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant has violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"); that Defendant engaged in false and misleading advertising under Fla. Stat. Section 817.41; that Defendant was unjustly enriched by its unlawful, unfair, misleading and deceptive practices and advertising; and that Defendant breached an express warranty that the Crisco oils were "All Natural". In an Opinion and Order dated March 13, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/xxXDI5from Leagle.com, District Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint saying Count IV of the Complaint fails to state a claim and is dismissed without prejudice. "Should Plaintiff wish to do so, she may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiency in Count IV within 14 days of the entering of this Order," ruled Judge Marra. The Court also granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion Requesting Judicial Notice in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint. The Parties are to conduct their Rule 26(f) and scheduling conference within 14 days of the entering of this Order, Judge Marra added. Melissa Leigh Randolph, Plaintiff, is represented by Robert Cartwright Glass -- rglass@mccaberabin.com -- McCabe Rabin, P.A., Ryon M. McCabe -- rmccabe@mccaberabin.com -- McCabe Rabin, P.A. & William Charles Wright -- willwright@wrightlawoffice.com -- Wright Law Office. J.M. Smucker Co., Defendant, is represented by Dean N. Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, Kenneth K. Lee -- KLee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP, and: Edward M. Waller, Jr., Esq. Fowler White Boggs P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 222-1137 Facsimile: (813) 229-8313 JOHNS HOPKINS: Dr. Nikita's Patient to Continue Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Fox45 reports that patients of Dr. Nikita Levy will continue in their class action lawsuit against Johns Hopkins Hospital. The investigation began in 2013 after an employee who worked with Dr. Levy told authorities she suspected he was using a pen as a secret camera to take pictures and videos of his female patients during gynecology exams. After word began spreading that police had confiscated his computers, Dr. Levy committed suicide. Victims then began coming forward. Dr. Levy saw more than 12,000- patients during his practice at Johns Hopkins and roughly 10,000 of those women are joining the lawsuit now that the criminal case is closed. The lead attorney in the suit, Jonathan Schochor, has been working with the patients for more than a year building the case. Now that the criminal case has been closed, the civil lawsuit claims that Johns Hopkins did not employ proper protocol to protect patients. No other employees or administrators of the hospital will face criminal charges but attorneys are discussing settlements. JPMORGAN CHASE: Madoff Settlement Gets Final Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge on March 21 gave final approval to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s $218 million settlement to resolve class-action litigation accusing the largest U.S. bank of playing a central role in the huge Ponzi scheme of former client Bernard Madoff. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan said the accord "easily meets the standards" for final approval, and provides "substantial and immediate" benefits to the swindler's former customers. She also awarded $18 million of fees to law firms that represented the customers: Entwistle & Cappucci, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. The settlement was part of a $2.24 billion global resolution of Madoff-related matters by JPMorgan, which was Mr. Madoff's main bank for more than 20 years. JPMorgan also agreed to pay $1.7 billion to settle civil claims by the U.S. government, and $325 million to settle claims by Irving Picard, the trustee liquidating Mr. Madoff's firm. Mr. Picard has estimated that Madoff customers lost $17.3 billion of principal. Mr. Madoff is serving a 150-year prison term. The cases are Hill et al v. JPMorgan Chase & Co, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-07961; and Shapiro et al v. JPMorgan Chase & Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-08331. LIFELOCK INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Arizona -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on March 21 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against LifeLock, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Arizona, and docketed under 2:14-cv-00416, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired LifeLock securities between February 26, 2013 and February 19, 2014, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased LifeLock securities during the Class Period, you have until May 5, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection, providing its services to consumers and enterprises. On March 8, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against the Company and Defendant Todd Davis, alleging amongst other things, that the Company issued dramatically misleading advertisements and guarantees to customers regarding its identity theft protection services. Specifically, the March 8 Complaint alleged that the Company's aggressive advertising campaigns misled investors into believing that the Company provided certain services and benefits which in fact were not provided. The FTC further alleged that the Company misled consumers to believe that LifeLock's protection services, "provided complete protection against all forms of identity theft by making customers' personal information useless to identity thieves." In fact, the Company provided no real protection against identity theft. As a result of its fraudulent advertising practices, in March 2010, the Company and Defendant Todd Davis entered into an settlement order with the FTC whereby the Company settled allegations by the FTC that certain of the Company's advertising and marketing practices constituted deceptive acts or practices in violation of the FTC Act. The Settlement Order prohibited the Company from continuing to engage in these deceptive marketing practices. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's marketing and advertising practices were in direct violation of applicable government rules and regulations; (ii) the Company was in direct violation of the Settlement Order; (iii) the Company's revenues were earned through violations of the FTC Act and the Settlement Order; and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 19, 2014, the Company announced that it had met with the FTC regarding its alleged non-compliance with the terms of the Settlement Order, after a whistleblower had discussed certain violations with the FTC. This announcement, which was not Filed in a Form 8-K or other press release by the Company, was first picked up by the market on Sunday, February 23, 2014, when a short seller from Seeking Alpha published an article entitled: "Lifelock: Pending FTC Investigation Revealed in 10-K". On this news, the Company's shares fell more than $1.47 per share to $20.32, or over 6.00%, on February 24, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed ------------------------------------------------------- Connie J. Edmonson filed with the United States Supreme Court a petition for writ of certiorari on February 3, 2014. The question presented is: "When an ERISA plan permits the use of retained asset accounts to settle life-insurance claims but leaves discretion to the insurer to determine the interest rates and other features of those accounts, does the insurer cease to act as a fiduciary when it creates the account (as the Second and Third Circuits have held) or do its subsequent discretionary acts remain subject to ERISA's protections (as the First Circuit has held)?" Ms. Edmonson was a beneficiary of a life insurance plan established by her employer and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Lincoln chose to pay her benefits using a retained asset account, which allowed it to hold onto the benefits and invest them for its own profit until she affirmatively chose to withdraw them from the account. Ms. Edmonson claims that Lincoln breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty under ERISA, and seeks disgorgement of the profit Lincoln earned by investing the benefits owed to her. The District Court granted summary judgment in Lincoln's favor, concluding that Lincoln was not acting in a fiduciary capacity when it took the actions subject to complaint. The Third Circuit affirmed that judgment. Petitioner Connie J. Edmonson is represented by: Peter K. Stris, Esq. Victor O'connell, Esq. STRIS & MAHER LLP 19210 S. Vermont Ave., Building E Gardena, CA 90248 Telephone: (424) 212-7090 E-mail: peter.stris@strismaher.com victor.oconnell@strismaher.com - and - Deepak Gupta, Esq. Jonathan E. Taylor, Esq. GUPTA BECK PLLC 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 E-mail: deepak@guptabeck.com jon@guptabeck.com - and - Lee W. Brigham, Esq. John C. Bell, Esq. BELL & BRIGHAM Post Office Box 1547 Augusta, GA 30903 Telephone: (706) 722-2014 E-mail: lee@bellbrigham.com - and - Stuart T. Rossman, Esq. Arielle Cohen, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER 7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 542-8010 E-mail: srossman@nclc.org - and - Cary L. Flitter, Esq. Andrew M. Milz, Esq. FLITTER LORENZ, P.C. 450 N. Narberth Avenue Narberth, PA 19072 Telephone: (610) 822-0789 E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com - and - M. Scott Barrett, Esq. BARRETTWYLIE, LLC 320 W. 8th St., Suite 100 P.O. Box 5233 Bloomington, IN 47407 Telephone: (812) 334-2600 E-mail: scott@barrettwylie.com Respondent Lincoln National Life Insurance Company is represented by: David H. Pittinsky, Esq. Joel E. Tasca, Esq. Ruth S. Uselton, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 665-8500 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 E-mail: pittinsky@ballardspahr.com tasca@ballardspahr.com useltonr@ballardspahr.com The U.S. Supreme Court case is Connie J. Edmonson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioner v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Respondent, Case No. 13- 00934, in the United States Supreme Court. The appellate case is Connie J. Edmonson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 12-1581, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The original case is Connie J. Edmonson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2-10-cv-04919, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. MA LABORATORIES: Jury Trial in "Lou" Suit to Proceed on April 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In MICHELLE LOU, MARSHA BEER, SIMON NIM, and JESUAN RUIZ RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MA LABORATORIES, INC., ABRAHAM MA, and CHRISTINE RAO, Defendants, NO. C 12-05409 WHA, (N.D. Cal.) District Judge William Alsup issued an order on March 14, 2014, addressing the operative effect in a Fair Labor Standards Act action of a consent-to-join form executed and filed on behalf of co-workers of the named plaintiffs. A copy of the Order, which is available at http://is.gd/nkvds5 from Leagle.com, provides, among other things, that: 1. All existing deadlines, including the jury trial on April 21, will proceed as scheduled. Counsel have been so reminded numerous times and the Court now fully expects to proceed to trial on the merits. Counsel have no reasonable basis for believing they can blow off deadlines in light of any alleged "settlement in principle." Until a proper dismissal is filed, no settlement will be recognized. 2. The plaintiffs in this action set for trial are: Marsha Beer SsuChia Chen Xueou Feng Michelle Lou Bertha De La Madrid Nickel Simon Nim Jesuan Ruiz Rodriguez Roger Sermone Emi Shigemitsu Chia Chi Yi For individuals with alleged settlements, they too will go to trial unless and until their claims are dismissed. 3. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction temporarily enjoining enforcement of what they call the "non-final" settlement agreement is denied. 4. Defendants contend that three of the opt-in plaintiffs (SsuChia Chen, Roger Sermone, and Chia Chi Yi) were time-barred when they filed their consent-to-join forms. 5. All six opt-ins will be deemed to have been disclosed as potential trial witnesses by both sides. Both sides shall have up to three calendar days before the final pretrial conference to produce copies of any and all documents bearing on their claims and defenses they intend to introduce as evidence at trial and their initial disclosures will be deemed timely and updated to that extent. This pertains only to the six opt-ins as well as any newly added defenses. No further depositions will be taken. 6. Plaintiffs' counsel are ordered to meet with each opt-in and make sure he or she actually stands by the consent-to-join form and wishes to go to trial. 7. Any motion to continue the trial must be timely made and properly supported and will be heard at the final pre-trial conference. Michelle Lou, Plaintiff, is represented by David W. Sanford -- dsanford@swhlegal.com -- Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, Andrew Melzer -- amelzer@nydclaw.com -- Sanford Heisler, LLP, Jeremy Heisler -- jheisler@sanfordheisler.com -- Sanford Heisler, LLP, Thomas Marc Litton -- marc@littonlaw.com -- Law Offices of Thomas Marc Litton & Xinying Valerian -- xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com -- Sanford Heisler, LLP. MA Laboratories, Inc, Defendant, is represented by Christine H. Long -- christine.long@berliner.com -- Berliner Cohen, Craig Alan Hansen -- craig@craighansenlaw.com -- Law Offices of Craig Hansen, Kara L. Arguello -- kara.arguello@berliner.com -- Berliner Cohen, Randall C. Creech -- rcreech@sjlegal.com -- Creech Liebow & Kraus, Susan E. Bishop -- susan.bishop@berliner.com -- Berliner Cohen, Thomas Patrick Murphy -- thomas.murphy@berliner.com -- Berliner Cohen & Vivian Fu-Ning Wang -- vivian.wang@berliner.com -- Berliner Cohen. Abraham Ma, Defendant, is represented by Christine H. Long, Berliner Cohen, Randall C. Creech, Creech Liebow & Kraus, Kara L. Arguello, Berliner Cohen, Susan E. Bishop, Berliner Cohen, Thomas Patrick Murphy, Berliner Cohen & Vivian Fu-Ning Wang, Berliner Cohen. Christine Rao, Defendant, is represented by Christine H. Long, Berliner Cohen, Randall C. Creech, Creech Liebow & Kraus, Kara L. Arguello, Berliner Cohen, Susan E. Bishop, Berliner Cohen, Thomas Patrick Murphy, Berliner Cohen & Vivian Fu-Ning Wang, Berliner Cohen. MA Laboratories, Inc, Cross-claimant, is represented by Christine H. Long, Berliner Cohen, Craig Alan Hansen, Law Offices of Craig Hansen, Kara L. Arguello, Berliner Cohen, Randall C. Creech, Creech Liebow & Kraus, Susan E. Bishop, Berliner Cohen, Thomas Patrick Murphy, Berliner Cohen & Vivian Fu-Ning Wang, Berliner Cohen. Michelle Lou, Cross-defendant, is represented by Andrew Melzer, Sanford Heisler, LLP, Jeremy Heisler, Sanford Heisler, LLP, Thomas Marc Litton, Law Offices of Thomas Marc Litton & Xinying Valerian, Sanford Heisler, LLP. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA: Court Denies Class Cert. in Dealers' Case -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in AUTOMOTIVE LEASING CORPORATION a Missouri corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA, LTD., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-2048-TWT, (N.D. Ga.). The Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all motor vehicle dealers who agreed to distribute the Defendant's vehicles in the United States before the Defendant announced it would not be entering the United States' market. The Plaintiffs sought recovery of fees they paid to the Defendant for the right to distribute its cars in the domestic market. In his March 14, 2014 Opinion and Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/c71tPffrom Leagle.com, Judge Thrash held that the Plaintiffs' dealings with the Defendant and its United States distributor varied greatly so class certification is not appropriate. The Court concluded that common issues of law and fact do not predominate. Because the Plaintiffs cannot show that common issues of law and fact predominate the proposed class, the Plaintiffs have not satisfied Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), and the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification should be denied, he said. The Defendant's Motion for Oral Argument was denied as moot. Automotive Leasing Corporation, Plaintiff, is represented by Charles A. McCallum, III, McCallum -- cmccallum@mhcilaw.com -- Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP, James Benjamin Finley -- bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com -- The Finley Firm, P.C., Robert Brent Irby -- birby@mhcilaw.com -- McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP, Stuart C. Talley -- stalley@kcrlegal.com -- Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP & MaryBeth Vassil Gibson -- MGibson@TheFinleyFirm.com -- The Finley Firm, P.C. Ruge's Automotive, Inc., Plaintiff, is represented by Stuart C. Talley, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP & Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP. South Main Motors, Inc., Plaintiff, is represented by Stuart C. Talley, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP & Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP. Mary Jo Tierney, Plaintiff, is represented by Stuart C. Talley, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP & Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP. Luke Fria Motors, Inc., Plaintiff, is represented by Stuart C. Talley, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP & Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP. Premier Motors, Inc., Plaintiff, is represented by Stuart C. Talley, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP & Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP. Ronald R Duebbert, Plaintiff, is represented by Stuart C. Talley, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP & Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP. Michael S Wetzel, Plaintiff, is represented by Stuart C. Talley, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP & Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP. Mahindra & Mahindra, LTD., Defendant, is represented by Brian Avery White -- bwhite@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP, L. Joseph Loveland, Jr. -- jloveland@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP, Sarah Elizabeth Statz -- sstatz@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP, Shelby S. Guilbert, Jr.-- sguilbert@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP & Jonathan R. Chally -- jchally@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP. MILOS BY COSTAS: Class Wants Payment of Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Williams, Massimiliano D'Agostino, and Matias Vergara, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Milos by Costas Spiliadis, Inc., a Florida for profit corporation, d/b/a Marketa by Costas Spiliadis/Estiatorio Milos Miami and Kelly Miller, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-20454-KMW (S.D. Fla., February 5, 2014) is brought for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Milos by Costas Spiliadis, Inc., a Florida for profit corporation, doing business as Marketa by Costas Spiliadis/ Estiatorio Milos Miami, is a restaurant located within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Kelly Miller is a manager of Milos. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler St., Suite 223 Miami Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mail: lowell@kuvinlaw.com MISSION BAY: Motion to Dismiss Overtime Class Action Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan Illston denied a motion to dismiss the complaint captioned HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA, Individually, and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MISSION BAY INC. and PRINT IT HERE AND COPY, INC., Defendants, NO. C 13-5235 SI, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the March 14, 2014 ruling may be accessed for free at http://is.gd/TAWFqZfrom Leagle.com. The plaintiff filed this collective and class action on November 12, 2013, under federal and California law alleging failure to pay overtime and failure to provide meal and rest breaks. The complaint alleges that "Defendants provide care services for mentally disabled adults through programs provided at their facilities and various points of interest where the clients are taken such as shopping malls, petting zoos, and farms." The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff was an exempt employee under federal law because he provided "companionship services," and that he was exempt under California law as a "personal attendant." The Defendants asserted that "[t]he language 'work in a private household' does not require actual work in a home . . . but instead refers to the requirement that the employer needs to be recognized in the health care industry to work in private households, which Defendants are." "Defendants do not cite any authority for this proposition, and thus have failed to demonstrate the plaintiffs' California claims should be dismissed," ruled Judge Illston. Horacio De Veyra Palana, Plaintiff, is represented by Phung Hoang Truong -- phung@jawlawgroup.com -- Justice at Work Law Group, Tomas Eduardo Margain -- Tomas@LaCasaLegal.com -- CASA Legal & Huy Ngoc Tran -- Huy@LaCasaLegal.com -- CASA Legal. Mission Bay Inc., Defendant, is represented by Douglas H. Hoang - - dhoang@mpplaw.com -- Goldstein Kennedy & Petito & Scott A. Freedman -- sfreedman@mpplaw.com -- Morris Polich & Purdy LLP. Print It Here And Copy, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Douglas H. Hoang, Goldstein Kennedy & Petito & Scott A. Freedman, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP. MONTEREY, CA: Case Mgmt. Conference in Allen Suit Adjourned ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh, in an order dated March 13, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/OCLgwFfrom Leagle.com, adjourned the Case Management Conference that was set for March 20, 2014, in DAWN ALLEN, JEFF BOLES, ROGER MCRAE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, and DOES 1-50. Defendants, CASE NO. CV 13-01659LHK, (N.D. Cal.) to [___________], 2014, to permit the parties to finalize and file settlement documents. This is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that Defendant County of Monterey failed to accurately calculate and pay all overtime due to probation officers and juvenile institution officers. The parties' previous Joint Case Management Conference Statement provided an overview of the claims and issues raised by the case. Since the last Case Management Conference of October 30, 2013, the parties have reached a comprehensive settlement through the assistance of the Court appointed mediator, Allen R. Berkowitz. Counsel has completed drafting the formal settlement documents, which are now with the parties for their final review and signature. As part of the settlement, the parties have stipulated to the filing of an amended complaint that will align the claims in the operative pleadings with the claims addressed by the settlement. The parties will then request that the amended complaint be dismissed upon review of the settlement agreement by the Court. Although this is not a class action subject to FRCP 23(e), the parties intend to file a complete copy of the entire settlement agreement along with the stipulated amended complaint and request for dismissal, once the settlement agreement has been signed by all parties. Counsel anticipate that the settlement documentation will be finalized within 14 days of the submission of this case management conference statement and request that the Court continue the case management conference for 14 or more days to facilitate this process. Harry S. Stern -- HStern@RLSlawyers.com -- Peter A. Hoffmann -- PHoffmann@RLSlawyers.com -- RAINS LUCIA STERN, PC, Pleasant Hill, California, Joshua Konecky -- jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE, COTTRELL KONECKY LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. CHARLES J. McKEE, County Counsel, JANET L. HOLMES, Deputy County Counsel, Office of the County Counsel, County of Monterey, Salinas, California, Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF MONTEREY. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: College Athletes File Antitrust Suit in NJ ------------------------------------------------------------ Sara Ganim, writing for CNN, reports that calling the NCAA and five of the major athletic conferences a "cartel," an attorney representing four college athletes filed a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA on March 17, saying it was "illegally restraining competition for the services of players." In short, college athletes should be paid, according to the landmark antitrust suit filed in a Trenton, New Jersey, federal court. The NCAA compensation cap allows universities to pay their football and basketball players only in the form of tuition, books, room and board and related fees, which the March 17 complaint says is akin to a price-fixing agreement. Attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who is no stranger to taking on sports' governing bodies, claims in the lawsuit that the schools are generating "billions of dollars in revenues each year through the hard work, sweat and sometimes broken bodies of top-tier college football and men's basketball athletes." "The reality is that it is already pro sports for everybody but the athletes," Mr. Kessler said, noting that the sports conferences negotiate lucrative television contracts and sponsorships, and universities shell out big bucks for coaches. In most states, a team coach is the highest paid state employee, the New York-based attorney said. "What we are saying is that it is fundamentally unfair for there to be rules that prevent athletes who create all of this to receive nothing in return," Mr. Kessler said. Are times changing? Mr. Kessler, who has handled several complex and high-profile antitrust cases, also litigated McNeil v. the National Football League, which led to the establishment of free agency in the NFL, and Brady v. NFL, which ended the 2011 NFL lockout. He also represented players in antitrust actions that led to the present free agency and salary cap systems in the NBA. In the March 17 lawsuit, Mr. Kessler represents four plaintiffs: Clemson University football player Martin Jenkins, Rutgers University basketball player J.J. Moore, University of California football player Bill Tyndall, who played his senior season in 2013, and University of Texas-El Paso football player Kevin Perry, who also played basketball for the Miners in 2011 and 2012. While only four plaintiffs are named, the class-action proposes representing all Football Bowl Subdivision players and all Division I basketball players. In addition to the NCAA, the lawsuit -- which the National College Players Association is backing -- also targets the so-called "power conferences": the Southeastern, Big Ten, Big 12, Pacific-12 and Atlantic Coast. "Ten years ago this discussion was completely different," Players Association President Ramogi Huma said. "There were a lot of people defending the NCAA system. Fast-forward to today, very few people are defending the NCAA and its practices." This isn't the former University of California-Los Angeles football player's first foray into the issue. Along with organizing the All Players United wrist tape effort -- which seeks to end a system in which players "forfeit their rights and endure unnecessary physical, academic and financial risks as a condition of participating in NCAA sports" -- Mr. Huma also founded the College Athlete Players Association. The College Athlete Players Association supported Northwestern University football players' attempts to unionize. The players say they are university employees who are forced to put football first or risk losing free tuition. While the March 17 lawsuit aims to end the old notion of amateurism in college sports and reverse NCAA rules that forbid colleges from sharing with their players the billions of dollars made each year via their football and men's basketball programs, the lawsuit does not guarantee salaries or eliminate scholarships. Nor does it call for a trust fund or mention a stipend. It simply would give a university the option of paying the players it wants most. It also calls for individual damages for the player plaintiffs. "Instead of permitting individual institutions to compete for the services of players who participate in their major college sports businesses, the NCAA and the power conferences act as a cartel in placing a cap on the athletes' compensation," Mr. Kessler said in a statement. "These restrictions are a blatant violation of antitrust laws, have no legitimate pro-competitive justification, and it is finally time to bring them to an end." Value in education The NCAA contends that athletes are paid in the form of a free education, something that holds a lot of value both immediately and in the future. However, proponents of the March 17 lawsuit point out that many student athletes never walk across the stage to get their diploma, and the percentage of Division I football and basketball players who make it to the NFL and NBA drafts is minuscule. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Webster Suit Stayed Pending Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the estate of Pro Football Hall of Famer Mike Webster and dozens of former players suing the league over concussion injuries agreed on March 21 to pause their lawsuit to see if it will join other similar cases being reviewed by a federal judge for settlement. Mr. Webster's estate and 65 former players and their families sued the NFL in February, claiming the league hid information about the seriousness of concussions and head injuries sustained during their playing careers. Attorneys for the NFL and the plaintiffs filed a stipulation Friday to stay the case to see if it should join other concussion lawsuits currently assigned to a judge in Pennsylvania. Senior U.S. District Judge Anita Brody is considering whether a $765 million settlement is enough to resolve all claims against the NFL for players who are dealing with dementia and other serious cognitive conditions caused by concussions sustained during their pro careers. Mr. Webster, who played for the Pittsburgh Steelers for most of his career, was instrumental in four of the team's Super Bowl victories in the 1970s. He died in 2002. Six of the players included in the case are deceased, including Steelers offensive linemen Terry Long and Justin Strzelczyk. The NFL declined to comment on the case. NEW YORK: Court Adopts Plaintiffs' Discovery Plan in "Nunez" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The parties to the civil rights class action MARK NUNEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, NO. 11 CIV. 5845 (LTS) (JCF), (S.D. N.Y.) have attempted, without complete success, to structure a discovery plan within the existing schedule that would streamline discovery and provide breaks during which discovery would be held in abeyance while the parties address the possibility of settlement. The plaintiffs have proposed a schedule that would provide for their taking some 97 depositions. The defendants object that the plaintiffs have failed to justify this number, and have instead argued that the plaintiffs should be limited to 60 depositions, of which 35 would be limited to 6 hours and 25 to three hours, for a total of 285 hours. In his February 18, 2014 Memorandum and Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/8wrHxMfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV, found that the defendants' contention that the plaintiffs could forego depositions of individual defendants who have filed Use of Force Reports or been subjected to recorded investigative interviews is unpersuasive. Where a party is going to testify, some prior report or statement that has not been subject to cross-examination may not be an adequate substitute for a deposition in a case such as this where there will be hotly contested factual disputes, he said. Accordingly, Judge Francis concluded that he will adopt the plaintiffs' proposed discovery plan, set forth in Appendix A to the Letter of Vasudha Talla et al. dated February 5, 2014, with the following modifications: 1. Named plaintiffs and named defendants who were allegedly involved in the use of force incidents at issue will only be deposed if they will testify at trial. Upon notice that such a party will not testify at trial, that person will not be deposed. 2. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the depositions of named plaintiffs and named defendants who were allegedly involved in the use of force incidents at issue, as well as non-party witnesses testifying about such specific incidents, will be limited to four (4) hours of questioning by the party noticing the deposition. Counsel defending these depositions will be responsible for fully preparing each deponent. 3. The "placeholder" depositions are stricken from the discovery plan. When and if counsel identify additional proposed deponents, Judge Francis will consider whether they should be added to the schedule if there is a dispute. 4. The named supervisory defendants now scheduled for deposition during Phase II will be moved to Phase I. Their testimony is likely important to any realistic evaluation of the case for possible settlement. 5. A determination of whether it is appropriate to depose Linda Gibbs is deferred until the parties make a showing whether she possesses unique personal knowledge relevant to the issues in the case. The defendants have requested an order compelling the plaintiffs to identify, 90 days prior to the fact discovery deadline, all use of force incidents (other than those for which the names plaintiffs have sued) that the plaintiffs intend to rely on in their case-in-chief at trial. The plaintiffs propose to provide this information in connection with expert disclosures and the pretrial order. "It is reasonable to require the plaintiffs to reveal the scope of their case prior to the close of fact discovery so that the defendants will have an opportunity to seek information in connection with the incidents identified," noted Judge Francis. "It is not practical, however, for such a disclosure to be made 90 days in advance of the fact discovery deadline. Rather, the plaintiffs shall provide the requested disclosure prior to the commencement of Phase III of the discovery plan," he added. R.C. BIGELOW: Court Narrows Claims in Misbranding Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss the case ADAM VICTOR, Plaintiff, v. R.C. BIGELOW, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-02976-WHO, (N.D. Cal.) Adam Victor brings this putative class action against R.C. Bigelow, Inc., alleging that various tea products are misbranded and violate California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. Though he only purchased four Bigelow products, Victor seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all persons in California who purchased any of the following 28 products since June 25, 2009: Caramel Chai Black Tea; Chocolate Chai Tea; Constant Comment Tea; Constant Comment Decaffeinated Tea; Darjeeling Tea; English Breakfast Tea; English Teatime Tea; English Teatime Decaffeinated Tea; Cinnamon Stick Tea; Earl Grey Tea; Earl Grey Decaffeinated Tea; French Vanilla Tea; French Vanilla Decaffeinated Tea; Spiced Chai Tea; Spiced Chai Decaffeinated Tea; Vanilla Caramel Tea; Vanilla Chai Tea; Chinese Oolong Tea; Plantation Mint Tea; Lemon Lift Tea; Lemon Lift Decaffeinated Tea; Raspberry Royale Tea; Pomegranate Black Tea; White Chocolate Obsession; Pumpkin Spice Tea; Eggnogg'n Tea; Six Assorted Teas Variety Pack; and Six Assorted Teas Decaffeinated Variety Pack. Bigelow moved to dismiss the Complaint on a number of grounds. In his March 14, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/1m7Vgvfrom Leagle.com, Judge Orrick held that Bigelow's motion to dismiss Mr. Victor's First Cause of Action based on alleged violations of the Sherman Law based on FDA regulations related to the term "antioxidant" is denied. The Motion to Dismiss all other causes of action is granted with leave to amend. The Court cautioned Mr. Victor to file an amended complaint that is succinct, logically ordered, and clear. "A complaint that contains yet another jumbled and repetitive recitation of laws and regulations will not be considered," said Judge Orrick. Mr. Victor was further cautioned to plead with the requisite factual detail as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9, and to explain in a structured way any relevant statutes and regulations. Any amended complaint must be filed within 30 days. Adam Victor, Plaintiff, is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore -- pgore@prattattorneys.com -- Pratt & Associates and: J. Price Coleman, Esq. Coleman Law Firm 1100 Tyler Avenue, Suite 102 Oxford, Mississippi R.C. Bigelow, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Timothy K. Branson -- tbranson@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Joan M. Borzcik -- jborzcik@gordonrees.com -- Gordon and Rees, LLP & Miles D. Scully -- mscully@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, L.L.P. ROOS FOODS: FDA Suspends Food Facility Registration --------------------------------------------------- According to Quality Assurance & Food Safety, the FDA suspended the food facility registration of Roos Foods Inc. of Kenton, Delaware on March 11, 2014, after the FDA determined there was a reasonable probability of food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by Roos Foods causing serious adverse health consequences or death to humans. The FDA ordered the suspension after an investigation by the FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state and local partners linked a multi-state outbreak of listeriosis to cheeses found to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes and manufactured by the company. Food facility registration is required for any facility engaged in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding food for consumption in the United States, and if the registration of a facility is suspended, no person shall introduce food from such facility into interstate or intrastate commerce in the United States. The FDA inspected the company's facility from February 18 - March 4, 2014. During the inspection, FDA investigators found insanitary conditions including: the roof leaking so badly that water was raining down into the cheese processing room, including onto the cheese processing equipment and storage tanks; standing water on the floor throughout the cheese curd processing room in proximity to the cheese vats and in the storage rooms; metal roof/ceiling and metal supports exhibiting a rusted appearance with metal flaking precluding effective cleaning and sanitizing; food residues found on equipment after cleaning had been performed; openings to milk storage tanks and transfer piping were not capped to prevent contaminants from entering or contaminating food contact surfaces; and floors, wall, and equipment that were deteriorated and in bad repair, including processing equipment and storage vats with rust holes and floors with rough concrete deterioration. Additionally, the FDA collected environmental samples from different areas of the facility, including the cheese processing room and various pieces of equipment. FDA's testing identified 12 swabs that tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis showed that 11 of those swabs had the same Listeria monocytogenes "DNA- fingerprint" as the outbreak strain. In response to evidence collected during the investigation by the FDA, CDC, and state officials, the state of Delaware's Division of Public Health issued a Cease and Desist Production and Distribution order to the firm on February 28, 2014. The FDA will vacate the suspension order and reinstate Roos Foods' facility registration when the FDA determines that food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility no longer has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death to humans. What is the Problem and What is Being Done? The FDA, CDC and state and local officials are investigating a multi-state outbreak of listeriosis linked to Hispanic-style cheese products made and distributed by Roos Foods of Kenton, Delaware. The CDC reports that a total of 8 persons infected with the outbreak strain of Listeria monocytogenes have been reported from two states. The number of ill people identified in each state is as follows: California (1), Maryland (7). Among persons for whom information is available, dates that illness was diagnosed range from August 1, 2013 to November 27, 2013. Seven of the eight ill persons were hospitalized. Five of the illnesses were related to a pregnancy; two of these were diagnosed in two mother-newborn pairs, and one in only the newborn. The three other illnesses occurred among adults. One death was reported in California. All ill persons were reported to be of Hispanic ethnicity. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from Roos Foods cheese products has been performed by the FDA and Virginia's Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services. These strains were found to be highly related by WGS to the Listeria strains isolated from patients in this outbreak, adding further confidence that cheese products produced by Roos Foods were a likely source of the outbreak. WGS provides genetic information that allows investigators to rapidly identify differences among isolates. Compared with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), WGS provides clearer distinction between cases and foods that are likely part of a given outbreak and those that are not. Roos Foods has voluntarily recalled all lots, sizes and types of cheese distributed under the Amigo, Anita, Mexicana, and Santa Rose de Lima brands. Roos Foods also recalled all product sizes and containers of Santa Rosa de Lima Crema Salvadorena Cultured Sour Cream, Santa Rosa de Lima Mantequilla de Bolsa Tradicion Centroamericana, Crema Pura Mexicana Cultured Sour Cream, La Chapina Crema Guatemalteca Guatemalan Style Cream, and Amigo Brand Crema Centroamericana Cultured Sour Cream. The recalled products were distributed through retail stores in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and the District of Columbia. On February 21, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) reported that Listeria monocytogenes had been found in cheese products manufactured by Roos Foods of Kenton, Delaware. This followed an earlier warning VDACS issued on February 15 that the pathogen Listeria monocytogenes was isolated from a sample of Cuajada en Terron (Fresh Cheese Curd) manufactured by Roos Foods and collected by VDACS food safety inspectors at Mega Mart, a retail store in Manassas, Virginia. Listeria monocytogenes is a bacterium linked to a rare and serious illness, listeriosis. The strain of Listeria monocytogenes identified was the same strain of the bacteria that has caused 8 cases of listeriosis in two states. On February 19, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (MDHMH) warned consumers that Listeria had likely been found in cheese products manufactured by Roos Foods, of Kenton, Delaware. The MDHMH reported that Roos Foods manufactures cheeses under the Santa Rosa de Lima, Amigo, Mexicana, Suyapa, La Chapina, and La Pur�sima Crema Nica brand, and advised consumers not to eat any cheese products made by Roos Foods, or foods that have been made with these cheeses. MDHMH confirmed Listeria monocytogenes of the outbreak strain. The District of Columbia issued a similar warning to consumers on February 20. What are the Symptoms of Listeriosis? Listeriosis is a rare and serious illness caused by eating food contaminated with the bacteria called Listeria monocytogenes. Persons in a higher-risk category, including pregnant women, people with weakened immune systems, and the elderly, who experience fever after eating any of the Roos Foods cheeses listed above should seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating the potentially contaminated cheese. Who is at Risk? Listeriosis can be fatal, especially in certain high-risk groups. These groups include the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems and certain chronic medical conditions (such as cancer). In pregnant women, listeriosis can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, premature labor, and serious illness or death in newborn babies, though the mother herself rarely becomes seriously ill. What is being Recalled? On March 1, 2014, Roos Foods expanded and clarified the description of products in its recall, which was initiated on February 23 and expanded on February 25. The recall includes all lots and all product sizes and containers of Santa Rosa de Lima Queso Duro Blando (hard cheese), and Mexicana Queso Cojito Molido. The recall also includes all lots and all sizes and containers of the Amigo, Anita, Mexicana, and Santa Rose de Lima brands of: Cuajada En Terron, Cuajada/Cuajadita Cacer, Cuajada Fresca, Queso Fresco Round, and Queso Duro Viejo (hard cheeses), Requeson, Queso de Huerta and Quesco Fresco. These cheeses were packaged in various sized clear plastic wrapped Styrofoam trays, clear plastic wrapped, clear plastic vacuum package, and clear rigid plastic containers. Roos Foods also recalled all product sizes and containers of Santa Rosa de Lima Crema Salvadorena Cultured Sour Cream, Santa Rosa de Lima Mantequilla de Bolsa Tradicion Centroamericana, Crema Pura Mexicana Cultured Sour Cream, La Chapina Crema Guatemalteca Guatemalan Style Cream, and Amigo Brand Crema Centroamericana Cultured Sour Cream. These sour creams were packaged in various sized white plastic tubs, clear plastic bags, clear plastic pouches, and clear plastic jars. The recalled products were distributed through retail stores in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and the District of Columbia. What Do Consumers Need To Do? Consumers should not eat any of the recalled products and should check their homes for these dairy products, and discard them. Recommendations for preventing listeriosis are available at the CDC Listeria website: http://www.cdc.gov/listeria/prevention.html Listeria monocytogenes can grow at refrigerator temperatures, about 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius). The longer ready-to-eat refrigerated foods are stored in the refrigerator, the more opportunity Listeria has to grow. It is very important that consumers thoroughly clean their refrigerators and other food preparation surfaces and cheese cutting utensils that may have come in contact with the potentially contaminated cheese. Consumers should follow these simple steps: Wash hands with warm water and soap for at least 20 seconds before and after handling food. Wash the inside walls and shelves of the refrigerator, cutting boards and countertops; then sanitize them with a solution of one tablespoon of chlorine bleach to one gallon of hot water; dry with a clean cloth or paper towel that has not been previously used. Wipe up spills in the refrigerator immediately and clean the refrigerator regularly. Always wash hands with warm water and soap following the cleaning and sanitization process. What Do Retailers and Restaurants Need To Do? Do not sell or serve the products identified above. If you do not know the source of your dairy products, check with your supplier. Dispose of the dairy products listed above. Wash and sanitize display cases and refrigerators where potentially contaminated dairy products were stored. Wash and sanitize cutting boards, surfaces, and utensils used to cut, serve, or store potentially contaminated dairy products. Wash hands with warm water and soap following the cleaning and sanitation process. Retailers, restaurants, and other food service operators who have processed and packaged any potentially contaminated dairy products need to be concerned about cross contamination of cutting surfaces and utensils through contact with the potentially contaminated products. Regular frequent cleaning and sanitizing of cutting boards and utensils used in processing may help to minimize the likelihood of cross-contamination. Listeria monocytogenes can grow in food at room and refrigerator temperatures. Listeria can also spread to other food cut and served on the same cutting board or stored in the same area. For that reason, retailers, restaurants, and other food service operators may wish to consider whether other foods available for sale could have been cross-contaminated from the potentially contaminated dairy products, and should be discarded. Because Listeria can grow at refrigeration temperatures in foods like dairy products the FDA recommends and many state codes require that cheeses be discarded within 7 days of the date that they are opened in a retail establishment. See the FDA Bulletin, Advice to Food Establishments that Sell or Repackage Cheese Products, for additional information. Who Should be Contacted? Customers with questions may contact Virginia Mejia at 302-653- 0600, Monday thru Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern time. The FDA also encourages consumers with questions about food safety to call 1-888-SAFEFOOD Monday through Friday between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, or to consult the fda.gov website: www.fda.gov. SAINT CHARLES, MO: "Bethmann" Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Bethmann, et al. v. Saint Charles, Missouri, City of, et al., Case No. 1411-CC00001, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv- 00203-AGF to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges employment discrimination. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Goldberg, Esq. 228 N. Main Street St. Charles, MO 63301 Telephone: (636) 949-0010 Facsimile: (636) 949-8277 E-mail: dgoldberg@228northmain.com - and - Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. GREEN JACOBSON, P.C. 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 700 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 862-6800 Facsimile: (314) 862-1606 E-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert J. Golterman, Esq. Sarah E. Mullen, Esq. LEWIS RICE 600 Washington, Suite 2500 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 444-7745 Facsimile: (314) 612-7745 E-mail: rgolterman@lewisrice.com smullen@lewisrice.com SENECA SAWMILL: Sued for Not Paying Workers for All Hours Worked ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel A. Herrera, Jr. individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Seneca Sawmill Company, an Oregon corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00193-AA (D. Or., February 5, 2014) alleges that the Company failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals for all hours worked. Seneca Sawmill Company, an Oregon corporation, owns and operates a lumber mill and timber products manufacturing business in Lane County, Oregon. The Company employed the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals to work in its lumber mill. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Leiman, Esq. Drew G. Johnson, Esq. LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC 44 W. Broadway, Suite 326 Eugene, OR 97401 Telephone: (541) 345-2376 Facsimile: (541) 345-2377 E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com drew@leimanlaw.com ST. CLAIR COUNTY HOSPITAL: Med Tech Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Gilliland, On behalf of herself And all others similarly situated v. St. Clair County Hospital District No. 1 d/b/a Sac- Osage Hospital, Case No. 4:14-cv-00112-GAF (W.D. Mo., February 5, 2014) is brought for unpaid wages, including overtime compensation and related penalties and damages. Sac-Osage is a hospital located in Osceola, Missouri. The Plaintiff was employed as a Medical Technologist in Sac-Osage's lab. The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine E. Myers, Esq. EDELMAN, LIESEN & MYERS, LLP 4051 Broadway, Suite 4 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 533-4976 Facsimile: (816) 463-8449 E-mail: kmyers@elmlawkc.com - and - Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 11605 W. 116th St. Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 890-3529 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eddy Fremont, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00782-ERK-RML (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and the proposed class are entitled to (i) unpaid wages from the Company for working more than 40 hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate for those hours over 40 in a week, and (ii) maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Company employed Mr. Fremont as a truck driver, who transports cargo for a variety of the Company's clients. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, is a Delaware foreign limited liability company authorized to do business in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com The Defendant is represented by: Ronald J. Holland, Esq. Elia M. DeLuca, Esq. Ellen Bronchetti, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON Four Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: rholland@sheppardmullin.com edeluca@sheppardmullin.com ebronchetti@sheppardmullin.com - and - Brian Daniel Murphy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 218-3351 Facsimile: (212) 218-5526 E-mail: bmurphy@seyfarth.com SYNAGRO DRILLING: Does Not Pay OT for Hours Above 40, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Pitts, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Synagro Drilling Solutions, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-00280 (S.D. Tex., February 5, 2014) alleges that the Company does not pay its day rate workers, including the Plaintiff, overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Synagro Drilling Solutions, LLC is a Louisiana corporation that provides solids control and waste management services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Courts Approve Unintended Acceleration Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that courts in four provinces have given the thumbs up to a Canada-wide settlement with Toyota relating to consumer claims for alleged economic loss as a result of unintended acceleration involving certain Toyota vehicles. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said on March 17 that the settlement for economic loss following certain recalls in 2009 and 2010 does not impact ongoing litigation for personal injury or wrongful death claims related to alleged unintended acceleration. "It's a relief to know that Toyota is offering substantial benefits to a very large number of Canadian consumers in order to resolve these actions. I think that this is a fair settlement for Toyota owners across the country," said Steven Hamilton, the representative plaintiff for members of the Ontario class. The settlement -- approved by courts in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan -- provides class members with a customer support program for a minimum of three years and up to 10 years to cover all parts and labor costs for certain vehicle components. Toyota class members may also have their vehicles equipped with a brake override system free of charge, or will receive cash payments in lieu of the upgrade where their vehicle is not eligible to receive the override system. In addition, Toyota has agreed to fund scholarships at five Canadian engineering schools totaling $600,000 and to provide funding for claims administration, notice costs, honoraria for the representative plaintiffs, legal fees, disbursements and taxes. The settlement was negotiated by law firms Rochon Genova LLP and Kim Orr PC, both of Toronto, Consumer Law Group of Montreal and Merchant Law Group of Regina TRADER JOE'S: Court Narrows Claims in Mislabeling Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In AMY GITSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-01333-WHO, (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs Amy Gitson and Deborah Ross filed their Corrected Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on June 28, 2013, alleging that various of defendant Trader Joe's Company's products are misbranded or bear misleading labels. Trader Joe's has moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike specified paragraphs of the SAC. The SAC states that the plaintiffs' case has "two facets." First, the plaintiffs allege that the packaging and labeling on various Trader Joe's products violate California's Sherman Law, CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE Section 110100(a), which adopts and incorporates the federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA). These alleged violations of the Sherman Law give rise to the plaintiffs' first cause of action for violations of the unlawful prong of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Second, apart from being unlawful under the Sherman Law, the plaintiffs allege that Trader Joe's labeling and packaging is misleading, deceptive, unfair and fraudulent. This second facet gives rise to the plaintiffs' second through sixth causes of action for violations of the unfair prong of the UCL (second cause of action), violations of the fraudulent prong of the UCL (third cause of action), misleading and deceptive advertising in violation of the False Advertising Law, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE Section 17500 (fourth cause of action), untrue advertising in violation of the False Advertising Law (fifth cause of action), and violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, CAL. CIV. CODE Section 1750 (sixth cause of action). The SAC explains that the products at issue fit into three categories, those that allegedly: 1. Are unlawfully and misleadingly labeled with the ingredient evaporated cane juice instead of sugar (the ECJ Products); 2. Are labeled "milk," but do not comply with the standardized definition for milk promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration (the Soy Milk Products); and 3. Contain artificial flavors or chemical preservatives but fail to disclose those ingredients on the product label (the Undisclosed Additives Products). District Judge William H. Orrick, in an order dated March 14, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Pm8z7yfrom Leagle.com, denied in part, and granted with leave to amend in part, the motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is denied on the first through sixth causes of action for violations of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA on claims regarding the ECJ Products. The Motion to Dismiss is granted with leave to amend on the first through sixth causes of action on claims regarding the Soy Milk Products and the Undisclosed Additives Products. The Motion to Strike is granted concerning the words "Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement this list of Substantially Similar Products if evidence is adduced during discovery showing that other products sold by Defendant qualify as being a Substantially Similar Product" in paragraph 3 of the SAC, and the words "Moreover, the very fact that Defendant sold such illegal Purchased and Substantially Similar Products and did not disclose this fact to consumers is a deceptive act in and of itself" in paragraph 7 of the SAC. The Motion to Strike the allegations in paragraphs 3-5, 24, and 129-139 of the SAC is denied. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 20 days of the date of the Order. Amy Gitson, Plaintiff, is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates & Colin Harvey Dunn -- chd@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, P.C. Deborah Ross, Plaintiff, is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates & Colin Harvey Dunn, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. Trader Joe's Company, Defendant, is represented by Carla Jean Christofferson -- cchristofferson@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Randall W. Edwards -- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Daniel James Faria -- dfaria@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers LLP & Kate G Ides -- kides@omm.com -- OMelveny Myers LLP. TWIN AMERICA: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Eddy Caba, Anna Mercado, and Victor Chavez, and Russell Annamunthodoo v. Twin America LLC, Twin America a/k/a JAD Transportation Inc., d/b/a City Sights, JAD Transportation Inc. d/b/a City Sights, JAD Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-00751-ALC (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2014) is an action to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation plus interest, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and a reasonable attorney's fee, and the cost and disbursement of the action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Twin America LLC is an American corporation that does business in County of Kings, New York, as an institution primarily engaged in the provision of transportation. The Company is headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. JAD Doe is the owner of JAD Transportation Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Chukwuka Ofodile, Esq. OFODILE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 498 Atlantic Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11217 Telephone: (718) 852-8300 Facsimile: (718) 852-7361 E-mail: acofodile@aol.com URBAN OUTFITTERS: Dist. Court Dismisses "Hancock" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Beryl A. Howell dismissed the case captioned WHITNEY HANCOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-939 (BAH), (D.D.C.), pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion dated March 14, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ECuXzbfrom Leagle.com. The plaintiffs in this putative class action alleged that two retailers in Washington, D.C., Urban Outfitters, Inc. and Anthropologie, Inc., violated two D.C. consumer protection statutes by requesting customers' ZIP codes in connection with consumer credit card purchases. The defendants sought dismissal of both counts in the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). "[D]ismissal with prejudice is warranted here since the plaintiffs' complaint is based on an erroneous interpretation of the CII Act that cannot be cured by additional factual allegations . . . any amendment of the plaintiffs' complaint would be futile," Judge Howell concluded. Therefore, the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. WHITNEY HANCOCK, Plaintiff, is represented by Mikhael D. Charnoff -- mike@perrycharnoff.com -- PERRY CHARNOFF, PLLC & Scott Michael Perry -- scott@perrycharnoff.com -- Perry Charnoff PLLC. JAMIE WHITE, Plaintiff, is represented by Mikhael D. Charnoff, PERRY CHARNOFF, PLLC & Scott Michael Perry, Perry Charnoff PLLC. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., Defendant, is represented by James Michael Burns -- JMBurns@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC & Joseph A. Fink -- jfink@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC. ANTHROPOLOGIE, INC., Defendant, is represented by James Michael Burns, DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC & Joseph A. Fink, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC. WALLABY YOGURT: Bid to Dismiss "Morgan" Class Action Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick issued an order denying a motion to dismiss a first amended complaint in FRANK MORGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WALLABY YOGURT COMPANY, INC., Defendant, NO. 13- CV-00296-WHO, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of this order dated March 13, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/H8XY1wfrom Leagle.com Plaintiffs Frank Morgan and Janet Hood bring this putative class action on behalf of either a nationwide class or a statewide class of California consumers who, since January 22, 2009, purchased any yogurt product produced by defendant Wallaby Yogurt Company, Inc. (Wallaby), labeled with the ingredient "evaporated cane juice." Wallaby moved to dismiss because, among other reasons, there is nothing illegal about the use of "evaporated cane juice" on yogurt products and no reasonable consumer would be misled by that term. "The plaintiffs have standing to bring this action challenging Wallaby's yogurt products that were labeled with "evaporated cane juice" instead of sugar or a similar term. The plaintiffs may not seek injunctive relief, however, and their prayer for injunctive relief is struck. Otherwise, the motion to dismiss is denied. Wallaby shall file an answer within 20 days," ruled Judge Orrick. The Court directed the parties to attend a case management conference on April 15, 2014, at 2 p.m., in Courtroom 2, at which a scheduling order will be entered. The parties are to file a joint case management statement one week in advance addressing all issues that should be discussed at the conference. Frank Morgan, Plaintiff, is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore -- piercegore@gorelawfirm.com -- Pratt & Associates & Darren Lee Brown. Janet Hood, Plaintiff, is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates & Darren Lee Brown. Wallaby Yogurt Company, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Kelly Marie Morrison -- kmorrison@jenner.com -- Jenner and Block LLP & Kenneth Kiyul Lee -- klee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP. WAVE COMM: Summary Judgment Bid in "Johnson" Suit Okayed -------------------------------------------------------- BRETT JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAVE COMM GR LLC; ROBERT GUILLERAULT, individually; and RICHARD RUZZO, individually, Defendants, NO. 6:10-CV-346, (N.D. N.Y.), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219 and New York Labor Law, N.Y. Lab. Law Sections 190-191. The Plaintiff claims Wave Comm failed to properly compensate its installation technicians (installers) for overtime work. The Defendants deny any violations of the FLSA or NYLL and counterclaim for unjust enrichment. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Plaintiff opposed, and the defendants replied. On the same day, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. In a March 14, 2014 Memorandum-Decision and Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/PwKhbRfrom Leagle.com, District Judge David N. Hurd granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, as well as the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The opt-in plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA are time barred or limited as identified in the defendants' Exhibit W, subject to a determination of willfulness by the jury, concluded Judge Hurd. Wave Comm is entitled to the retail or service establishment exemption only in those weeks after September 28, 2009 in which members of FLSA Subclass I were compensated at a rate of one and one-half times the minimum wage as identified in the defendants' Exhibit U, Judge Hurd added. He added that Wave Comm's formula for weighted halftime under Compensation Plan B complied with the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Wave Comm may be liable for unreported hours worked by installers. "Robert Guillerault and Richard Ruzzo are employers under the FLSA and are therefore individually liable for any violations," ruled Judge Hurd. Wave Comm's counterclaim for unjust enrichment was dismissed. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Timothy C. Selander, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER PLLP Minneapolis, MN, E-mail: lukas@nka.com selander@nka.com - and - J. Nelson Thomas, Esq. Patrick J. Solomon, Esq. Justin M. Cordello, Esq. THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Telephone: (585)272-0540 Facsimile: (585)272-0574 Attorneys for Defendants: Scott P. Quesnel, Esq., Patrick J. Fitzgerald, III, Esq. GIRVIN & FERLAZZO, PC 20 Corporate Woods Blvd. Albany, NY 12211 Telephone: (518) 462-0300 Facsimile: (518) 462-5037 WEIGHT WATCHERS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 21 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Weight Watchers International, Inc. common stock during the period between February 14, 2012 and October 30, 2013. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from March 21, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/weightwatchers/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Weight Watchers and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Weight Watchers is the world's leading provider of weight management services, operating globally through a network of Company-owned and franchise operations. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects and failed to disclose adverse facts, including that: (a) Weight Watchers was experiencing execution issues which were causing it to miss its internally forecasted financial plan; (b) Weight Watchers was experiencing a significant drop in its North America and United Kingdom meeting attendance figures; and (c) Weight Watchers was facing increased competition from free weight-loss apps and its enrollment was being negatively impacted. As a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Weight Watchers, its revenues, earnings, prospects and business. On February 14, 2012, Weight Watchers announced results for its fourth quarter and full-year 2011, and provided full-year 2012 earnings guidance. In addition, Weight Watchers announced that it planned to launch a "modified Dutch auction" tender offer the following week for up to $720 million of its common stock with a price range between $72 and $83 per share, and that it separately had agreed to purchase shares held by its controlling shareholder, Artal Group, S.A., at the same price paid in the tender offer. The tender offer closed on March 22, 2012. Earlier that month, the complaint alleges defendants David Kirchhoff and Ann Sardini exercised large quantities of options in the $42-$53 per share range, and sold large quantities of Weight Watchers shares on the open market for $80-$82 per share. On March 22, 2012, they also tendered shares to the Company for $82 per share. Combined, Kirchhoff and Sardini received gross proceeds on shares sold of approximately $11 million. On April 9, 2012, per the terms of the tender offer, Artal sold 9.5 million shares at $82 per share, for total proceeds of $779 million. On May 2, 2012, the Company announced its results for its 2012 first quarter -- the period ended March 31, 2012, just nine days after the tender offer closed--and revised downward its full-year 2012 earnings guidance that it had previously provided on February 14, 2012. Defendant Kirchhoff attributed the disappointing results to "execution issues." In response to this announcement, the price of Weight Watchers common stock fell 18%, from $76.01 per share on May 2, 2012, to close at $62.29 per share on May 3, 2012. On February 13, 2013, Weight Watchers issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter 2012 financial results and providing disappointing full-year fiscal 2013 earnings guidance that widely missed Thomson Reuters' consensus estimate. On this news, the price of Weight Watchers common stock plummeted 17%, from $54.11 per share on February 13, 2013, to close at $44.91 per share on February 14, 2013. Then, on October 30, 2013, Weight Watchers announced its results for the third quarter of fiscal 2013, disclosing that year-over-year quarterly revenues had declined 8.5% and that quarterly net income had decreased by 10.5% and fully-diluted quarterly earnings per share had declined 11.2% from the same period the prior year. In addition, Weight Watchers announced that it had indefinitely suspended its dividend, which it had paid regularly since 2006. On this news, Weight Watchers' stock price fell $7.81 per share, or over 19%, from a close of $39.92 per share on October 30, 2013 to close at $32.11 per share on October 31, 2013. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Weight Watchers common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi- employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. WELLS FARGO: Maryland Court Dismisses "Cannon" Suit --------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul W. Grimm issued a memorandum opinion in ANDREA JACKSON CANNON, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Defendant, CASE NO. PWG-13-1324, (D. Md.). The core of the Plaintiff's complaint revolved around the allegedly improper placement of policies commonly known as either "Lender Placed Insurance" or "Force-Placed Insurance" (LPI) policies on property owned by the Plaintiff and subject to a mortgage in favor of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The Wells Fargo Defendants moved to dismiss on June 26, 2013, and QBE moved to dismiss on July 2, 2013. The Plaintiff also moved to convert the motions to dismiss to motions for summary judgment on August 28, 2013. The Plaintiff also moved for class certification on January 3, 2014. In his Memorandum and Order dated February 20, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/jntd1sfrom Leagle.com, Judge Grimm granted Wells Fargo's Motion to Dismiss, and QBE's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff Andrea Jackson Cannon's Motion to Convert is denied. Judge Grimm dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint; and held that Defendants may seek sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. As to the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, Judge Grimm held that that motion is not yet ripe and is mooted by his rulings on the other pending motions. * Consumers in California Seek to Raise Malpractice Award Cap ------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Bernstein, writing for Reuters, reports that consumer advocates in California said on March 24 they had gathered enough signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would raise a decades-old state cap on medical malpractice awards to $1.1 million. The proposed initiative, backed by trial lawyers and the Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog, would more than quadruple the amount of money a patient could be awarded for pain and suffering in a malpractice case -- currently capped at $250,000. Consumer Watchdog president Jamie Court said he began submitting the signatures late on March 24, after waiting to see if a legislative compromise that fell apart last week would be resurrected before an early evening deadline to submit the signatures for a ballot initiative. "We are waiting at the behest of legislative leaders to go forth and put these signatures in across the state," Court told Reuters earlier in the day in a telephone interview, adding that backers of the measure had collected 840,000 signatures to get it on the ballot, far more than the nearly 505,000 required under state law. In addition to raising the cap on pain-and-suffering awards, the initiative would require random drug testing of doctors in the wake of growing concern about over-prescription of addictive pain medications, including among doctors, Court said. "This is a landmark patient safety measure," Court said. "By the end of the day the voters will have a chance to enact some of the strongest patient safety measures in the nation." Representatives of patients have tried for at least 20 years to persuade the state to raise the limit on pain-and-suffering awards, which was set in the 1970s and is not indexed to inflation. Opposition from the California Medical Association and other representatives of doctors have made such changes difficult to enact. "A ballot measure that is certain to generate more medical lawsuits and drive up costs for every health consumer in California is the worst possible idea at the worst possible time," California Medical Association President Richard Thorp said in a statement. Hoping to avoid a costly and ugly battle between doctors and lawyers over the ballot initiative, state senate Democratic leader Darrell Steinberg last month introduced a bill saying it was the legislature's intent to bring both sides to the table and try to reach a compromise. Sources close to the negotiations said representatives of doctors and lawyers were close to agreeing on a deal proposed by Steinberg to raise the limit under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, or MICRA, to $500,000. The talks fell apart on March 21, the sources said, leading to a decision by Consumer Watchdog and Consumer Attorneys of California, the state trial lawyers association, to file the signatures by the end of the day on Monday if the legislature did not act. "My suggested compromise was to raise the MICRA cap on damages due to medical malpractice from $250,000 to $500,000," Mr. Steinberg said in a statement emailed to Reuters on March 24. "A cap of $500,000 is far below the rate of inflation since MICRA became law 39 years ago," Mr. Steinberg said. "That number is a reasonable compromise that fairly compensates injured patients without significant increases in medical costs." * New Class Action Rules for Businesses Proposed in Australia ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that new rules for class actions that would ease the cost burden on business and increase the barriers confronting plaintiff lawyers are proposed in a report that is about to be presented to the federal government. It calls for a new system of "certification", administered by the courts, that would weed out flawed class actions before respondents incur large legal bills. If class actions pass this threshold test, plaintiff lawyers would still be unable to force respondents to engage in the expensive process of discovery until after the claimants had presented their evidence. This change would address the current practice in which some plaintiff lawyers use discovery based on broadly pleaded claims as a way of "fishing for a cause of action", the report says. The certification process, which is modeled on a similar process in the US, is one of a series of recommendations aimed at protecting the interests of class action respondents as well as claimants who have little control over how their claims are handled. If implemented, the new system would mean class actions would only proceed if the lawyers behind the action can prove that common questions of law or fact predominate over issues that affect individual claimants. By giving plaintiff lawyers the task of proving compliance with the rules, the proposal would adopt the procedure used in the US and reverse the current Australian practice. At the moment, there is a presumption that Australian class actions comply with Federal Court rules. Respondents bear the onus, and cost, of testing that presumption. The report, produced by King & Wood Mallesons for the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, also calls for government monitoring of litigation funding companies that are controlled by plaintiff lawyers and rule changes so courts can seek expert advice on the costs claimed by plaintiff lawyers from class action settlements. Attorney-General George Brandis is proposing to introduce new regulations governing litigation funders and is opposed to those companies being owned by principals of law firms. The ILR report says the link between law firm Maurice Blackburn and litigation funder Claims Funding Australia indicates there is a need for government oversight of the industry. * Serious Recalls of Medical Devices Up More Than 900%, FDA Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Don Seiffert, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that the number of the most serious type of recalls of medical devices -- those that could result in serious injury or death -- has ballooned by more than 900 percent in the last decade, according to a report released on March 21 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. According to the agency's "Medical Device Recall Report," the number of Class 1 recalls rose from seven in 2003 to 57 in 2012. However, 2003 had the lowest number of any of the past 10 years, and in each of the next four years, there were more than 20 such recalls. Class 1 recalls are those defined as having "a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death." The increase comes against the backdrop of a near doubling in the total of number recall events, from 604 in 2003 to 1,190 in 2012. Recall events can include more than one product, and in 2012 they involved 2,475 products. Class 1 recalls represented just 1 percent of the total number of recalls in 2003, but nearly 5 percent of them in 2012. The agency said that much of the increase in Class 1 recalls has to do with its efforts to better classify certain products that are often recalled, such as defibrillators, infusion pumps, ventilators and vascular catheters. The change has resulted in more of the recalls being considered serious than in previous years. The most recent Class 1 recall by a Massachusetts-based medical device company came last December, when Covidien recalled its Puritan Bennett 840 ventilator systems due to a software issue which could suddenly require a patient to breathe on his or her own. At the time, there were 16,756 of the devices in the U.S. and 39,372 outside the U.S. Covidien is officially based in Ireland, but has corporate offices and most of its top executives in Mansfield. * Two People Face Fine in Mass. Over Improper Asbestos Removal -------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Johnson, writing for MassLive.com, reports that the state Department of Environmental Protection has fined Alan Bernhardt and Sallie Swartz $9,000 for violations of regulations related to the removal of asbestos at their rental property on 32 Main Street, officials said. DEP officials inspected the property in December 2012 after receiving complaints from tenants. They found that Mr. Bernhardt and Ms. Swartz had hired someone to remove asbestos pipe insulation without employing the proper procedures for removal and disposal. They also failed to file the required paperwork with the DEP, officials said. Asbestos materials removed from the property were disposed of at the town transfer station by Mr. Bernhardt, officials said. Asbestos is a known carcinogen and exposure to it has been liked to lung cancer and other cancers. They have since cooperated with the DEP and hired a licensed contractor to properly clean up their property, officials said. The couple was originally fined $23, 379, but the DEP agreed to waive the remaining $18,379 providing Mr. Berhardt and Ms. Swartz comply with the terms of the order and remain in compliance with the state asbestos handling regulations for a one-year period. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's NARCO Has $955MM Fibro Liabilities --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s North American Refractories Company (NARCO) has $955 million total asbestos-related 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. Honeywell's predecessors owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products (bricks and cement used in high temperature applications). The Company sold the NARCO business in 1986 and agreed to indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for products that had been discontinued prior to the sale. NARCO retained all liability for all other claims. NARCO and/or Honeywell are defendants in asbestos personal injury cases asserting claims based upon alleged exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing products. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing refractory products in an occupational setting. These claims, and the filing of subsequent claims, were stayed continuously since January 4, 2002, the date on which NARCO sought bankruptcy protection. For the year ended December 31, 2013, NARCO's total asbestos- related liabilities was $955 million and total insurance recovery for asbestos-related liabilities was $531 million. On January 4, 2002, NARCO filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with the filing of NARCO's petition in 2002, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an injunction staying the prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos claims against the Company, which stayed in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case. In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed NARCO's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization and it became fully effective on April 30, 2013. In connection with implementation of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization, a federally authorized 524(g) trust ("NARCO Trust") was established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present and future individual actions in state or federal courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust will review submitted claims and determine award amounts in accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth all criteria claimants must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount. In addition, Honeywell will continue to provide input to the detailed controls design of the NARCO Trust, and has on-going audit rights to review and monitor claims processor's adherence to the established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures and as a means of detecting and deterring irregularities in claims. In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, Honeywell agreed to certain obligations which were triggered upon the effective date of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization. As agreed, during the second quarter of 2013, the Company provided NARCO with $17 million in financing and simultaneously forgave such indebtedness. The Company also paid $40 million to NARCO's former parent company and $16 million to certain asbestos claimants whose claims were fully resolved during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings. Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution Procedures, subject to annual caps of $140 million in the years 2014 through 2018 and $145 million for each year thereafter, provided, however, that the first $100 million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the "Initial Claims Amount") will not count against the first year annual cap and any unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until fully utilized. Honeywell will also be responsible for the following funding obligations which are not subject to the annual cap: a) previously approved payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings which provide that a portion of these settlements is to be paid by the NARCO Trust, which amounts are estimated at $130 million and are expected to be paid during the first year of trust operations ($91 million of which was paid during 2013); and b) payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures criteria, which amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be paid during the first two years of trust operations. The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for the amounts, unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection and for the estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections and in connection with the initial operation of a 524(g) trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO asbestos claims beyond 2018. In the absence of actual trust experience on which to base the estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value, including trust claim handling costs, of asbestos related future liabilities based on Company specific and general asbestos claims filing rates, expected rates of disease and anticipated claim values. Specifically, the valuation methodology included an analysis of the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos containing products, epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos related diseases, NARCO asbestos claims filing history, general asbestos claims filing rates in the tort system and in certain operating asbestos trusts, and the claims experience in those forums, the pending inventory of NARCO asbestos claims, disease criteria and payment values contained in the Trust Distribution Procedures and an estimated approval rate of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust. This methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims has been commonly accepted by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts and resulted in a range of estimated liability of $743 to $961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount in the range. Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct analyses to determine the amount of insurance that we estimate is probable of recovery in relation to payment of current and estimated future claims. While the substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers. Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be higher or lower than those projected and recorded. There is no assurance that insurance recoveries will be timely or whether there will be any NARCO-related asbestos claims beyond 2018. Given the inherent uncertainty in predicting future events, we review our estimates periodically, and update them based on our experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or other developments that may impact insurance recoveries." Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. In June 2013, the Company acquired RAE Systems, Inc. In September 2013, Honeywell International Inc. announced that it has completed its acquisition of Intermec Inc., a provider of mobile computing, radio frequency identification solutions (RFID), voice-enabled workflow and data-collection solutions, and printing solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Bendix Has $656MM Fibro Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix business reported a total of $656 million asbestos-related 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. Honeywell's Bendix friction materials business manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. For the year ended December 31, 2013, Bendix's total asbestos- related liabilities was $656 million and total insurance recovery for asbestos-related liabilities was $141 million. Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. In June 2013, the Company acquired RAE Systems, Inc. In September 2013, Honeywell International Inc. announced that it has completed its acquisition of Intermec Inc., a provider of mobile computing, radio frequency identification solutions (RFID), voice-enabled workflow and data-collection solutions, and printing solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 12,302 Unresolved Bendix Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. had 12,302 unresolved Bendix-related asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company has also experienced average resolution values per claim excluding legal costs for Malignant claims $51,000 and for Nonmalignant claims $850. It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize in the future, the Company says. The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix-related asbestos claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth quarter each year. The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims is similar to that used to estimate the future NARCO-related asbestos claims liability. Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers." On a cumulative historical basis, Honeywell has recorded insurance receivables equal to approximately 36 percent of the value of the underlying asbestos claims recorded. However, because there are gaps in our coverage due to insurance company insolvencies, certain uninsured periods, and insurance settlements, this rate is expected to decline for any future Bendix-related asbestos liabilities that may be recorded. Future recoverability rates may also be impacted by numerous other factors, such as future insurance settlements, insolvencies and judicial determinations relevant to our coverage program, which are difficult to predict. Assuming continued defense and indemnity spending at current levels, we estimate that the cumulative recoverability rate could decline over the next five years to approximately 30 percent. Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements are paid (collectively, the "Variable Claims Factors") do not substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix-related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year. No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims Factors will not change. Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. In June 2013, the Company acquired RAE Systems, Inc. In September 2013, Honeywell International Inc. announced that it has completed its acquisition of Intermec Inc., a provider of mobile computing, radio frequency identification solutions (RFID), voice-enabled workflow and data-collection solutions, and printing solutions. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Group Had $10MM Reserves for Exposure ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Navigators Group, Inc.'s net reserves for asbestos exposures was $10,314,000, 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: "Our exposure to asbestos liability principally stems from marine liability insurance written on an occurrence basis during the mid-1980s. In general, our participation on such risks is in the excess layers, which requires the underlying coverage to be exhausted prior to coverage being triggered in our layer. In many instances we are one of many insurers who participate in the defense and ultimate settlement of these claims, and we are generally a minor participant in the overall insurance coverage and settlement. The reserves for asbestos exposures as of December 31, 2013 are for: (i) one large settled claim for excess insurance policy limits exposed to a class action suit against an insured involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products being paid over several years and (ii) attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur over time. Substantially all of our asbestos liability reserves are included in our marine loss reserves. There can be no assurances that material loss development may not arise in the future from existing asbestos claims or new claims given the evolving and complex legal environment that may directly impact the outcome of the asbestos exposures of our insureds. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company's net reserves for asbestos exposures was $10,314,000." The Navigators Group, Inc. is an international insurance company focusing on specialty products within the overall property casualty insurance market. The Company's product line is ocean marine insurance. It has also developed specialty insurance lines such as commercial primary and excess liability as well as specialty niches in professional liability. It operates two segments: Insurance Companies and Lloyd's Operations. Insurance Companies segment consists of Navigators Insurance Company, which includes a United Kingdom Branch and Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, which underwrites specialty and professional liability insurance on an excess and surplus lines basis. The Lloyd's Operations underwrites marine and related lines of business along with offshore energy, professional liability insurance and construction coverages for onshore energy business . In February 2012, the Company's subsidiary, Navigators Management Company Inc. (NMC) launched Navigators Specialty unit. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 45,150 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation had approximately 45,150 pending asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos- containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships. Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had pending approximately 45,150 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 45,900 as of December 31, 2012 and 50,090 as of December 31, 2011. During 2013, the Company received approximately 4,310 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 5,060 claims. The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the years 2013 and 2012 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately $29 million and $21 million, respectively. The Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses. Filings include claims for individuals suffering from mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos- related disease. The predominant number of claims against the Company are non-cancer claims. In a substantial number of the pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed injury. The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities. CBS Corporation is a mass media company. The Company has operations in segments, which include Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, Local Broadcasting and Outdoor. During the year ended December 31, 2011, contributions to the Company's consolidated revenues from its segments were Entertainment 52%, Cable Networks 11%, Publishing 6%, Local Broadcasting 19% and Outdoor 13%. During 2011, it generated approximately 15% of its total revenues from international regions. Effective March 26, 2013, the Company acquired 50% interest in The TV Guide Network from Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. In June 2013, the Company acquired TV Guide Digital, which includes the popular TVGuide.com and TV Guide Mobile properties. In October 2013, Platinum Equity and CBS Corporation announced that an affiliate of Platinum Equity acquired the assets of CBS Outdoor International. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Piedmont Office Realty Properties Contain Fibro ---------------------------------------------------------------- Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., reported that some of its properties contain asbestos-containing building materials, 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 said environmental laws require that owners or operators of buildings containing asbestos properly manage and maintain the asbestos, adequately inform or train those who may come into contact with asbestos, and undertake special precautions, including removal or other abatement, in the event that asbestos is disturbed during building renovation or demolition. These laws may impose fines and penalties on building owners or operators who fail to comply with these requirements. In addition, environmental laws and the common law may allow third parties to seek recovery from owners or operators for personal injury associated with exposure to asbestos. Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., is a real estate investment trust. Piedmont is engages in the acquisition and ownership of commercial real estate properties throughout the United States, including properties that are under construction, newly constructed, or have operating histories. Company conducts business primarily through Piedmont Operating Partnership, L.P. (Piedmont OP), a limited partnership, as well as performing the management of its buildings through two wholly owned subsidiaries, Piedmont Government Services, LLC and Piedmont Office Management, LLC. Piedmont is the sole general partner of Piedmont OP. Piedmont OP owns properties directly, through wholly owned subsidiaries and through both consolidated and unconsolidated joint ventures. In December 2013, Piedmont completed the purchase of two office buildings. On December 30, 2013, the Company purchased office building in Irving, TX. In January 2014, it sold of 8700 South Price Road in Tempe, AZ. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Co. Properties Contain Fibro ---------------------------------------------------------- Weyerhaeuser Company said some of its sites have asbestos- containing materials, 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 added that it has met its current legal obligation to identify and manage these materials. In situations where the Company cannot reasonably determine when asbestos containing materials might be removed from the sites, it has not recorded an accrual because the fair value of the obligation cannot be reasonably estimated. A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at: http://is.gd/zPfLTx Weyerhaeuser Company, formerly Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, is a forest products company. The Company is engaged in growing and harvesting trees, builds homes and making a range of forest products. As of December 31, 2010, it had offices or operations in 11 countries and have customers worldwide. It manages 20.3 million acres of forests, of which it owns 5.7 million acres, lease 0.7 million acres and has renewable, long-term licenses on 13.9 million acres. The Company operates in five business segments: Timberlands, Wood Products, Cellulose Fibers, Real Estate and Corporate and Other. In August 1, 2011, the Company sold its hardwoods business to American Industrial Partners. On September 30, 2011, the Company sold its Westwood Shipping Lines. Effective July 23, 2013, Weyerhaeuser Co acquired the entire share capital of Longview Timber LLC, a Longview-based owner and operator of timberlands, from Brookfield Asset Management Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, 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: "We are a defendant in a substantial number of lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were primarily encapsulated and used as internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims, and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers or other companies for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. Although infrequent, from time to time we have tried cases, one of which resulted in an unfavorable ruling during the third quarter of 2013. The impact of the verdict is not material, and we intend to vigorously contest the ruling. We established a loss reserve and related insurance receivable based on the reasonably estimable and probable outcome of the case. While unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these claims could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we currently believe the likelihood is remote. Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable quarter. We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any, of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although future claims would also be subject to then existing indemnities and insurance coverage." Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service provider of flow control systems. The Company develops and manufacture precision-engineered flows control equipment integral to the movement, control and protection of the flow of materials in its customers' critical processes. The Company operates in three segments: Engineered Product Division (EPD), which includes long leads time, custom and other engineered pumps and pump systems, mechanical seals, auxiliary systems and replacement parts and related services, Industrial Product Division (IPD), which includes pre-configured engineered pumps and pump systems and related products and services, and Flow Control Division (FCD), which includes engineered and industrial valves, control valves, actuators and controls and related services. Effective December 10, 2013, Flowserve Corp acquired Innovative Mag-Drive LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Has 11,100 Fibro Claims as of Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 11,100 premises and product asbestos claims pending against FMC Corporation in several jurisdictions, 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 hundreds of other industrial companies, we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued operations. The machinery and equipment businesses we owned or operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these components. Further, the asbestos-containing parts for this machinery and equipment were accessible only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance. A few jurisdictions have permitted claims to proceed against equipment manufacturers relating to insulation installed by other companies on such machinery and equipment. We believe that, overall, the claims against FMC are without merit. As of December 31, 2013, there were approximately 11,100 premises and product asbestos claims pending against FMC in several jurisdictions. Since the 1980s, approximately 104,000 asbestos claims against FMC have been discharged, the overwhelming majority of which have been dismissed without any payment to the claimant. Settlements by us with claimants have totaled approximately $53 million. We intend to continue managing these asbestos-related cases in accordance with our historical experience. We have established a reserve for this litigation within our discontinued operations and believe that any exposure of a loss in excess of the established reserve cannot be reasonably estimated. Our experience has been that the overall trends in terms of the rate of filing of asbestos-related claims with respect to all potential defendants has changed over time, and that filing rates as to us in particular have varied significantly over the last several years. We are a peripheral defendant -- that is, we have never manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing components. As a result, claim filing rates against us have yet to form a predictable pattern, and we are unable to project a reasonably accurate future filing rate and thus, we are presently unable to reasonably estimate our asbestos liability with respect to claims that may be filed in the future." FMC Corporation (FMC), is a diversified chemical company. FMC serves agricultural, consumer and industrial markets with solutions, applications and products. It operates in three business segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and Industrial Chemicals. Agricultural Products segment develops, markets and sells all three classes of crop protection chemicals, such as insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, with particular strength in insecticides and herbicides. Specialty Chemicals consists of its BioPolymer and lithium businesses and focuses on food ingredients that are used to enhance texture, color, structure and physical stability; pharmaceutical additives for binding, encapsulation and disintegrate applications, specialty polymers and pharmaceutical synthesis. In October 2013, FMC Corporation announced the acquisition of the Center for Agricultural and Environmental Biosolutions (CAEB). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Says Targeted Aggressively in Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Company believes that it is being targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits and notes that annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future, 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: "Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches, and other automotive components from the early 1900s. Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been the target of asbestos litigation and, as a result, are a defendant in various actions for injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to Ford parts and other products containing asbestos. Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our facilities, or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet. We believe that we are being targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits because many previously-targeted companies have filed for bankruptcy. Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles over the years. We are prepared to defend these cases, and believe that the scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles. The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate and could include both compensatory and punitive damage awards. The majority of our asbestos cases do not specify a dollar amount for damages; in many of the other cases the dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum, and the vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding one hundred. Many of these cases also involve multiple plaintiffs, and often we are unable to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making claims against us (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future." Ford Motor Company (Ford) is a producer of automobiles. The Company together with its subsidiaries is engaged in other businesses, including financing vehicles. The Company operates in two segments: Automotive and Financial Services. Automotive includes Ford North America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, and Ford Asia Pacific Africa region. Financial services include Ford Motor Credit Company and Other Financial Service. The Company manufactures or distributes automobiles across six continents. Its automotive brands include Ford and Lincoln. Other Financial Services includes a range of businesses, including holding companies and real estate. Effective September 26, 2013, Ford Motor Company acquired Livio, a developer of software. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Recorded $4.4-Mil CARO Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kaiser Aluminum Corporation's liability under its Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations (CARO) was $4.4 million, 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 inputs in estimating the fair value of CARO include: (i) the timing of when any such CARO cash flows may be incurred: (ii) incremental costs associated with special handling or treatment of CARO materials, and (iii) the credit-adjusted risk-free rate applicable at the time additional CARO cash flows are estimated, all of which are considered Level 3 inputs as they involve significant judgment of the Company. During 2013, the Company re-assessed and revised its estimates relating to the timing and future costs of various asbestos removal projects at one facility. For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company's CARO liability was $4.4 million. The estimated fair value of CARO liability at December 31, 2013, is based upon the application of a weighted-average credit- adjusted risk-free rate of 8.6%. Kaiser Aluminum Corporation is engaged in the production of semi- fabricated specialty aluminum products and operates in fabricated products segment. In addition to the Fabricated Products segment, it has two business units, Secondary Aluminum and Corporate and Other. The Secondary Aluminum business unit sells products, such as ingot and billet, produced by Anglesey Aluminium Limited, in which it has a 49% equity investment and which owns and operates a secondary aluminum remelt and casting facility in Holyhead, Wales. Corporate and Other business unit provides general and administrative support for its operations. Through its 12 focused production facilities in North America, it manufactures rolled, extruded, and drawn aluminum products to serve four market applications: aerospace and high strength products (Aero/HS products), general engineering products (GE products), extrusions for automotive applications (Automotive Extrusions), and other industrial products (Other products). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsin City Hall Closed for Fibro Testing ------------------------------------------------------------- Cara Spoto, writing for The Journal Times, reported that the city hall of Racine, Wisconsin, closed for a day as officials wait to find out the full results of asbestos testing that took place. Officials announced they were closing the building, 730 Washington Ave., soon after discovering that asbestos dust from an abatement project on the third floor might have escaped the containment area set up by contractors. The asbestos is being removed as part of an ongoing renovation of the third floor. City staff noticed a small pile of dust laying outside the containment area where contractors had been doing tile work, Dickert said, and notified the administration. Employees are working on the third floor while a portion of that floor is being renovated. Dickert said the discovery occurred right after employees arrived, and that by 11 a.m. most employees were out of the building. Dickert said crews had found traces of asbestos in the air near the place where the dust was found, but that crews were still testing the rest of the building and would likely finish at some point during the night. Asbestos was once commonly used in insulation and other building products, but its fibers can cause health problems if they are inhaled. Removal of products containing asbestos is highly regulated. Dickert said the amount of asbestos in the tile glue that contractors were handling is about 2 percent. "That is actually considered quite small, but asbestos is asbestos, and we don't want to take risks," he said. Once the city finds out what the extent of the contamination is, it will determine what clean-up is needed. "We are going to go back to the company (doing the renovation work) and obviously talk to them about paying for this through their liability insurance," he said. "We plan on them cleaning it all up." Until then, he said, City Hall remains closed, but city employees who work in the building will remain on call. Public Safety and Licensing and Public Works and Services committee meetings that had been slated to take place at City Hall will take place at the City Hall Annex, 800 Center St. ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Finding at Former Younkers Disputed -------------------------------------------------------- Jason Clayworth, writing for Des Moines Register, reported that a state investigator said a small area of material that contains asbestos had been improperly removed during recent renovations at the former Younkers building in downtown Des Moines, Iowa. But, by the end of the day, that finding by Department of Natural Resources inspector Tom Wuehr was in doubt. Why? Because the company in charge of disposal now claims it gave the investigator incorrect information. There may be no way to prove whether the cancer-causing material was handled properly. That's because the evidence has already been disposed of, both the inspector and the contractor said. "Does it seem a little suspicious? I can understand that," said Wuehr, the state employee who helps enforce federal asbestos standards. Wuehr returned to the construction site in light of questions from The Des Moines Register about the differences between two environmental studies -- one of which maintained that there was asbestos in the drywall on the fifth floor of the building and another which did not indicate any presence of asbestos in that area. Officials from Hansen Construction, a Johnston-based company in charge of overseeing the renovations of the site, now known as the Flagship Building, have vehemently denied charges by RedNet Environmental Services of West Des Moines that asbestos has been mishandled. They say the complaints are bogus and the result of RedNet's failure to secure a work agreement at the site. The state inspector arrived at the work site about noon and workers initially told him that materials in a roughly 300-foot area on the fifth floor of the building had been removed as regular waste. But that area had previously tested positive for asbestos, which meant the materials should have been contained so that cancer-causing fibers would be confined. After Wuehr told the Register that the material had been disposed of improperly, a reporter called Hansen Construction for comment. Within 30 minutes, the president of REW Services -- the company responsible for the asbestos removal -- told the Register that the questions from the state inspector were improperly answered. Pete Walter, the president of REW, said the asbestos area had been properly removed. Walter acknowledged that proving the material was removed properly might be difficult if not impossible. "We can do our best but the wall is gone and the work is done," Walter said. "How do you show something that is no longer there? What would it take to satisfy you for us to show something like that? I don't know." Wuehr said that the state will now attempt to substantiate REW's claims through abatement reports or daily logs the company may keep. Wuehr described the possible discovery of asbestos that was improperly removed as minor and said he believes was not deliberate but should be taken seriously. If it was ultimately determined that the material was disposed of improperly, contractors at the site could be issued a notice of violation. But Wuehr said he didn't anticipate a fine unless more violations are discovered. Wuehr first discovered improper asbestos disposal at the site a few months ago, and he described that problem as minor, too. In light of the possible findings, he has requested from contractors on the site copies of two separate asbestos survey reports and said he will now compare them for inconsistencies. "They're going to get more scrutiny now, obviously," Wuehr said. In July 2013, Rob Knudsen, an owner of RedNet, sent a letter to Hansen Construction executives noting "huge discrepancies" in two environmental studies and claiming that asbestos and lead were improperly removed. In January, RedNet delivered to 11 state and federal officials a complaint written by another of the company's owners, Lynn Knudsen. Among multiple accusations, it alleged that workers were being told to throw away materials presumed to have asbestos without any testing. Multiple state officials responded early this month that the RedNet claims were unfounded. Craig Hansen of Hansen Construction told the Register the Knudsens have made erroneous accusations about the abatement of hazardous materials at the Younkers site. Hansen Construction has filed a lawsuit alleging multiple counts of libel against the Knudsens and RedNet. "It's not about money, it's about silencing him (Rob Knudsen) from spreading libelous statements," said Jeff Stone, an attorney for Hansen Construction. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Diseases Among Firefighters Devastating -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawfuel.com reported that asbestos-related diseases among firefighters is something that a New Hamshire lawmaker noted a report on cancer issues that was quietly published at the same time as tort reformers were pushing the FACT Act on Capitol Hill. Mesothelioma and its devastating impact was revealed by the joint report from the National Fire Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The National Fire Administration/NIOSH study was published in the October 2013 issue of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Its aim is to identify the relationship between occupational exposure and cancer among firefighters. Asbestos.com reported that the study examined mortality patterns and cancer incidence among career firefighters and is among the largest of its kind. Researchers looked at a pool of nearly 30,000 firefighters employed in San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia between 1950 and 2009. Firefighters' work exposes them to known and suspected carcinogens like formaldehyde and benzene. The study shows that such exposure is linked to an increased risk of developing certain cancers. The findings were consistent with previous studies which found that firefighters experience higher rates of respiratory, digestive and urinary cancers, compared to the general population. In addition to strengthening evidence from earlier studies, researchers also made a previously unreported finding. They found the rate of mesothelioma among firefighters involved in the study was twice that of the general U.S. population. Since asbestos is "the only known causal agent of mesothelioma" and firefighters are often exposed to asbestos in the debris of older buildings, the research suggests an association between firefighters' occupational exposure and increased mesothelioma rates. Further studies are planned and will look closer at employment histories and use of respiratory protection and ventilation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare at Aldercar Community School --------------------------------------------------------- Derby Telegraph reported that an extra GBP400,000 needs to be found to rebuild a Derbyshire, U.K., secondary school after "significant levels" of asbestos were found. The GBP7 million rebuilding project at Aldercar Community School is expected to cost the extra GBP400,000 because of increased demolition costs and significant levels of asbestos which need to be cleared. The Langley Mill school has some of the worst conditions of any school in the county and these mainly relate to a lightweight timber-frame building "that is past its useful life", according to a Derbyshire County Council report. On-going repairs, which will continue while work is being carried out over the next two years, are also expected to push up the costs. The county council has contingency money in cases of emergency and the replacement project at the school is considered suitable for this funding. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Engineer Testifies for Defense in Trial ------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillon, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that as the second week of a Madison County, Ill. asbestos trial begins in Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs' courtroom, the defense called its first witness to the stand, bringing in Naval expert Admiral David Sargent, Jr. 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. Sargent joined the Navy as a mechanical engineer in 1963. His expertise was in engineering and maintenance of World War II-era ships used when he was in service. He worked his way up to admiral in 1994, eventually becoming a program executive officer responsible for the design of aircraft carriers, service ships and amphibious ships. He retired from the Navy in 1999. Under questioning by Crane Co. attorney Jim Lowery, Sargent said the ships King served on were all originally World War II-era destroyers, meaning his ships were "essentially identical from the main deck down" to the destroyers Sargent worked with. 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 the USS Hollister. Sargent testified that at the time King served in the Navy, the Bureau of Ships, BuShips, was responsible for design, construction and maintenance of the ships, or procurement. When describing how a ship is procured, Sargent said it begins when the Navy decides it needs a capability that it doesn't already have. It chooses whether to create something new or improve a current system. Its idea would go through an approval process and then to BuShips to complete procurement contracts and begin purchasing the systems. The ship would then be assembled according to Navy specifications. The purpose of procurement technical specifications is to avoid any confusion regarding what the Navy requires. "So much of the ship is unique, so you can't go to commercial specifications," he explained. The Navy would follow a qualified product list, which included specific products that have been tested and proven to fully comply with specific MilSpecs. Lowery pulled the qualified product list from the National Archives dating 1959-1974, stating that neither the word Crane nor Cranite appears on the list. "If it's not on a QPL, then it's not a product that the Navy certified as a MilSpec," Sargent responded to Lowery's statement. BuShips provided technical manuals to aide purchasers when ordering replacement parts for the ship's storage and to guide maintenance mates when repairing equipment. Sargent said these technical manuals were developed by both the Navy and contracted manufacturers. "There is, not surprisingly, a separate MilSpec. for manuals," he said. Contrary to what King testified in his video deposition, a technical manual was not required for every piece of equipment on the ship, specifically "if there's no complexity to the operation of that piece of equipment," Sargent said. He added there was no manual for a valve because the operation was simple and later compared changing a gasket to changing a light bulb. Also, the Navy didn't always use asbestos gaskets and packing depending on the type of gaskets. Sargent testified that a large percentage of valves required gaskets and packing, but he couldn't confidently say a majority required them. However, it still stands that the Navy procured "many many" gaskets and gasket material containing asbestos. Regardless of how many asbestos-containing gaskets were used, Sargent said insulation accounted for 250-300 times the volume of gaskets, calling it "minuscule" compared to insulation. Sargent said asbestos-containing thermal insulation would have been running all throughout the ships King was on. He estimated that the ships had between 30 and 40 tons of asbestos containing thermal insulation, which equals approximately 60,000 pounds. A large majority of the insulation would have been contained in the engine rooms and boiler rooms due to the "incredible" heat produced in those areas. Asbestos-containing insulation was used because it was much lighter and allowed for faster ships and reserve weight for other necessary items. "For every pound you saved in insulation weight, you could put more fuel on or more weapons," Sargent said. As part of King's duties, serving in the engine rooms, he was required to change gaskets, repair pumps and repair valves. He would 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. In order to work his way up in class, King would have had to complete practical tests according to the machinist mate rate manual. He would have had to show that he learned certain tasks, such as applying insulation, and earn high performance marks. When asked if the Navy provided any warnings for how to handle the asbestos-containing materials, Sargent testified that the term "warning" implied a reminder intended to remind the crew of something they had already been trained in. He used a high voltage symbol as an example "A warning is a reminder," Sargent explained. "It's not a statement in itself typically." During cross-examination, Sargent said that as far as he knew the Navy didn't prohibit from warning. While he didn't address asbestos warnings specifically, he said sailor health is very important to the Navy. He described the difference between safety and health, comparing safety to immediately occurring accidents and health hazards as having no immediate impact. Brian King's Testimony Just before the defense opened its side of the argument, the jury heard the testimony of Brian King, the last plaintiff witness. Plaintiffs attorney Allyson Romani of Shrader & Associates began her questioning by showing several photos of Brian King and his father growing up. King said his father joined the Navy to see the world and meet new people. "When he joined the Navy, he was just in Heaven," King said. His father left the Navy to start a family and entered the industrial water treatment field. Referring to him as a dynamo, Brian King said his father decided to return to school while balancing work, education and family time. Eventually, Tom King started his own water treatment company so he could charge half the price but give twice the services to customers, his son said. Brian King followed in his father's footsteps and now maintains the family company. After his father got sick with mesothelioma, Brian King became his primary caretaker. He took him to his doctor's appointments. The two tried a doctor practicing in alternative medicine who Brian says was helpful with Tom King's prostate cancer. However, the doctor said it was too aggressive of a cancer and all he could do was try to make him comfortable, Brian said. The family chose to try chemotherapy, but his health only worsened. During this time, Brian King testified that he would prepare his father's meals, bathe him, dress him, clean his home and try everything he could to keep him comfortable. Brian King said in the past, his father would just "rub some dirt in it" if he injured himself. During his mesothelioma, Brian King said his father was in so much pain that he had to give him morphine to knock him out. By early May, Brian King tearfully said he was no longer qualified to care for his father and took him to a nursing home. He was there for about a week when Tom King begged his son to take him home. "He begged me, he begged me to take him home," Brian King said in an emotional testimony. "I scooped him up in my arms and took him to a wheelchair and took him home. And he had the privilege to die in the company of his own home the next day." Taking care of his father and working became increasingly difficult, he said. He lost several customers on the job as he tried to balance work and nursing, resulting in distractions, depression and fatigue. "I thought I was stronger than this," Brian King said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thorbury Parents Demand Answer Over Fibro Scare ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Irwin, writing for Northcote Leader, reported that parents at a school in Thornbury, Australia, want an explanation from the Education Department about how their children were exposed to asbestos. When Northcote Leader visited Wales St Primary School and spoke to half a dozen parents, they said a meeting with the department raised more questions than it provided answers and did little to reassure them about their children's safety. As previously reported by the Leader, asbestos particles were found in the carpet in the building known as Block C after renovations during the summer holidays, with the rooms subsequently used by Prep students and staff in the first week of school. Parents have started a petition to get the department to remove the building (the department offered to paint it) to improve safety and restore confidence. Emily Derrick said parents required clarification on why children were in the affected building for a whole week and why principal Christopher Sexton had been shifted to the regional office. During a meeting, department officials said Mr Sexton was not removed for disciplinary reasons. Mrs Derrick said she would not let her four-year-old son Jack go back into the building, which still contained asbestos, despite the carpet being removed. "There shouldn't be asbestos in any schools -- period," Mrs Derrick said. She said some parents felt they had to put their children's names on a national asbestos register. Acting principal Judi Benney said once additional information became available from the department, the school would put a question and answer section addressing concerns on its website. The department issued a statement to reassure 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." Department spokesman Simon Craig said the incident was still under investigation. "In addition, WorkSafe, as Victoria's asbestos regulator, is carrying out its own investigation," Mr Craig said. The Department of Education has refused to answer these questions: * When did the department learn of the asbestos? Was it January 24, as was mentioned at a meeting? * Who sent the directive that no one was to use the space? * Who received the directive? * How were students allowed to access the area between February 3-7? * Why was the area not cleaned until February 8? * What has subsequent testing shown? * What was principal Chistopher Sexton's involvement? * When will Mr Sexton return to the school as principal? * Parents say they want the affected building removed. Will the Department remove the building and if so when will this happen? * Is the department encouraging staff and students to put their names on the National Register of Liability? If not, why not? * What responsibility is the department taking for this incident? ASBESTOS UPDATE: Video Deposition of Deceased Claimant Viewed ------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that jurors in Madison County were able to hear the testimony of a mesothelioma victim which had been video recorded a few months before he passed away. A trial is currently underway in Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs' court in a case brought by Tom King, Sr. of Tennessee. King, who had served in the U.S. Navy, died from mesothelioma on May 23, 2013, at age 71. Before his death, attorneys recorded his deposition on Feb. 27 and 28, 2013. Brothers Tom King, Jr. and Brian King are now representing their father in the lawsuit. Crane Co., a company that allegedly supplied the 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 list of 119 defendant companies. 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 the USS Hollister. He started as an E3 fireman on the Forrestal and worked his way up to a machinist mate first class by the time he left the Navy permanently in 1969. He worked primarily in the engine room on each ship, but occasionally helped in other areas of the ship when needed. "If you're at sea, practically everything is running and it doesn't work right," King said. "If it breaks, we fix it." King testified that crew members were required to refer to a manual every time they worked on a piece of equipment regardless of their expertise in the department. He added that he never saw any warning signs or anything indicating that he needed to wear respiratory protection in that manual. While the manuals had the manufacturer's name on the front, he could not verify if the manuals were generated by the Navy or the manufacturers. "The manufacturer's name was there on the manual, that's all I know," he said. When replacing worn out parts King said the manual instructed him to use specific asbestos parts, which were already provided to him by the Navy, he said. He said he never deviated from what the manuals instructed, calling the required specifications the "Navy way." "We had a chain of command," he said. "Remember the Navy way? That's what we were required to do." Recalling his work aboard the three ships he was stationed on, King talked about his experience working with pumps, valves and insulation. The packing inside the valves was used as a sealant to prevent leaks. He said the process of replacing valves when there was a leak wasn't always dusty because materials were damp. However, King added that the process was difficult. "Sometimes it was a real bear to get the packing out," he said. That wasn't the case with when replacing gaskets in pumps, he said. Pumps were generally used with hot fluids, he explained, so he had to allow them to cool off before working on them. By then, the components would be dry. "These systems are hot and when we worked with hot valves, they were isolated," he said. "We cleared out all the water because we couldn't work with that." In order to replace the gaskets, King said he had to clean the excess asbestos off the valves with a wire brush, calling it gun metal cleaning, in order to prevent future leaking. The cleaning process created a lot of dust, he said. "Anytime you're using a wire brush, it's going to have an effect on whatever it is you are moving," King said. King said he knew some of the valves came from Crane Co. because the company's name was on the casing, but agreed a majority of the valves did not come from Crane Co. Regarding his work with insulation, he said he occasionally repaired insulation on equipment like turbines and boilers and was often near insulation work while repairing gaskets. He said he would cut out the damaged area, put in new insulation and other coverings and paint the repair work. King agreed that it was fair to say there were miles and miles of pipe insulation aboard the ships. He said most of it was produced by Johns Manville. During his testimony, King cautioned the attorneys interviewing him that his memory was tainted slightly due to his cancer treatments and reminded them that their questions involved events from decades ago. "I am presently taking a heavy dose of chemotherapy," King said. "Sometimes it's hard pressed for me to remember what I had for supper last night." Madison County Circuit Court case number 13-L-31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madisonville Demolition Sparks Fibro Probes ------------------------------------------------------------ John Null, writing for WKMS.org, reported that the Kentucky Division for Air Quality and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration are investigating a Webster County salvage company after the possibly unauthorized demolition of a building containing asbestos in Madisonville. S&S Salvage could face steep fines if it is found that they didn't have permits, take precaution or dispose of the asbestos properly. Kentucky Labor Cabinet spokesman Daniel Lowry said an OSHA investigation began at two sites connected with the demolition. "We care about the safety of the workers and what concerned us was if there was a destruction of a building going on with asbestos in the structure and the safety of the workers," Lowry said. "And if that was being removed or moved to another location, the safety of the workers in that area." The building in question is a former furniture plant located 200 Commerce Drive in Madisonville. S&S is headquartered in Providence, Ky. Spokeswoman Roberta Burnes said the Division for Air Quality has been investigating at the site and salvage yard for nearly a week after receiving a report of asbestos concerns. She said a report of the investigation's findings should be finished immediately. An S&S representative said the company has no comment on the investigations at this time. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Didn't Warn Fibro Victim, Ship Doctor Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the defense witness was the first medical doctor to testify in a Madison County, Ill., asbestos trial that is now into its second week before a jury. The lawsuit was brought to Madison County, the nation's epicenter of asbestos litigation, by brothers Tom King, Jr. and Brian King last year on behalf of their father Tom King, Sr., months before he died from mesothelioma on May 23. Dr. Samuel Forman, a ship doctor, testified on behalf of defendant Crane Co., a company that supplied the U.S. Navy with mechanical gaskets and valves. As part of his duties, Forman was the primary practitioner on board the ships and bases he served throughout his career. He was eventually asked to return to Harvard University's medical school to specialize in occupational and industrial health. Forman managed the Navy's asbestos medical surveillance program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. He was responsible for screening programs for sailors actively working with asbestos-containing products. "Our purpose was to identify asbestos-related diseases as early as possible," Forman said. Forman engaged in a thorough history research project for the Navy to develop a report on when the Navy knew of the hazards surrounding asbestos-containing product use and what protection methods in the past were successful. He looked at documents from the 1920s to present day, which was mid-1980s at the time. He testified that the U.S. Naval Medical Bulletin from 1922 jumpstarted organizational expectation and asbestosis was named in the late 1920s, which means the Navy was aware that asbestos dust could lead to scarring of the lungs before asbestosis even had a name. While the Navy was aware of the health hazards associated with asbestos use, not everyone knew of the dangers, Forman said. Because King's primary tasks consisted of changing gaskets, repairing pumps and repairing valves, Forman shared his expertise in health hazards of those products during his testimony. Forman said the Navy was not concerned with gaskets and packing being dangerous until long after King was discharged, as supported by his extensive research. "Gaskets and packing containing asbestos were not even considered to possibly be hazardous until, I would say, after Mr. King's service," Forman said. During cross examination by plaintiff attorney Frank Wathen, Forman said the Navy didn't become concerned with asbestos released from gasket and packing work until the 1990s, which was more than 20 years following King's service. Our concerns "did not, for all practical purposes, consider gaskets and packing maintenance work to be hazardous," he said. However, Forman agreed with Wathen's statement that while the Navy didn't recognize chrysotile asbestos from gaskets and packing to be hazardous, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had already considered all forms of asbestos and all levels of exposure to be dangerous. Answering a juror question at the end of his testimony, Forman said the Navy did not take precautions in regards to asbestos dust from gasket and packing removal. Forman also agreed that the Navy did not do everything possible to warn sailors of asbestos dangers. "In light of current knowledge, the Navy did not identify Mr. King's service as potentially hazardous to him and provide, in hindsight, adequate controls," Forman said. However, he said the Navy would tend to keep dust generated from gasket and packing work minimized as general housekeeping and precaution. "It was prudent to take those measures when dealing with a potential carcinogen," he said. Wathen shared a number of documents tracing the knowledge of asbestos, and Forman agreed that manufacturers would have had access to those documents. Wathen shared a previous testimony from another case where Forman said at the very least a company has the duty to research how toxic their products are. At this point, Lowery objected to the line of questioning and requested to approach the bench on the grounds of speculation. Wathen then switched gears to address the difference between safety and health, asking if long-term hazards, or health hazards, were considered secondary to immediate hazards, of safety hazards. Forman disagreed saying the two are just handled differently. Forman explained that catastrophic threats to life are handled with immediacy in order to save lives and keep the ship functional in cases of emergency. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Still Present in Mid-Ulster Schools ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gillian McDade, writing for Tyrone Times, reported that around 60 schools in Mid-Ulster, in the United Kingdom, have been found to contain asbestos despite the threat to health and the link to serious illnesses. DUP MLA Ian McCrea has expressed his concern at the number of schools with asbestos in their building. He raised the issue with the Education Minister, requesting details on the schools in the Mid-Ulster area that currently have some form of asbestos in their buildings. "Having raised the question with the Education Minister to find out how many schools have asbestos present, I could not help but be shocked to learn that over 60 of our schools still have the material present in their buildings," he said. Mr McCrea said it was a worrying statistic, especially given the dangers of the inhalation of asbestos fibres. The politician also pointed out that up to 75 deaths per year in Northern Ireland have asbestosis and/or mesothelioma listed as the primary or secondary cause of death, according to the General Register Office, "I do not want to raise alarm bells with parents, as asbestos poses little risk unless the material is disturbed and becomes airborne and the fibres are released into the atmosphere; but I feel it is incumbent for the Education Minister to remove and eradicate any material containing asbestos from our schools, as I feel that no risk is better than little risk," he added. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Patient Can Pursue PI Suit on Second Disease ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Mordock, writing for Delaware Law Weekly, reported that an individual diagnosed with two diseases related to workplace asbestos exposure can move forward with his personal injury case against his former employer because the statute of limitations had not run out with regard to the second disease, the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled. The high court held that Delaware is a multi-disease jurisdiction where each separate diagnosis is a unique claim subject to individual limitations and reversed a Superior Court decision that the plaintiff's claim was not timely. Paul DaBaldo Jr. filed a complaint against 19 defendants, including URS Energy & Construction, a San Francisco engineering company, and Crane Co. of Stamford, Conn. URS acquired the company that formerly owned the Getty Tidewater Oil Refinery where DaBaldo worked from 1967 to 2001. DaBaldo alleged in his lawsuit that he was diagnosed with a mild degree of asbestos-related pleural disease in 1992. However, after a series of tests, DaBaldo was found to have normal lung function. The plaintiff visited various doctors between 1999 and 2005 and was found to have had no significant change in the size and contour of his pleural calcification, according to court documents. DaBaldo contacted the law firm of Jacobs & Crumplar in 2007 after a co-worker had announced that he had been diagnosed with asbestosis. The law firm referred DaBaldo to Dr. Orn Eliasson, who diagnosed the plaintiff with asbestosis and said DaBaldo's calcified pleural plaques "were caused by his asbestos exposure to a reasonable degree of medical certainty," according to the court's opinion. In 2009, DaBaldo filed a personal injury complaint in the Superior Court against URS, Crane and several asbestos manufacturers, sellers, distributors and installers. He alleged that their actions were responsible for the asbestosis. DaBaldo did not file a claim for the asbestos-related pleural disease. A Superior Court judge held that Delaware's two-year statute of limitations in asbestos cases barred DaBaldo from pursuing his claims because he was on notice of his asbestosis in 1992, when he was first diagnosed with pleural disease. DaBaldo appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that under In re Asbestos Litigation, his claim did not toll until the 2007 asbestosis diagnosis. In In re Asbestos Litigation, a 1996 Delaware Supreme Court decision, a plaintiff cannot be on notice for a disease he does not have, even if the plaintiff subjectively believes he has the disease. The defendants countered by alleging that DaBaldo was on notice of an asbestos-related disease in 1992, capping his window to file a complaint in 1994. In addition, the defendants contended that DaBaldo knew of the asbestosis in 1999 when an X-ray report indicated "a known history of asbestosis," according to court documents. A three-justice panel composed of Justices Randy J. Holland, Carolyn Berger and Henry duPont Ridgely sided with DaBaldo, ruling that each individual diagnosis should be viewed as a separate claim. Furthermore, the court concluded that his asbestosis claim tolled in 2007 when DaBaldo first learned he had the illness. "The record reflects that DaBaldo was on notice that he had asbestosis only after he was actually diagnosed with asbestosis by Dr. Eliasson in 2007," Holland said. In reaching its conclusion, the court applied a four-factor test established in In re Asbestos Litigation to determine when the statute of limitations should start. Under the test, the court must review the plaintiff's level of knowledge and education, the extent of his recourse to a medical evaluation, the consistency of the medical diagnosis, and the plaintiff's follow-up efforts during the period of latency following initial medical evaluation. Holland noted that DaBaldo had visited a doctor in 1992 and the pleural disease was only discovered after the doctor ordered a routine chest X-ray because he did not have one on file. In addition, DaBaldo's diagnoses were largely consistent until 2001. Holland said that the word "asbestosis" first appeared in 1999, but that was as part of the X-ray report and there was no indication that it was reported to DaBaldo, nor was there an actual diagnosis that DaBaldo had asbestosis. "A statement that findings are compatible with asbestosis is not equivalent to a medical diagnosis of asbestosis," Holland said. "The disease that DaBaldo was diagnosed with in 1992, and which was reconfirmed in 1999, was pleural disease, not asbestosis." The Supreme Court also concluded that DaBaldo had followed up with doctors between 1999 and 2005 and had two separate X-ray reports, one in 2001 and one in 2005. Neither X-ray report found "significant change" in the asbestos-related pleural disease. "Our analysis of the four factors demonstrates that the statute of limitations on DaBaldo's asbestosis claim did not begin to run until July 2007, when DaBaldo learned for the first time of his asbestosis," Holland said. "Therefore, his complaint was timely when it was filed on May 5, 2009." Thomas C. Crumplar of Jacobs & Crumplar represented DaBaldo. URS was represented by Joel M. Doner and Christopher C. Popper of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. Francis C. Gondek and Patrick M. Brannigan of Swartz Campbell represented Crane Co. Crumplar, Doner and Gondek did not immediately return calls seeking comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co-Op City Wants Relief From Deadly Dust --------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Williams, writing for Bronx Times, reported that Co-Op City, Bronx, was built with traces of asbestos in the glue that holds floor tiles in place. The complex is now under a costly mandate to remove the asbestos when the tiles come loose, although asbestos has never been found in the air. A Co-op City lawyer is hoping the new mayor will save the complex from costly asbestos abatement. The signs may be good, based on his past comments as Public Advocate and his recent response to a local assemblyman. Residents have been pushing for relief from a mandate that requires the abatement because the complex was built tiles with glue containing traces of asbestos, despite the absence of asbestos in the air. The removal program has been hitting residents at the mega- complex in the pocket for millions of dollars annually, and Mayor Bill de Blasio seems sympathetic to Co-op City's cause. When Assemblyman Michael Benedetto asked de Blasio about waiving the mandate during a mayoral visit to Albany in January, de Blasio mentioned that he had previously raised concerns about the issue, and said he will again. The mayor told Benedetto he will direct the new health commissioner to review the policy and look for ways to provide relief for Co-op City residents. "I'm very concerned that it may be an undue mandate, and a costly one, so we're going to reevaluate that quickly," de Blasio said. "I'm delighted that they've had an exchange," said Riverbay Corp. lawyer Steve Kaufman. "But we can't wait any longer, we're going broke." Kaufman is representing Co-op City in a lawsuit against the mandate filed in 2012. Kaufman said the asbestos removal procedure, which takes place when tiles buckle from leaks and need to be replaced, has cost the tenants about $5 million annually in extra labor costs plus air testing. Kaufman said each time the tiles must be replaced, a special crew works in hazmat suits and tents, despite the fact that the asbestos is "perfectly encapsulated" in the glue. Kaufman noted in a recent letter to the new mayor that since the asbestos was detected -- only after burning the glue at extremely high temperatures -- none of the more than 75,000 air monitoring tests conducted ever found airborne asbestos. "Not one worker or any resident of Co-op City has ever complained of any ailment caused by exposure to asbestos," Kaufman stated. Kaufman also complained that Co-op City has been singled-out with the mandate when other buildings containing the same tiles have not been forced to remove them. "Why is Co-op City forced to spend millions of dollars per year for unnecessary work?" he asked de Blasio. Kaufman's plea also reminded the mayor of a letter he wrote as Public Advocate to the commissioner of the city Department of Environmental Protection more than a year ago, asking for the department's proof of dangerous asbestos in the complex. "I remain concerned that on the basis of inadequate evidence the Department of Environmental Protection has placed onerous and unnecessary obligations on the tens of thousands of Co-op City residents," de Blasio's letter read. Kaufman hopes the mayor will act on his words and provide tenants with some relief -- "This is a middle-income co-op in a poor borough that the city is strangling." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Was Sacked for Complaining on Fibro ----------------------------------------------------------- Frank Donnelly, writing for Staten Island Advance, reported that Richmond University Medical Center, in Staten Island, New York, was more concerned about the bottom line than its workers' health, contends a lawsuit filed by a plumber allegedly sacked for complaining about asbestos exposure. James Pepe, 33, says supervisors and hospital officials repeatedly denied his requests for protective gear, claiming it would "cost too much money" to abate exposed asbestos, which he allegedly found in the plumbing shop and on pipes in various areas of the building. Derided as a "clown" and a "hypocrite," by supervisors, Pepe was fired in December after blowing the whistle to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), alleges his lawsuit. "Defendants ultimately terminated plaintiff Pepe's employment solely because he complained that defendants were in violation of federal health and safety laws by ordering employees, including . . . Pepe, to work in enclosed spaces with exposed asbestos without any of the required protective gear, proper notification or requisite training," his court filing contends. Pepe has sued Richmond University and Mount Sinai Hospital, with which Richmond University is affiliated, according to his legal papers filed in state Supreme Court, St. George. Advance records show the two hospitals entered into a clinical affiliation in the spring of 2012. Pepe seeks unspecified monetary damages. His lawyer, Alex Umansky of the Manhattan-based firm, Phillips & Associates, declined comment on the lawsuit. In a statement, Richmond University said Pepe's sacking "was not in any way connected" to his safety allegations to OSHA. The hospital said it conducted "extensive" tests and forwarded them to OSHA. "We are confident that there is no exposure risk to employees or patients," said the statement. "Richmond University Medical Center takes all safely issues very seriously and has an active process for investigating and addressing environmental concerns in a timely manner." A Mount Sinai spokesman did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment. According to court papers, the hospital hired Pepe as a plumber in October 2005. In early 2007, he complained to his plumbing supervisor about exposed and friable asbestos "all over" the plumbing shop, said court documents. He was told to forget about it because the hospital "can't afford to have it abated," court filings contend. Asbestos-related illnesses, which attack the respiratory and digestive systems, are caused by exposure to airborne asbestos -- typically over time. Tradesmen, such as plumbers, steamfitters, carpenters, electricians and insulation workers who labored before the early 1970s, when use of asbestos products was prevalent in those industries, are considered to be the most susceptible to asbestos-related illnesses. Between 2007 and 2013, Pepe was required to perform a number of jobs which he believed potentially exposed him to asbestos, said court documents. He was asked to repair a high-pressure steam pipe inside a tunnel at the hospital and to fix asbestos- insulated pipes in the basement, sub-basement and in ceilings on various floors. He contends he was rebuffed and sometimes threatened with losing his job each time he expressed concern about possible asbestos exposure and asked for protective gear. He often was told that wetting down the pipes would make them safe to work on, court documents state. "Shockingly, defendants wholly ignored plaintiff Pepe's very serious complaints of asbestos contamination in the workplace and immediately directed plaintiff Pepe to continue working in enclosed areas containing asbestos," said court filings. Fearful of losing his job, Pepe always did the work. Even so, Pepe alleges he was ridiculed. The facilities supervisor called him a "hypocrite" because he worried about asbestos-causing lung cancer, yet still smoked cigarettes, court records said. That supervisor also called Pepe a "clown" and warned a co- worker, "Don't pick up any of [Pepe's] bad habits." When Pepe asked another supervisor if he'd make his own son work in such conditions, the man responded, "Hell, no!" maintain court records. Tensions boiled over in November of last year. Pepe refused to work on a steam pipe, whose fittings were allegedly covered with asbestos, unless given protective gear, said court documents. He was suspended without pay. About a week later, he complained to OSHA on two separate occasions about working conditions at Richmond University. Ted Fitzgerald, an OSHA spokesman, said the agency is investigating a complaint about the hospital. However, Fitzgerald said he wasn't at liberty to identify the complainant or the nature of the allegation. Pepe said he was fired on Dec., 3, less than a week after his second complaint to OSHA. He alleges he was sacked under the pretext of failing to notify his supervisor and timely contain a water leak that caused significant damages on Nov. 15. Pepe contends he informed his supervisor that an on-site contractor shut the open valve and housekeeping was called to clean up the standing water, in accordance with protocol. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert on Fibro Cancer Spoke at House of Lords --------------------------------------------------------------- Information Loughborugh reported that a University of Leicester expert will speak to the U.K. House of Lords about his world- leading research into an asbestos-related cancer -- which is set to affect more and more people over the next decade. University of Leicester cancer expert Professor Dean Fennell was been invited to address Lords in support of Lord Maurice Saatchi's Medical Innovation Bill on February 24. The bill aims to allow doctors to gain more flexibility in applying innovative approaches based on scientific research and advances when treating patients. The Government has supported the bill, and has pledged to support its passage through Parliament if enough public support is registered via a public consultation. Professor Dean Fennell has been invited by Lord Saatchi to speak to Lords on how the bill would benefit his own research. His talk was to form part of the House of Lords' very first Google Hangout event being held on the day. The event, chaired by Telegraph medical journalist Max Pemberton, aims to promote the bill and allow the public to question Lord Saatchi and key guests. Professor Fennell chairs the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Clinical Studies Group for Mesothelioma, and sits on the International Mesothelioma Interest Group (iMig) committee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gauteng to Pay Locals to Remove Fibro Roofing -------------------------------------------------------------- Penwell Dlamini, writing for Times Live, reported that Gauteng, in South Africa, will pay for poor people to replace their asbestos roofing in a programme aimed at eliminating the health hazards caused by the material. The project is expected to cost the provincial government millions. Malibongwe Kanjana, chief of operations in the Gauteng human settlements department, said that asbestos roofs were a health hazard. "The asbestos in many houses is old. Some of the asbestos roofs are broken and research shows that this causes respiratory problems," he said. Kanjana said the department would focus solely on helping poor communities and households in the lower-income bracket. People who have been given title deeds to their houses will also be eligible. Municipalities are trying to establish the number of houses with asbestos roofs in their jurisdiction. "We will lobby other people who can help us in a private-public partnership to assist those not belonging to the lower-income groups. "But we are committed to eradicating asbestos in the entire province," Kanjana said. The department is considering a range of replacement roofing materials. Kanjana said tiles would be ideal. The department will ask the national and provincial treasuries for funding for the project. Jim Te Water Naude, a public health specialist, said gutters and downpipes made from asbestos should also be removed. He said that though not safe, an asbestos roof carried a low risk of causing asbestos-related diseases. But, when asbestos sheeting is cracked or otherwise damaged, minute fibres can become airborne and be inhaled. That could lead to diseases such as cancer and fibrosis, the latter characterised by scarring of the lungs. Te Water Naude warned of the considerable risk to the health of the workers who would remove the asbestos roofs . "The problem with asbestos-related diseases is that they have a very long latency. You breathe the fibre today and 40 years later you get sick from it," he said. Te Water Naude said asbestos roofs must be disposed of in such a way as to prevent them being resold. In March 2008 the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism announced that the use, manufacture and processing of asbestos was prohibited in South Africa with immediate effect. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Doctor Testifies for Crane Co. in Trial ------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that Dr. Samuel Forman testified on behalf of defendant Crane Co., a company that supplied the U.S. Navy with mechanical gaskets and valves, during testimony in a Madison County asbestos trial. As part of his duties, Forman said he was the primary practitioner on board the Navy ships and bases he served throughout his career. He managed the Navy's asbestos medical surveillance program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard and was responsible for screening programs for sailors actively working with asbestos-containing products. "Our purpose was to identify asbestos-related diseases as early as possible," Forman said. The case is now into the second week of trial. It was filed by brothers Tom King, Jr. and Brian King last year on behalf of their father Tom King, Sr. of Tennessee, months before he died from mesothelioma on May 23, 2013. Forman testified that he engaged in a thorough history research project for the Navy to develop a report on when the Navy knew of the hazards surrounding asbestos-containing product use and what protection methods in the past were successful. He said he looked at documents from the 1920s to present day, which was mid- 1980s at the time. While the Navy was aware of the health hazards associated with asbestos use, not everyone knew of the dangers, Forman said. Because King's primary tasks consisted of changing gaskets, repairing pumps and repairing valves, Forman shared his expertise in health hazards of those products. He said the Navy was not concerned with gaskets and packing being dangerous until long after King was discharged, as supported by his extensive research. "Gaskets and packing containing asbestos were not even considered to possibly be hazardous until, I would say, after Mr. King's service," Forman said. During cross examination by plaintiff attorney Frank Wathen, Forman said the Navy didn't become concerned with asbestos released from gasket and packing work until the 1990s, which was 20-plus years following King's service. Our concerns "did not, for all practical purposes, consider gaskets and packing maintenance work to be hazardous," he said. However, Forman agreed with Wathen's statement that while the Navy didn't recognize chrysotile asbestos from gaskets and packing to be hazardous, OSHA had already considered all forms of asbestos and all levels of exposure to be dangerous. Forman also agreed that the Navy did not do everything possible to warn sailors of asbestos dangers. "In light of current knowledge, the Navy did not identify Mr. King's service as potentially hazardous to him and provide, in hindsight, adequate controls," Forman said. However, he said the Navy would tend to keep dust generated from gasket and packing work minimized as general housekeeping and precaution. "It was prudent to take those measures when dealing with a potential carcinogen," he said. Wathen shared a number of documents tracing the knowledge of asbestos, and Forman agreed that manufacturers would have had access to those documents. Wathen shared previous testimony from another case where Forman said at the very least a company has the duty to research how toxic their products are. At this point, Lowery objected to the line of questioning and requested to approach the bench on the grounds of speculation. Wathen then switched gears to address the difference between safety and health, asking if long-term hazards, or health hazards, were considered secondary to immediate hazards, of safety hazards. Forman disagreed saying the two are just handled differently. Forman explained that catastrophic threats to life are handled with immediacy in order to save lives and keep the ship functional in cases of emergency. Answering a juror question at the end of his testimony, Forman said the Navy did not take precautions in regards to asbestos dust from gasket and packing removal. Madison County Circuit Court case number 13-L-31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in New Freight Trains ------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Tait, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reported that disruptions to freight delivery can be expected following the discovery of asbestos in KiwiRail's fleet of DL locomotives. It is understood 40 -- roughly half of the North Island's freight fleet -- have been pulled from service after the material was found during the testing of a paint sample. Chief executive Peter Reidy said all affected staff have been told of the find and while it didn't constitute a health risk, none of the fleet would run again until tests had been done. Rail, Maritime and Transport Union spokesman Todd Valster said the find would have a massive effect on rail services. "They are being quarantined as they reach somewhere safe to be parked up, so we don't know if these locomotives can be used in the short term at all." The Chinese-made locomotives were introduced from 2010, with a contract specification that clearly stated no asbestos. Questions were raised last year after asbestos was discovered in 10 Australian locomotives manufactured by the same company, but assurances were given that New Zealand's fleet were asbestos- free. "We are clearly very disappointed," said Mr Reidy. The makers "have undertaken to do whatever is necessary to rectify the situation as quickly as possible." Asbestos Solutions chief Rick Peebles said the material, to muffle noise, was bonded in a resin in the cabs and in "very good condition". ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Sydney Muslim School ---------------------------------------------------------- Leo Shanahan, writing for The Australian, reported that asbestos is suspected to have been found on the ovals and near the playground of a Sydney Muslim school where a former principal resigned last year after claiming dangerous material had been dumped at the school. Bellfield College, a Muslim school of about 230 students in Sydney's southwest, has had its oval and areas near the playground fenced off after the Environment Protection Authority found traces of what is believed to be asbestos in landfill there. The school is the subject of a federal Education Department audit after The Weekend Australian revealed late last year that its then principal, Sam Cannavo, resigned claiming the students had been put at risk by landfill that allegedly contained asbestos. Mr Cannavo made a formal complaint to police alleging that up to $2.1 million had gone missing from the school. He gave police evidence of allegedly falsified building receipts with millions drawn on an account managed by a senior school official. The Weekend Australian understands that the EPA and Liverpool Council officials attended the school and conducted tests on material on the school oval and near the playground. It is understood that material believed to be asbestos was found on the site near the oval, with the areas now fenced off for the children's protection. A spokesman for the EPA told The Weekend Australian the EPA had accompanied an inspection of the college by Liverpool Council after "a complaint about the presence of possible contaminated waste material on school grounds". The Weekend Australian understands neither staff nor parents have been made aware of the EPA's asbestos concerns. Neither the school's current principal, Ali Rajab, nor its chairman, Ali Hosain, responded to attempts by The Weekend Australian for comment. NSW Education Minister Adrian Piccoli also refused to comment, referring requests to the NSW Board of Studies. A spokesman for the NSW Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards said: "BOSTES is aware of the issue. BOSTES has been advised that the EPA is managing the issue and inspected the school this week." Mr Piccoli has been silent on Bellfield College, despite Mr Cannavo's police complaint and a financial audit on the school being ordered by federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne. The details of the federal government audit are due to be released in the next few weeks. Despite the concerns raised at the school, the board continues to be in charge of millions in government funding. The school received $4.1m in state and federal government funding last year, taxpayers accounting for 80 per cent of the school's funding. In the past two years, The Weekend Australian has revealed four Islamic schools that have had state or federal funding frozen after allegations of financial irregularities. Sydney's largest Muslim school, Malek Fahd, has been ordered by the federal government to pay back $9m after an investigation by The Australian revealed that millions of dollars were funnelled from the school to the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Next in Plans to Revive Odeon ------------------------------------------------------------ The Yorkshire Post reported that work is due to begin to remove asbestos from the former Odeon Cinema, in Bradford, U.K. The work follows routine health and safety inspections by Bradford Council since it acquired the property. Ownership of the building was transferred from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) to Bradford Council in November last year for the sum of GBP1, on the agreement the HCA would provide up to GBP1.32m of funding to address health and safety issues on site. A Bradford Council spokesman said: "Bradford Council has appointed a specialist contractor to remove some of the remaining asbestos in the building so that the redundant furniture and carpets can be cleared out of the property. "The majority of the asbestos was previously removed under the HCA's ownership but further asbestos was found by the council's asbestos team in rooms that were boarded up. "Consultants have also been appointed to design the remedial works required in the two domes at the front of the property and the repairs required to the Bradford Beck culvert that runs through the site. These works will be paid for out of the HCA's funding." Earlier this year the council revealed that three rival groups bidding to breathe new life into the run-down former cinema building had submitted their proposals. The local authority is hoping to sell the landmark to a developer but has said it will not provide any money towards refurbishment or redevelopment. One proposal was to create a live music venue, a second was for a multi-purpose cultural and enterprise centre and the third was for a swimming, diving, athletic and multi- sport facility. Those bids reaching the next stage are due to be announced this month. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former SMU Student Sentenced to Federal Prison --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Krause, writing for Dallas News, reported that a former Southern Methodist University student who exposed workers to asbestos was sentenced to a year in federal prison for violating the Clean Air Act. Jonathan Isaac Shokrian hired two day laborers to remove materials containing asbestos from a building his father's real estate company owned, federal authorities said. Shokrian, 29, served as a regional director at Califco LLC and oversaw the company's business operations in Texas. Chief U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater also ordered Shokrian to pay a $25,000 fine, the U.S. attorney's office said. Shokrian pleaded guilty in June 2013 to one count of failure to notify under the Clean Air Act. His father, Elias Shokrian, Califco's President and CEO, appeared in court on behalf of the corporation, which paid a $500,000 fine for the same offense. Both defendants were ordered to pay for medical monitoring of the workers. During sentencing, Fitzwater acknowledged the public health dangers of asbestos exposure and the importance of following the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations for its removal. So did Dallas' top law enforcement official. "This office is committed to holding those accountable who willfully violate federal laws designed to protect us from exposure to toxic materials," said Sarah Saldana, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas. Califco is a property management company headquartered in Beverly Hills, CA. It has a regional office on North Story Road in Irving. The company owns and operates commercial properties in the Dallas area, including Plymouth Park Shopping Center in Irving and Crest Plaza Shopping Center on South Lancaster Road in Dallas. In 2008, Califco and Jonathan Shokrian contracted with an asbestos contractor to remove asbestos from an old movie theater in the Crest Plaza Shopping Center. The project followed government regulations, authorities said. About a month later, Jonathan Shokrian decided to renovate the abandoned former Fazio's department store in the Plymouth Park Shopping Center. But this time, Shokrian tried to save money by hiring two day laborers to remove ceiling and floor tile and mastic from the Fazio's building even though he knew the material contained asbestos, documents say. The masks and respirators Califco gave the laborers did not protect them from asbestos fiber, authorities said. And Shokrian did not tell the workers or Califco's maintenance worker about the asbestos in the tile and mastic. He also didn't tell any of the shopping center tenants that materials containing asbestos were being removed, authorities said. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has created standards for the removal, handling and disposal of asbestos. "There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos," said Ivan Vikin, Special Agent in Charge of EPA's criminal enforcement program in Texas. "Asbestos can cause cancer and other serious respiratory diseases and it must be handled legally and safely." Vikin said the defendants put their workers "at great risk" by ordering them to remove the asbestos improperly. "This case should serve notice that EPA and its partner agencies will prosecute anyone who cuts corners by avoiding the costs of handling or disposing of asbestos properly," Vikin said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Rep Claims Products Were Safe in Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that nearing the end of a rare Madison County, Ill. asbestos trial, the jury was given the chance to hear directly from a Crane Co. representative who stands firm in his belief that Crane Co. gaskets and packing were not hazardous. According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Tom King was a machinist mate for the U.S. Navy from 1959-1962 and again from 1965-1969. He later died from mesothelioma on May 23 at age 71. As a machinist mate, 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 form gaskets in order to replace them with new ones. He was also exposed to asbestos packing, which was used in valves and pumps as a sealant to prevent leaks. Crane Co.'s Vice President of Environment Health and Safety Anthony Pantaleoni's testimony was first heard when the plaintiffs showed his video deposition. Pantaleoni joined Crane Co. in 1989 and became a designated representative in 2003. In his video deposition, Pantaleoni agrees that Crane Co.'s primary product line is dedicated to valves and valve component parts, which sometimes included asbestos. He said the company first started selling the products in the early 1900s and didn't stop selling asbestos-containing valves until the mid-1980s. Pantaleoni later stated in his deposition that Crane Co. continued producing one product line of asbestos-containing valves into the 1990s. Crane Co. became aware of asbestos health hazards and illnesses in the early 70s, he said. However, in his defense testimony heard by the court, Pantaleoni said Crane Co. still to this day does not believe the gaskets and packing it sold was hazardous. Questioned by Crane Co. attorney Jim Lowery, Pantaleoni said all asbestos-containing gaskets and packing were provided to them by third-party companies to be sold by Crane Co. "We never manufactured asbestos, never mined it, never milled it in any of our operations," Pantaleoni said. He admitted that while Crane Co. didn't make the asbestos- containing gaskets and packing, it did put them into its products. Pantaleoni said the valves they made were simple to use, but were intricate to construct. It is important that they are made in a clean environment to prevent malfunctions and leaking. "While the valve itself is a simple mechanism, the way you make it is a critical aspect," he said. It was also important that the metals used are correct, the formulations are correct and the way those metals are used are correct. He went on to explain that valves do not require asbestos in order to function, saying using asbestos or not makes no determination of whether it functions correctly. He added that the material running through the valve would determine whether or not asbestos is needed. "That valve doesn't care," he said. He proceeded to demonstrate the components of a valve and how it is used or manipulated on a 1.5 inch brass valve from Crane Co. "If you had a flanged end and you're bolting that into a piping system, then you have to have a gasket in order to make a proper fit," he explained. He showed the jury how a gasket would seal the surface of the valve to prevent a metal-to-metal contact, which would leak. "All they are is sealing devices," Pantaleoni said. "They're just put in there to prevent leakage." Therefore, the gasket is not actually part of the valve. Pantaleoni made it clear that while asbestos was not necessary in a gasket, gaskets were necessary in certain types of valves. Without a proper sealant, the valve or a line could explode. Answering a juror's question, he explained that packing isn't necessary in all valves. But for those that do require packing, the material would go in the stem of the valve. Packing is not friable, but if it is dry it could still be dusty, he said. Regardless of whether or not asbestos was required, Pantaleoni said Crane Co. was following Navy specifications, which dictated exactly what was needed. Drawings identified every part or component part and the materials associated with it. "Well, the Navy was the most stringent customer that Crane had," he said. "If that specification said that had to be asbestos, that's what it had to be," he added. The Navy even provided inspectors located in Crane Co.'s operations to make sure the products met those specifications and often performed random testing on those products. Because the Navy specifically asked for flange valves, gaskets were required, he said. And those gaskets had to be asbestos to meet military specifications, he said. Answering a juror's question, Pantaleoni said Crane Co. provided technical manuals if the Navy requested them, but in most cases, the Navy would take those and produce their own manuals. However, he added that he has never seen a technical manual for a pump or a valve. During redirect by the defense, Pantaleoni said it was his understanding that the Navy did not provide respirators for use aboard their ships when working with asbestos-containing materials. When asked about the safety efforts Crane Co. took, he explained that Crane Co. didn't believe its products were dangerous and he never came across any issues relating to gaskets and packing health hazards. During cross examination by plaintiff attorney Frank Wathen, he said Crane Co. never performed any testing or research on those products because it didn't manufacture them and didn't believe they were problematic. "We didn't see a reason to because of the nature of what we did," Pantaleoni said. Pantaleoni agreed that Crane Co. knew the gaskets would eventually have to be removed, but didn't test for those situations because the forceful removal of dry gaskets was not performed in Crane Co.'s operations. The efforts Crane Co. did make towards health and safety in the factories began in the early 1900s with Dr. Andrew Harvey, who was a leader of occupational health and safety. Pantaleoni said Harvey set up medical programs and rehabilitation for Crane Co. employees before a Workers' Compensation program existed. His efforts provided injured employees an opportunity to continue earning a wage while regaining health, he said. It benefited families who depended on the wages and Crane Co. which depended on having healthy workers, he said. Fast-forwarding to Pantaleoni's time, he said Crane Co. ensures the factories meet safety regulations and laws while remaining very clean for proper valve construction and controlling dusty areas to prevent any asbestos exposure. "When we were looking at our plant operations, we wanted to make sure they were safe for all of our employees," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Recycler Faces Alleged Fibro Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Gordon, writing for AMM Awards, reported that two regulatory agencies in Kentucky are investigating a metal recycler over alleged improper handling and disposal of asbestos during the demolition of a building in Madisonville. The Kentucky Division for Air Quality and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are trying to determine whether Providence-based S&S Salvage LLC started the demolition job without permits. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Care Worker Killed by Fibro in Church -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Tickner, writing for Telegraph & Argus, reported that attending meetings in a dusty room at a church in Bradford, U.K., caused the death of a Council care worker, an inquest heard. Michelle Salaya Hague was only 50 when she died from malignant mesothelioma in November last year. Deputy Bradford Coroner Oliver Longstaff told the hearing the cancer was likely linked to exposure to asbestos during meetings she attended for work at a church in Greenhill Lane, Laisterdyke. At the time she was working for home care services with Bradford Council and an upstairs room was rented at the church. A statement written by Miss Hague in 2010 said the room would get so dusty that cups of tea would have a covering of it after an hour or so. "The room was always dusty and there was always a thin layer of dust covering everything on the floor," her statement said. Heaters in the room were difficult to use and covered in an insulation material and the curtains were heavy with a "waxy feel to them". On one occasion Miss Hague arrived to find part of the roof had collapsed into the room and she helped to clear the debris. Several years later she realised what had fallen in the church looked similar to asbestos. She would spend time at the church two or three times a week, for up to two hours at a time. Miss Hague started experiencing difficulty breathing in 2005 and was twice prescribed antibiotics by her GP. When she did not improve she was given an inhaler. In 2008 she dislocated her shoulder and a CT scan showed she had a partially collapsed left lung, along with fluid on it. She was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2009. "I'm hoping to return to work at some point as I love my job," her statement said. Miss Hague, of Hill Top Road, Thornton, Bradford, died at home in her bed, with family by her side, on November 6 last year. A post-mortem examination found the cancer was the cause of death, due to exposure to asbestos. Closing the inquest at Bradford Coroner's Court, Mr. Longstaff concluded Miss Hague's death was due to industrial disease caused by malignant mesothelioma and said asbestos fibres were found in all samples taken from her lung. "It means something of an unusual case in that the history of exposure to asbestos is very often much stronger than it is in this case, but one of the dreadful things about mesothelioma is that it's a very arbitrary disease. "Cases come before courts up and down the country where there's been the most minimal exposure." Mr Longstaff said other people would work with the material for many years and not become ill because of it. "During the time she was working at the methodist church there was some exposure to asbestos," he said. After the hearing, a Bradford Council spokesman said: "We are sorry to hear about this sad case." The Telegraph & Argus was not able to speak to anyone at the church for comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Jury for Defendant in Fibro Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sanford J. Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reported that a jury sided with the defendant, a valve maker, and awarded no damages to a U.S. Navy veteran who claimed the company exposed him to asbestos. Plaintiff estate of Tom King, of Telford, Tenn., claimed that gaskets in the valves made by Crane Co. contained asbestos which caused a fatal lung cancer; the cancer is called mesothelioma. In a trial before Associate Judge Steve Stobbs, the estate of King, who died from the painful lung cancer, sued Crane Co., which sold valves to the Navy. As a machinist's mate, it was King's job to repair the valves, which included gaskets and packing which were at least 70 percent asbestos, according to the estate's lawyer Frank Wathen in his closing argument. But defense attorney James Lowery argued that Crane's products were not the cause of the disease in King's case. He pointed out that Navy ships contained tons of asbestos in the linings of pipes within the vessels, but only about 50 pounds of the substance within the valves. Wathen argued that the asbestos in the valves does not have to be the only cause of the disease in order for King to prevail against Crane. The jury can award damages if it finds that the valves were only one cause. Lowery's closing argument included a recording of a deposition given by King before he died. In the recording, King said that the name "Johns Manville" appeared on many of the pipes with which he worked. Wathen argued that Crane should be responsible to warn of the dangers of the products it sells. He argued that the testimony was that King was required many times to remove used gaskets and packing from the valves using a wire brush. The process would have produced dust. The effects of asbestos are cumulative and may not appear until years after exposure, Wathen argued. Lowery argued that the Navy specifically ordered the valves using gaskets and packing that included asbestos. The Navy wanted asbestos in the materials as a fire retardant, he argued. Crane did not make the gaskets or packing he argued, only added them to the valves, Lowery said. In his original suit, filed in January 2013, King named several dozen defendants, but only Crane went to trial. The complaint said King was in the navy from 1959 to 1962 and from 1965 to 1969. He also worked at several other companies, and replaced the brakes on his own cars over a period of years. The jury was still deliberating at press time. They may continue their deliberations, Stobbs said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa's Fibro Inspectors Overloaded --------------------------------------------------- Jason Clayworth, writing for Des Moines Register, reported that a contractor's complaint has prompted closer scrutiny of possible asbestos exposure involving workers at a downtown Des Moines, Iowa, renovation project, but an inspector doesn't even visit hundreds of sites across Iowa each year where workers could face risks from the cancer-causing material. The routine lack of asbestos-handling inspections at construction sites in Iowa and across the nation represents a widespread failure to protect the public, environmental safety advocates say. In Iowa, one inspector enforces U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asbestos removal regulations and oversees as many as 4,500 asbestos removal projects each year. Another inspector must try to enforce federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration asbestos regulations. "It's safe to say that enforcement of asbestos regulations nationwide is abysmal," said Brent Kynoch of the Environmental Information Association, a group based in Maryland focused on health hazards in buildings, specifically asbestos. "There are no budgets with either the state or federal governments to put the kind of inspection staff out there that we really would require to enforce the regulations," Kynoch said. The two Iowa inspectors work for separate agencies, the Department of Natural Resources and the Division of Labor. They sometimes share general information but are responsible for enforcing different laws and typically conduct their own work. The state isn't required to inspect each site, but the number of asbestos projects means that even random spot checks are unlikely at most project sites. Iowa's EPA asbestos inspector, Tom Wuehr, said his time is spent focused on complaints, some of which he can't physically address in a timely manner because they might fall on opposites sides of the state. The complaints are important. A complaint about the handling of asbestos at the former Younkers department store building renovation project in downtown Des Moines was made public. That case focused attention on both the developers who are supposed to follow federal guidelines in handling asbestos and the inspectors who are charged with ensuring compliance with those laws. An anonymous complaint made a few years ago led to Bob Knapp, a prominent Iowa developer, being sentenced to 41 months in prison in 2011 for his role at the head of a conspiracy to ignore federal asbestos regulations during a renovation of Des Moines' historic Equitable Building. "I suspect that we respond to most complaints," said Wuehr, the inspector who works in the state's natural resources department and was part of the investigation at the 19-story, 90-year-old Equitable Building. "And you have to also qualify the complaints just a little bit to see if they're credible." The Equitable Building problems were not Knapp's first run-in with state environmental inspectors during a development project. In 2011, Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Scorpiniti called Knapp "an incorrigible defendant" who had been warned before about violating asbestos regulations during a renovation project at the Suites of 800 Locust. The fact that Iowa's inspectors are overworked means owners of unscrupulous companies know they can work in Iowa and probably won't encounter oversight, said Lynn Pickard, statewide director of training of the Iowa Laborers Education and Training Fund. He emphasized concerns about projects where he believes some companies partake in "rip and skip at night when nobody is around" and incorrectly conduct air monitoring tests. Indeed, in the Equitable Building case, a longtime building engineer testified that Knapp paid him to work 10-hour shifts on the weekends to remove pipe coverings and hide them in a trash bin. Pickard, who teaches union members how to properly remove hazardous materials, said he would like to see the number of OSHA asbestos inspectors in Iowa increase to five or 10. Minnesota's OSHA agency, for example, has 15 inspectors who are trained to sample and assist with asbestos investigations. Increasing Iowa's inspectors could make unannounced visits to project sites possible, Pickard said. "OSHA is doing the best they can with what they've got, but if you get 10 complaints in a day, which one do you go to?" Pickard asked. "This hurts the industry and the end result is that people are getting exposed." Inadequate review of D.M. complaint? Renovation at the iconic Younkers department store building in downtown Des Moines prompted accusations of improper asbestos removal that came to light. The complaint, filed Jan. 29 by a former contractor associated with renovation at the building, was initially deemed unfounded by Wuehr, the state inspector. He told the Register on Feb. 17 that he "found absolutely nothing" when he inspected the building following his initial inspection. Wuehr's initial report was used by the city of Des Moines as a basis to, on Feb. 13, dismiss the complaint filed by owners of RedNet Environmental Services of West Des Moines. And the Iowa Department of Economic Development Authority used the city's findings without any review of its own to also conclude that the allegations were unfounded. A fourth review -- conducted by the Iowa Division of Labor -- additionally determined the complaint to be unfounded. Labor officials provided the Register with documents showing what appeared to be an extensive review of documents such as air quality records, which include tests for airborne asbestos. But public records and interviews show none of the departments that dismissed the claims had taken the step the complainant suggested -- reviewing the differences in environmental reports to see if there was evidence that hazardous materials were being improperly handled. Wuehr revisited the site -- now known as the Flagship Building -- after The Des Moines Register published a front-page article highlighting the differences in the two reports. On his second visit to the site, Wuehr discovered what he described as a small area where asbestos had been improperly removed. Soon after word of his finding, contractors at the site revised their answers to Wuehr's questions and insisted the area was properly abated -- which Wuehr said will result in him doing additional investigation. Wuehr told the Register that he has now requested copies of both asbestos surveys from the owners and contractors of the Flagship Building and will compare them as part of his further review. "They're going to get more scrutiny now, obviously," Wuehr said of the work at the Flagship Building. "This is unlike some projects that have happened throughout the state where people knock a two-story building down (that potentially contain asbestos) and nobody ever knows anything." Cursory review a common problem Kynoch, the managing director of the the Environmental Information Association and a national advocate of proper asbestos removal, initially reviewed both of the ex-Younkers building reports at the request of the Register and concluded that he could see nothing improper with the report being used by Hansen Construction, the company overseeing the project. But Kynoch additionally said that the cursory review from Iowa officials exemplifies a practice common across the United States where complaints aren't properly vetted or contractors are often taken at their word that hazardous materials are being removed properly. He believes it's a problem caused largely by the overwhelming disparities between projects -- asbestos was widely used in construction from the late 1800s into the 1970s -- and the number of asbestos regulators. The Register made multiple attempts to speak with federal EPA officials about asbestos oversight issues. David Bryan, an EPA press officer based in Kansas, responded to questions submitted by the Register with a three-sentence email that said the agency is aware of the issue in Des Moines but that it would be inappropriate to comment. Linda Reinstein, the president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which bills itself as the largest independent asbestos victims' organization in the United States, quoted statistics showing that 30 Americans die every day from preventable asbestos-caused diseases. "I have concern about regulatory violations throughout the United States," Reinstein said. "I am routinely called by residents and workers with possible structural asbestos abatement issues." Bill Gerhard, president of the Iowa State Building & Construction Trades Council, a group that encompasses workers of all trades who are engaged in the construction industry, said he shares Reinstein's concern but on a local level. "There are a lot of contractors who are fly-by-night and they are the ones that do the terrible job of asbestos removal and don't abide by the regulations," Gerhard said. "We do believe that more inspectors would help," Gerhard said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dockyard Workers Poisoned by Fibro Paid GBP35MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Greenwood, writing for Western Morning News, reported that compensation totalling more than GBP35 million has been paid to workers poisoned by asbestos at Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth, the Ministry of Defence has revealed. The city has one of the highest rates of asbestos-related illness with the material being used widely both on ships and in buildings at the Royal Navy yard. A lack of proper health and safety precautions meant hundreds of worker inhaled tiny asbestos fibres resulting in a range of lung diseases from pleural plaques to the fatal cancer mesothelioma. A Freedom of Information Act request has now shown that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) settled 273 cases for asbestos-related illnesses between 2006 and 2013, paying out a total of GBP19.4 million. The highest amount paid was GBP719,000 in 2008-09. The lowest was GBP3,700. The figures are on top of the GBP15.9 million the MoD paid out between 2001 and 2006. Alison Seabeck, Labour MP for Plymouth Moor View, said mesothelioma was a "terrible" disease. She added: "It is quite right that people are compensated for diseases they have developed as a result of working in the dockyard in support of our Armed Forces. "I'm not surprised the payments are of the order they are -- I know from my own constituents, who worked there and have now contracted asbestos-related diseases, that there are a considerable number. "We have come a long way in terms of understanding how to protect workers and it is clearly right, when they weren't properly protected, that the MoD meets its obligations." The MoD said claims were different depending on whether they were made by military personnel or civilian employees. Regarding former dockyard works, a spokesman said: "When civil compensation claims are submitted, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation we do so." He said compensation, in the form of a war pension, was available to all former servicemen and women suffering from illness or injury attributable to their work. A pension also made provision for the widows of service and ex-service personnel whose death is attributable to service. He added: "Under current legislation, which has existed under successive Governments, Armed Forces personnel exposed to asbestos during service before May 15, 1987, are prevented by law from receiving MoD compensation as this was before crown immunity was lifted." A new law to provide a compensation for mesothelioma sufferers, who have been unable to trace the employer who exposed them to the deadly dust, received Royal Assent at the end of February. Under the Mesothelioma Act, claimants will be entitled to 75% of the average settlement paid out in civil actions relating to the disease, expected to be about GBP115,000. It will be paid for by a levy on insurance companies which provide employers' liability and is expected to cost the industry GBP300 million over the next ten years. However, campaigners say the scheme does not go far enough in compensating victims, and thousands who suffer from other asbestos-related diseases, such as asbestosis and pleural thickening, will not receive anything. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed From Former Bega Town Hall --------------------------------------------------------- Brooke Ormes, writing for Bega District News, reported that the gutting of the former Bega Town Hall, in New South Wales, Australia, is almost complete as work continues apace on the new Bega Civic Centre. Project manager Andrew Stewart confirmed most of the internal structure has been removed, including materials containing asbestos. "The demolition, which I think may be the most difficult part of the process, has gone very well," he said. "The asbestos has been removed correctly and we've had the air testing specialist in and gotten the all clear. "All the other materials are being removed and sent for recycling, like the wood and all the metal from all the ducting." Mr Stewart said he's pleased with the way the project is progressing. The Civic Centre is a two-storey building that will feature an auditorium seating 500 people, stage area and dressing rooms, commercial kitchen, meeting rooms, large foyer areas on both floors and council chamber. Hines Construction was awarded the tender for the $5.5million centre, which will incorporate the existing Bega town hall structure. Construction is expected to be completed by Easter 2015. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Steelworker's Death Linked to Fibro Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scunthorpe Telegraph reported that a steelworker died as a result of exposure to asbestos, an inquest heard. Albert Cranmer, 75, of Brigg, in the United Kingdom, died of malignant mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs, on November 3 last year. An inquest at the Civic Centre in Scunthorpe heard Mr Cranmer started work at British Steel in 1960, on the Scunthorpe works. His son, Stuart Cranmer, told the inquest: "Dad was schooled in Brigg and Scawby, but left school at 15. "He did various labouring jobs before he went into the Royal Navy, where he went all over. "He started at the steel works in 1960 as a boiler attendant for British Steel. "That part of the industry is very asbestos-related with the pipes and insulation. He then went onto cranes. "The foreman would have them do other duties when there was no crane work, like sweeping white dust and bagging it in buildings. "It took his retirement days away from him. He should have been out enjoying his retirement years, not dying slowly because of this terrible disease." Coroner Paul Kelly said: "I am satisfied that between 1960 and 1969 Mr Cranmer was exposed to asbestos while working in an industrial setting. That exposure went on in later years to develop into malignant mesothelioma." He recorded a conclusion of death due to an industrial disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Needs to Stop Fibro Coming Into NZ --------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Hague, writing for Voxy.com, reported that New Zealand must stop importing goods that contain dangerous substances such as asbestos, Green Party health spokesperson Kevin Hague said. Kiwirail has suspended its fleet of 40 DL locomotives after asbestos was found in them. Kevin Hague raised the wider issue of New Zealand continuing to allow products containing asbestos into New Zealand late last year with Minister of Consumer Affairs Craig Foss. "New Zealand is out of step with jurisdictions such as Australia regarding our importation and safety standards for asbestos," Mr Hague said. "Our importation of products containing asbestos is a problem the Government has been aware of for years and yet it has not moved to stop this harmful substance from being imported into New Zealand. "It is not good enough that we continue to import substances containing asbestos on the understanding these imports are decreasing. "The National Government appears to have put this important health and safety issue into the too hard basket. "Exposure to asbestos carries high personal and public health costs and is an issue that the Government needs to devote resources to now," Mr Hague said. "Workers and consumers in New Zealand face a health time bomb if the Government does not move on this issue. "All New Zealanders deserve a good life. National's hands-off attitude to dealing with this problem is putting consumers' and workers' futures at risk." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-Tipper Caught Dumping Fibro in Grimsby ----------------------------------------------------------- Grimsby Telegraph reported that a fly-tipping offender has been caught red-handed dumping tonnes of toxic asbestos in Grimsby, in United Kingdom. North East Lincolnshire Council, in alliance with other agencies, caught the offender in action following a recent crackdown on the dumping of illegal waste and a public appeal for information. Councillor Chris Shaw, leader of the council, said: "This has been a great result for us. "We've been tracing the culprits of this illegal fly-tipping for some months now and thanks to our recent appeal in the Grimsby Telegraph we were able to catch the criminal in the act. Grimsby man considers leaving his home due to fly-tipping of mattresses, tyres and arm chairs in rat-infested alleyway "We have seized a Ford Transit vehicle under environmental legislation and will be working closely with the police to bring about a prosecution of the driver. "In the meantime, our officers have traced the owner of the land where the waste was dumped to order its removal and to ensure that the buildings and land are decontaminated of any toxic materials." The waste material was dumped in and around a disused garage in Colin Avenue, Grimsby, which has been the site of previous fly- tipping incidents. John Waite, the council's deputy manager for waste enforcement, thanked the public and local businesses for information. He said: "Following our recent crackdown and publicity in the local press, we were given a number of leads, which were quickly followed up, and thankfully we were able to witness the dumping of this asbestos waste and took swift action. "We are now appealing for further information from the public, in particular from people who've had asbestos removed from either commercial or residential buildings within North East Lincolnshire or from outside the area. "We now know that asbestos is being brought into the borough prior to being illegally tipped." The illegal dumping of asbestos can incur a magistrates court fine of up to oe20,000, an unlimited fine imposed by a higher court, or even a prison sentence. More than 12 tonnes of asbestos has been dumped in North East Lincolnshire this year alone. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Men Charged With Improper Fibro Removal -------------------------------------------------------- Cole Waterman, writing for MLive.com, reported that one of three men facing federal felonies stemming from improper removal of asbestos from Bay City Academy, in Michigan, has accepted a plea deal, rather than go before a jury. Rodolfo Rodriguez on Feb. 11 appeared in U.S. District Court in downtown Bay City and pleaded guilty to one count of perjury before a grand jury. The charge is punishable by up to five years in prison and carries a maximum fine of $250,000. In exchange for his plea, the prosecution agreed to dismiss one count of tampering with witnesses, victims or informants, a 20- year felony. The plea agreement states that in April 2010, Steven J. Ingersoll purchased the former church at 400 N. Madison Ave., planning to convert it into a school building for Bay City Academy. Ingersoll -- identified only as "a person" in the document -- hired Roy C. Bradley Sr. to do the renovation. "Bradley's crew improperly and illegally removed some asbestos- containing material at the direction of Bradley and the crew foreman, Gerald Essex, known to the workers as 'Bark,'" the records state. Rodriguez was one of Bradley's employees, and was a professional carpenter familiar with asbestos removal, the document states. "At Bradley's direction, and under Essex's supervision, Rodriguez removed at least 200 feet of asbestos insulation from pipes in the church so the pipes themselves could be removed," the plea agreement states. On Jan. 28, 2013, Rodriguez testified before a federal grand jury and deliberately gave false testimony regarding how much asbestos he removed and who directed him at the task. Excerpts of Rodriguez's testimony contained in his plea agreement indicate he varied on how much asbestos he removed, from 20 feet to 200 feet. He initially maintained no one told him to remove the material and that he did so on his own volition, but after being pressed by a grand juror, he said Essex told him to gut the place. Bradley and Essex are both charged with four counts of illegally distributing and handling asbestos, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The indictment against them states that Bradley and Essex "as the persons operating, controlling and supervising a demolition and renovation activity involving at least 260 linear feet and 160 square feet of regulated asbestos-containing material" at the former church "knowingly failed to remove and cause the removal of all regulated asbestos-containing material from that facility in accordance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants." Bradley owned Lasting Impressions at the time of the renovations. Ingersoll, an optometrist and entrepreneur, founded the charter school for students from kindergarten through ninth grade. It opened in September 2011 and has three campuses in Bay City. The academy is chartered through Lake Superior State University. Ingersoll previously said that Bradley hired an abatement company to remove all potentially harmful material from the Madison Avenue location prior to the renovations. Ingersoll has also said that the Bay City Academy buildings are safe. Rodriguez' sentencing guidelines range from 15 to 21 months. He is also subject to three years of probation following incarceration and a fine which ranges from $3,000 to $30,000, court records show. U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington is to sentence Rodriguez at 2:30 p.m. on June 5. Bradley and Essex's trials are scheduled to begin before Ludington on April 15. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Rules in Favor of Defendant in Fibro Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that after about four hours of deliberation, a Madison County, Ill., jury entered a verdict in favor of defendant Crane Co. in Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs' courtroom. This defense verdict marks the third since 2010 in Madison County, dubbed the "epicenter" for asbestos litigation by the American Tort Reform Association's Judicial Hellholes Report. Brothers Brian King and Tom King, Jr. brought the suit to Madison County on behalf of their father Tom King, Sr. who died of mesothelioma on May 23 at age 71. Tom King, Sr., was a machinist mate in the U.S. Navy from 1959- 1962 and again from 1965-1969. His job was to repair pumps, valves, gaskets and insulation aboard WWII era destroyers. Crane Co. is accused in the lawsuit for supplying the Navy with mechanical valves and valve component parts. The jury came to its conclusion favoring Crane Co. on the grounds that plaintiff's attorneys failed to prove that Crane's asbestos- containing gasket material, Cranite, was even aboard the Navy ships and that there was not enough evidence revealing Crane knew it should have had warnings on its products. "We didn't see enough evidence to show at that time that their product warranted a warning," Juror 4 said. Several jurors pointed out that they were originally split 7-5, with the majority favoring the defendant. However, they eventually agreed that they could find no reason why Crane Co. should have known to place warnings on its products because they weren't shown other companies that placed warning labels on their asbestos-containing products. If they had been shown such evidence, maybe they would have decided differently, they said. Juror 8 said no other companies had warnings back then, so he didn't feel Crane Co. should have been singled out as being any different. As for Cranite, the group was unconvinced King worked with the asbestos-containing gasket material on the ship. During King's video deposition, he described the Cranite material differently, saying it came in roles and was a burnt orange. However, Anthony Pantaleoni, Crane Co. Vice President of Environment Health and Safety, testified that it came in smaller three to four feet square sheets and was tan. Further, Cranite was not listed on the Naval quality products list, which means the Navy would not have purchased that gasket material in bulk. "If we knew for a fact the Navy bought Cranite from Crane Co, we may have decided differently," Juror 4 said. "The Navy wouldn't buy onesie, twosie. They buy in bulk," he added. The group of jurors also said that they may have decided differently if the defendant was an insulation manufacturer, saying they weren't convinced King's asbestos exposure to gaskets and packing was significant enough. Plaintiff attorney Frank Wathen requested a poll of the jurors, revealing a unanimous decision. Prior to the verdict, Wathen delivered the closing arguments on behalf of the King family, saying the case is a simple ABC case: Asbestos + Breathing = Cancer. He began by showing the jury photos of Tom King from his time in the Navy. "It's about Tom King's exposure to Crane Co. products and it's about Tom King's death," Wathen said. He continued to say that only one party is claiming, "'It can never be us, never.' And that's Crane Company. And that's why we're here." During closing statements, both sides agreed with the undisputed facts: that King was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of his asbestos exposure in the U.S. Navy, which eventually led to his premature death in May at the age of 71, and that he worked hands-on with Crane Co. products sold to the Navy. Wathen admitted in his list of primary exposures that King was exposed to insulation in addition to his valve, pump, gasket and packing exposure, saying it would be dishonest and inconsistent with scientific fact to ignore King's insulation asbestos exposure. He continued to blame the defense for being the only party telling the jury to ignore an exposure. Wathen cited witness Dr. Arnold Brody, who said mesothelioma is a "cumulative dose disease," meaning an individual had a higher risk of mesothelioma with every exposure. Because every exposure is a key player in the development of mesothelioma, medical science cannot determine which fiber caused the disease. Brody's opinion is significant, he said, because "all of these exposures that Tom King had, they were in the Navy, they were significant, they were contributing factors to his mesothelioma." Focusing on their negligence claim, Wathen said Crane Co. had a duty to warn, but instead made a "big deal" about just being the seller of the asbestos-containing gaskets and packing. Wathen responded by saying Crane Co. should still be responsible for selling the products. "It's a distinction without a difference, it doesn't matter," Wathen said. Wathen said their duty to warn exceeded beyond just being the seller, because encasing the pre-manufactured asbestos products in the valves does not make them safe. "They had no reason to believe that the asbestos would be magically coated that when it gets into the lungs it will have this cloak of purity," he said. Wathen quoted OSHA's permitted limits of exposure, which allowed for .1 fibers per cc. However gasket work was determined to cause an average of .44 fibers per cc in an eight hour time frame. "That right there tells you that those gaskets from a scientific and medical standards caused Tom King's mesothelioma. They don't have to be the cause, just a cause," he said. "These are real world numbers, and in the real world, gaskets are capable of causing substantial asbestos exposure," he continued. Wathen did not request the jury award a certain amount, but asked them to award full damages, referring to a sufficient amount. "If you are going to give justice, don't give half-justice. Give full justice," Wathen said. Crane Co. attorney Jim Lowery delivered the defense closing statements saying insulation caused King's mesothelioma, calling the "overwhelming" evidence "crystal clear." "We contend, insulation exposures were the sole and only cause of Mr. King's illness," Lowery said. He explained that there was up to 150 tons of asbestos-containing thermal insulation aboard U.S. Navy war ships compared to the 50 pounds of asbestos-containing gasket and packing material. King even testified that he worked with asbestos-containing thermal insulation "very much" in his video deposition and said his mesothelioma was "compliments of the U.S. Navy." "There is a boatload of amosite containing thermal insulation exposure," Lowery said. He added that it was the Navy's responsibility to keep King safe and provide warnings. "Ladies and gentlemen, the Navy let Mr. King die," he said. Lowery admitted Crane Co. sold the Navy asbestos-containing products, but asked if the minimal exposure was more significant than King's work with thermal insulation. "No question about it. We don't run from that. We're proud of what we did," Lowery said. Lowery also addressed the fact that Cranite was not included on the qualified product list, meaning the Navy could not purchase it in bulk for supply storage used in gasket replacement work. Finally, Lowery said that if the jury does find that Crane Co. was negligent, he requested they award a total of $300,000 - $150,000 for each brother. "I don't believe you will get that far, but if you do, that's a fair number." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Louisiana Court Dismisses Fibro Survival Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Louisiana federal court has dismissed survival claims asserted by the family members of a Louisiana man, finding that since an original, separate asbestos action was voluntarily dismissed, prescription was not interrupted. In the Feb. 28 order, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana said that because the decedent did not have an actionable claim at the time of his death, the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the instant case. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms $6.5MM Verdict ---------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a California appellate court has affirmed a more than $6.5 million asbestos verdict, in part rejecting defendant Crane Co.'s contention that, when calculating the final judgment, the trial court should have allocated for future setoffs the plaintiffs may obtain through asbestos bankruptcy trusts. In the Feb. 21 opinion, the California Second District Court of Appeal also opined that the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence to support their claim that the decedent was exposed to asbestos in Crane Co.'s gasket material. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court to Decide "Bare Metal Defense" Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the National Asbestos Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation Court has remanded a deceased carpenter's asbestos lawsuit to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state recognizes the "bare metal defense." Judge Eduardo Robreno filed the Jan. 30 order, remanding the case back to the United States District Court of the Southern District of Illinois and addressing defendant Westinghouse Electric Corporation's motion for summary judgment -- granting it in part and denying in part. "Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to alleged asbestos exposure arising from insulation used in connection with turbines because plaintiff has failed to identify sufficient evidence to support a finding of causation with respect to that alleged exposure . . . [and] denied with respect to alleged asbestos exposure arising from switchgear(with leave to refile in the transferor court) because no Illinois appellate court has yet addressed the availability of the so-called 'bare metal defense' under Illinois law," Robreno wrote. "Bare metal" products relate to those that contain or were encapsulated in asbestos-containing products made by a third party. The arguments raised from this type of exposure refer to it as the "bare metal defense" in litigation. The lawsuit was transferred to the MDL in Oct. 2008. Westinghouse is the only remaining viable defendant for trial. Plaintiff Helen Mann brought the claims on behalf of J.W. Heggie and against defendant Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Heggie worked as a carpenter from 1971 to 1984. Westinghouse manufactured turbines and switchgear. Mann claims Heggie was exposed to asbestos from Westinghouse's turbines and switchgear at the Texaco Refinery in Lawrenceville, Ill., in 1968 and the Marathon Refinery in Robinson, Ill., between 1970 and 1978. Mann further argues Heggie developed bilateral asbestos-related pleural disease and lung cancer as a result of his exposure to asbestos, leading to his death in April 2002. Westinghouse requested summary judgment, arguing insufficient product identification evidence to establish causation. "Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law," Robreno wrote. "A motion for summary judgment will not be defeated by 'the mere existence' of some disputed facts, but will be denied when there is a genuine issue of material fact.'" Robreno added that the moving party typically bears the burden of showing the "absence of a genuine issue of material fact," but the court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non- moving party, shifting the burden to the non-moving party, "who must 'set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Regarding Westinghouse's summary judgment, Robreno wrote that an Ill. court ruled that defendants cannot obtain summary judgment by pinning corporate testimonies against plaintiff evidence pertaining to product identification. The jury is tasked with the job to assess the credibility of witnesses and conflicting evidence. In the Supreme Court of Illinois' Nolan decision, it was clear that the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test is applicable in all cases, "regardless of whether a plaintiff is relying on direct or circumstantial evidence," he wrote. In its summary judgment request, Westinghouse argued that the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient product identification evidence to support causation allegations and failed to provide the evidence significant enough to be a "substantial factor" in causing Heggie's illness. Former Westinghouse employee Douglas Ware provided testimony for the defense that its turbines were sold without thermal insulation or metal lagging and any insulation or lagging applied later was supplied and applied by a third party. The defendant also claims Mann's evidence fails to create a "triable issue of material fact" regarding switchgear because she cannot prove the asbestos dust was created when electricians "blew out" the switchgear with compressed air. On the other hand, Mann argues that she satisfies her product identification/causation claims. Witness Vernon Hilderbrand worked with Heggie at the Marathon refinery and testified that Heggie was exposed to breathable dust from block, blanket and spray-on insulation applied to the turbines. Witness William LaPointe testified that materials used on the turbine systems often contained asbestos, and sound-deadening materials would sometimes deteriorate and create dust. Witness William Simmons worked with Heggie in close proximity to electricians using air hoses to blow dust out of high voltage switchgear made by the defendant. He testified that Heggie worked "within feet" of "electricians drilling holes in brown insulating board which he believed contained asbestos," before installing it inside of Westinghouse electrical equipment. Mann also presented several official Westinghouse turbine and switchgear-related documents. In an analysis of the turbines, Robreno wrote that even if Mann didn't have to satisfy the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test, her evidence is insufficient. Therefore, Robreno used a more lenient standard regarding direct and circumstantial evidence to establish causation. He stated that there is no evidence that Heggie was exposed to asbestos from insulation, while Mann proved he was exposed to asbestos from Westinghouse turbines. "Even assuming that it is a fact that Westinghouse issued specifications that 'required' the use of asbestos-containing insulation, this evidence does not establish that any insulation to which decendant was exposed in connection with Westinghouse turbines actually contained asbestos - and instead, establishes only that this was a possibility," Robreno wrote. Essentially, Mann only established that it was a possibility that Heggie worked with asbestos-containing insulation connected with Westinghouse turbines. "Therefore, even when construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, no reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that decedent was exposed to asbestos for which Westinghouse is responsible such that it was a 'substantial factor' in the development of his illness," Robreno stated. "This is true regardless of whether or not Illinois law recognizes the so-called 'bare metal defense' - an issue this court need not reach in connection with this alleged source of exposure," he added. "Therefore, summary judgment in favor of defendant Westinghouse is warranted with respect to this alleged source of exposure." Regarding alleged switchgear exposure, Robreno wrote that the court "attempts to analyze the sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence despite the poorly defined sources of alleged exposure." The plaintiff has provided evidence proving: -- Heggie worked close to electricians using air hoses to blow dust out of high voltage switchgear; -- All switchgear in industrial and large commercial settings more than 440 voltes from 1945 to early 1980s contained asbestos; -- DH and DHP series switchgear contained asbestos; -- Switchgear used to power large motors and large equipment was the DH or DHP series; -- Widespread use of asbestos insulation for switchgear applications in industrial and large commercial facilities; and -- Asbestos was the material of chose in industrial and commercial applications. However, Robreno ruled Mann failed to prove switchgear blown out near Heggie was more than 440 volts, or was DH or DHP series, or was used to power large equipment. "Even when construing this evidence in the light most favorable to decedent, it is insufficient because it does not establish that decedent was exposed to respirable dust from switchgear that contained asbestos," he wrote. Mann also failed to establish that the appearance of switchgear meant it could only be asbestos-containing, he stated. Nothing in the evidence in the record supporting Mann's contention that the type of equipment the switchgear was used to power was the same that contained asbestos. Likewise, no evidence even proves Heggie worked with the same equipment that contains asbestos, the judge decided. "The closest plaintiff comes to establishing a switchgear-related asbestos exposure for which defendant Westinghouse could be liable is found in plaintiff's evidence from co-worker Simmons that decedent worked 'within feet' of electricians drilling holes in brown insulating board which Simmons believed contained asbestos, and installing it inside of Westinghouse electrical equipment," Robreno wrote. "Because there is no evidence that defendant manufactured or supplied the insulating board, defendant can only face liability if Illinois does not recognize the so called 'bare metal defense.'" Robreno denied summary judgment regarding product identification/ causation with respect to switchgear, choosing not to predict what an Illinois court would rule in this situation. So he remanded the case for the Illinois federal court to decide the issue. "Whether Illinois law holds a switchgear manufacturer liable for component parts incorporated into its product which it neither manufactured nor supplied is a matter of policy," he wrote. In a suggestion of remand filed on Feb. 24, Robreno stated that the case is prepared for trial once on the transferor court's docket. All matters are to be resolved in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois except punitive damages. "Alternatively, parties have seven days within which to consent to a trial before an Article III or magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In such an event, if consent is granted, a trial will be scheduled within 60 days, on a date convenient to the parties in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the suggestion of remand will be vacated," Robreno stated. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Relatives of Okla., Ill. Laborers File Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that another two asbestos lawsuits have been added to St. Clair County's asbestos docket. Nicole Lockett of Tulsa, Okla., filed an asbestos lawsuit Feb. 27 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against 21 defendant corporations while Betty G. Crutchfield of Lake City, Ill., filed a lawsuit Feb. 27 against 41 defendant corporations. In her complaint, Nichole Lockett alleges the defendant companies caused the recently deceased Randle R. Lockett Sr. to develop mesothelioma after his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his father's career. Randle R. Lockett Sr.'s father worked in the military and at ICBM and Minuteman and MX missile site maintaining and repairing silos, the suit states. In her complaint, Betty G. Crutchfield says the defendant companies caused the recently deceased Donald Crutchfield Sr. to develop lung cancer after his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career. The defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the plaintiff's safety, the suit states. As a result of their asbestos-related diseases, Randle R. Lockett Sr. and Donald Crutchfield Sr. became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint says. In addition, they were prevented from pursuing their normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued, the plaintiff claims. They died due to their diseases, according to the complaint. In her complaint, Nicole Lockett is seeking a judgment of more than $50,000, compensatory damages of more than $200,000, punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants for their misconduct and other relief the court deems just. In her complaint, Betty G. Crutchfield is seeking a judgment of more than $300,000, compensatory damages of more than $100,000, punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants for their misconduct and other relief the court deems just. Both women are being represented by Ethan A. Flint -- eflint@toverdict.com -- Jill M. Price, Carson C. Menges -- cmenges@toverdict.com -- John B. Woelfel -- jwoelfel@toverdict.com -- Diane Andrew -- dandrew@toverdict.com -- and Laci Whitley -- lwhitney@toverdict.com -- of Flint and Associates in Glen Carbon. St. Clair County Circuit Court case numbers 14-L-175, 14-L-176. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Veterans Curtail Effort to Stop Fibro Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Wisconsin veterans who had been urging Gov. Scott Walker to veto a bill affecting asbestos exposure lawsuits are backing down after being told the governor plans to sign the measure. Jason Johns, lobbyist for the Military Order of the Purple Heart of Wisconsin, said on March 24 that he emailed veterans telling them to curtail their effort after a Walker aide told another veteran the governor planned to sign the bill. Gov. Walker's spokeswoman Laurel Patrick says Walker continues to evaluate the measure. Republican proponents argue the goal is to stop those bringing asbestos exposure lawsuits from being able to double dip by suing businesses and trusts established to pay claims. But opponents say new requirements will delay and deny justice for those harmed by asbestos, including veterans. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Starts Behind Newark City Hall --------------------------------------------------------------- Newark Advocate reported that Hina Environmental Solutions of Columbus will begin abating asbestos at 20-22 N. Fourth St., in Newark, Ohio, to prepare for that structure's upcoming demolition, Safety Director Bill Spurgeon said. The former Chilcote and Jones building, deemed a safety threat by the city, sits behind City Hall, adjacent to the downtown Newark Arcade. Asbestos abatement at that building will require closing the alley behind. City Hall for the duration of the work, Wednesday through Saturday, Spurgeon said, as well as rerouting traffic from the Chase Bank back through the parking lot. The Newark City Council has voted unanimously to seek bids on the demolition and appropriate $336,584 to cover it. A pre-bid conference is scheduled in Council Chambers at City Hall. Officials will open those bids on March 12, and they expect to award the contract later that day, Spurgeon said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Close Two Ainslie Businesses --------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reported that two businesses in Canberra, Australia's inner-north have been closed because of asbestos concerns. After a complaint from a local resident, WorkSafe inspectors discovered water damage to the ceiling of two premises located above Edgar's Inn at the Ainslie Shopping Centre. Prohibition notices were issued to the businesses because the ceiling also contains loose-fill asbestos. ACT work safety commissioner Mark McCabe says the prohibition notices have been issued as a precaution. "If the cause of the water damage is not determined and fixed there is the potential for damage to the ceiling which could allow asbestos fibres to enter the first floor premises," he said. "We're due for a fair bit of rain this coming week. So we've had to shut the businesses so they can work out what they're going to do to the roof to make sure the ceiling stays in tact." Mr McCabe says air monitoring and dust testing have been carried out and there is no indication of risk to the public. WorkSafe is working with the building owner and businesses to fix the problem. "Other businesses at the Ainslie Shops are safe to operate and there is no indication of risk to the general public," Mr McCabe said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Breckenridge Council OKs Fibro Survey Proposal --------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie McDermott, writing for Wahpeton Daily News, reported that the City Council of Breckenridge, Minnesota, accepted a proposal from Legend Technical Services, Inc., of Fargo, for an asbestos survey on City Hall for the amount of $6,246, after a recommendation by the finance committee. The proposal is based on 125 samples of paint, hazardous materials, roofing, fuel tanks, pipes and other items. Any samples taken over the 125 limit will be billed at $30 per extra sample. The proposal includes inspecting and quantifying asbestos, deteriorated lead-based paint surfaces and hazardous materials required to be removed and/or recycled prior to the demolition of the building, constructed in 1917. Every room and space will be inspected for asbestos. Most asbestos was removed from the building in the early 1980s during the remodeling, explained Dave Freitag, city building inspector. The asbestos and other hazardous material removal is required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro to Blame for Death of Dunmow Dad ------------------------------------------------------- Herts and Essex Observer reported that a verdict of death from an industrial disease has been recorded in respect of a 77-year-old retired police officer from Great Dunmow, in Essex, England, who died as a result of exposure to asbestos during service in the Royal Navy in the 1950s. William Moir-Porteous, of Gibbons Court, used to live in Broadoak Avenue, Enfield. He retired from the Metropolitan Police in 1996 and moved to Essex about six years ago. Essex coroner Caroline Beasley-Murray recorded a verdict that he died from the industrial disease mesothelioma. She said: "He worked in that environment and at a time in the 1950s and '60s when the dangers of asbestos were just not known." The coroner, sitting in Chelmsford, described it as "a very cruel disease". The court heard that Mr Moir-Porteous was born in Calcutta, India, and moved to the UK in 1950. He served in the Royal Navy from 1952 to 1961, during which time he was exposed to asbestos. His son, Ian, said that his father worked in torpedo anti- submarine warfare. He joined the Met in 1963. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December last year and died at home on January 2. After the hearing, Ian Moir-Porteous said that his father was heavily involved in the North London Special Olympics for 25 years and was treasurer of the charity until the day he died. His sporting background was in tug of war in the police and in boxing with both the force and Navy. He helped with training and coaching athletes. He added that his father was a PC in the Met. He worked with Special Patrol Group, Diplomatic Protection Group and Territorial Support Group. He ended his career at Enfield as an advanced driver. Mr Moir-Porteous leaves a wife, Maureen, his son and two daughters, who live in the Bishop's Stortford area. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legal Firms Call for Fibro Schools Register ------------------------------------------------------------ Julia Irwin, writing for Northcote Leader, reported that two prominent legal firms are calling for the State Government to set up a centralised schools' asbestos register. Maurice Blackburn asbestos legal team leader Jane McDermott said Victoria was lagging behind states such as New South Wales and Queensland, which had introduced registers that contained information about the existence and location of asbestos- containing materials at schools. According to Education Department statistics, 1200 of Victoria's 1520 government schools contain asbestos. Ms McDermott's calls for a central resistor came after she read reports in the Northcote Leader this month about the asbestos scare at Wales Street Primary School in Thornbury where prep students and staff were exposed when they used a building after renovations. "It seems the Education Department's asbestos management plan is not sufficient to protect school communities from the risk of exposure to asbestos," Ms McDermott said. "Victoria needs to keep up with other states and set up a register so what happened at Wales St doesn't happen again at any other school." Ms McDermott said while the risk of getting the deadly mesothelioma lung cancer was low, there was no safe level of exposure. "So many people have been exposed and nothing's happened," she said. "But I see people at the end stages of this disease and I want to do everything I can to prevent any other person or family going through the suffering that comes with terminal illness related to asbestos." Senior asbestos lawyer Margaret Kent from Slater and Gordon agreed a central register was required. "The more publicly available information the better," Ms Kent said. "Anyone doing construction work or renovation should be able to quickly access information about asbestos themselves." Ms Kent said the discovery of asbestos particles at Wales St Primary School was a concern, which indicated a breakdown in the existing system's communication. "This case again highlights the widespread presence of asbestos in schools and public buildings and the ongoing threat of exposure in the community," Ms Kent said. "The community deserves to know when the asbestos was discovered and why prep children were allowed to use those rooms. "It's important the department learns from this to ensure that it doesn't happen again." But Education Department spokesman Simon Craig rejected the call for a centralised register. He said schools were already supported through the department's Asbestos Management Program, which offered advice via a 24-hour hotline, training sessions and scheduled audits from expert contractors. "Schools are ultimately responsible for updating and maintaining their asbestos register and are supported by the Department through the Asbestos Management Program," Mr Craig said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Says Bid to Remand Must Be Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recommended the denial of the motion to remand filed in the asbestos personal injury action originally filed by Plaintiffs Stephen Bond and Ann Bond against numerous Defendants, including Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation in the Superior Court of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. Lockheed Martin removed the state court action to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1442(a) and 1446. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to Delaware state court, on the grounds that the Defendants' removal was untimely in light of the requirements of Section 1446(b). The magistrate judge held that in this case, a defendant has no firm basis for removal "'[u]ntil the military products [relating to the defendant that are alleged to be associated with asbestos exposure are] specifically identified.'" Under the circumstances at issue here, it was not until Mr. Bond's deposition that such products (i.e., those associated with Lockheed Martin airplanes that are allegedly manufactured pursuant to federal specifications) were first sufficiently identified by Plaintiffs, the magistrate judge noted. Indeed, the magistrate judge said his conclusion is in line with those of other courts to have examined similar issues with respect to this particular defendant or its affiliated companies. The case is STEPHEN BOND and ANN BOND, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN BILTRITE CO., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-1340-SLR- CJB (D.Del.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated February 20, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/0fsnQRfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Refuses to Remand "Smith" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in a memorandum opinion and order dated March 6, 2014, denied a motion to remand the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned KENNETH D. SMITH, JR. and DIANE SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, CRANE CO., H.B. FULLER COMPANY, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, individually and f/k/a Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; UNIROYAL, INC.; AMERICAN BILTRITE, INC.; DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS, INC.; JOHN CRANE, INC. f/k/a Crane Packing Company; GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corporation; KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC.; DAP, INC.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS, INC.; GARDNER DENVER, INC.; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.; AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS, INC., successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; ITT INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor-in- interest to Bell & Gossett Pump Co.; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; WARREN PUMPS, LLC; ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; SPIRAX SARCO, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; FLOWSERVE US, INC. a.k.a. Flowserve Pump Corp., individually and as successor-in-interest to the Edward Valve and Manufacturing Company; ANDERSON, GREENWOOD & CO.; GRINNELL CORPORATION f/k/a Grinnell Fire Protection Systems, Inc.; GRINNELL LLC; MUELLER GROUP, LLC d/b/a Mueller Flow, LLC; MUELLER COMPANY; HENRY PRATT COMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; RILEY POWER, INC. f/k/a Riley Stoker Corporation; TRANE U.S., INC.; HOWDEN BUFFALO, INC.; CARRIER CORPORATION, AND METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendants, NO. 13 C 7411 (N.D.Ill.). Judge Gettleman held that Defendant Crane Co., which moved for removal of the lawsuit from state court, has provided affidavits concerning the manufacture and distribution of products pursuant to military standards and specifications requiring the use of asbestos. These affidavits demonstrate that the Navy and the government were well aware of the hazards associated with the use of asbestos-containing materials, Judge Gettlemen said. In this context, Crane need not prove the validity of such a defense, but must show only that such a defense is "plausible," Judge Gettleman said. Consequently, the defense "should be judged by federal standards in a federal district court," Judge Gettleman said. Therefore, Crane has established the existence of a colorable federal defense, and "whether the facts establish the conditions for the defense is a question for the [trier of fact]." Judge Gettleman further ruled that there is a causal nexus between plaintiffs' claims and Crane's conduct performed under color of a federal officer. This requires a defendant to show that it acted under the command of the federal government. Crane established a colorable federal defense as it relates to plaintiffs' use of asbestos and failure to warn claims. Because plaintiffs' relationship with Crane "derived solely from [its] official duties for the navy," Ruppel, 701 F.3d at 1181, it satisfies the requisite causal connection between plaintiffs' claims and Crane's conduct performed pursuant to the Navy's discretion. A full-text copy of Judge Gettleman's Decision is available at http://is.gd/D5qTZEfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants 5,974 Bids to Dismiss "Jacobs" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the 5,974 motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed in the asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit styled IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI) relating to JACOBS, ET AL. Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, ET AL. Defendants, MDL DOCKET NO. 875 (E.D. Pa.). In this case, 6,267 motions to dismiss were filed. As in In re Bartel v. Various Defendants, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, No. 2MDL 875, 2013 WL 4516651, these cases involve shipowner defendents who assert the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction or improper service of process. Judge Robreno, citing Bartel, held that these cases involve shipowner defendants who assert the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction or improper service of process. The papers submitted by the parties in connection with the motions are nearly identical to the papers submitted in connection with the motions in Bartel. The only additional evidence the plaintiffs have submitted with the instant motions is a supplement containing alleged "new" evidence that the defendants waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Robreno ruled that, in this case, no new evidence has been presented to disturb the Court's decision in Bartel. The "supplemental" evidence presented by plaintiffs does not alter the analysis of the outcome of the Court's decision in Bartel granting the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, Judge Robreno granted the 5,974 motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the defendants who filed those motions from the case. As to the 293 motions to dismiss due to improper service of process, Judge Robreno denied these motions. A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's March 11, 2014, memorandum is available at http://is.gd/KNJvyqand accompanying Order is available at http://is.gd/3Wz0ULfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Denies Magnavox Bid to Dismiss "Bailen" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Philips Electronics North American Corporation, which is responsible for the Magnavox brand, moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it on the ground that plaintiffs Eddie Howard Bailen and his wife Rena Bailen have failed to produce sufficient evidence that Mr. Bailen was exposed to asbestos fibers released from a Magnavox product. Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a March 3, 2014, decision and order denied the motion, holding that the testimony presented in the case raises a material issue of fact from which the defendant's liability may be reasonably inferred. The case is EDDIE HOWARD BAILEN and RENA NORENE ASH-BAILEN, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., as Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190318/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 013 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/W8A7b8from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies H&V Bid to Junk "Correnti" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Hollingsworth & Vose Company moves for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Gladys R. Correnti's fraud and negligent representation causes of action on the grounds that those causes of action do not satisfy the heightened pleading requirements required by CPLR 3016(b)2 and that H&V cannot be held liable for the alleged misrepresentations made by co-defendant Lorillard Tobacco Company, as to whom H&V denies any partnership or joint venture relationship. Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, ruled that there are triable issues of fact whether Lorillard misrepresented the nature of its Kent cigarettes and whether H&V may be liable for such misrepresentations as Lorillard's joint venturer. Accordingly, Judge Heitler ordered that H&V's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's fraud and negligent representation causes of action against it is denied in its entirety. The case is GLADYS R. CORRENTI, Plaintiff, v. BERTRAM D. STONE, INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190317/12, MOTION SEQ. 004 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's March 3, 2014 decision and order is available at http://is.gd/p6rhugfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Workers' Compensation Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Moretti and John Moretti, deceased, seek review of an Order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's Decision denying the Claimant's Claim Petition and Fatal Claim Petition. On appeal, the Claimant raises the following issues: (1) whether the WCJ and the Board misapplied the burden of proof after finding that the Decedent was exposed to asbestos while employed by Kimberly Clerk Corporation and died due to colon cancer; and (2) whether the WCJ's findings of fact regarding the connection between colon cancer and asbestos exposure are supported by competent evidence and consistent with relevant authority. In a March 13, 2014, memorandum opinion, Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer writing on behalf of a three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, affirmed the decision, holding that because the Decedent was exposed to asbestos does not automatically entitle the Claimant to the presumption found in Section 301(e) of the Workers' Compensation Act and the Claimant still had the burden to prove that colon cancer was a cancer caused by asbestos exposure. Therefore, the WCJ did not err by applying an incorrect burden of proof. With respect to the second issue, Judge Jubelirer, citing In re City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Reed), 785 A.2d 1065, 1068 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), ruled that it is axiomatic that "[t]he WCJ, as fact finder, has exclusive province over questions of credibility and a reviewing court is not to reweigh the evidence or review the credibility of witnesses." As such, Judge Jubelirer ruled that, given the competing medical opinions, the Court cannot disturb the WCJ's credibility determinations in this matter. Accordingly, Judge Jubelirer found that the WCJ's findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. The case is Diana Moretti and John Moretti, dec'd, Petitioner, v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Kimberly Clark Corporation), Respondent, NO. 1452 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Cmmw.). A full-text copy of Judge Jubelirer's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/N86dtZ from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Refuses to Dismiss "Horvath" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the asbestos personal injury action styled RALPH HORVATH and LORETTA HORVATH, Plaintiffs, v. ACF Industries, LLC, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190220/2013, MOTION SEQ. 001 (N.Y. Sup.), after determining that CSX has not submitted any expert testimony to show that Mr. Horvath's exposure to asbestos could not have caused or contributed to his injuries. A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's March 5, 2014 decision and order is available at http://is.gd/ittNLVfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Viad Corp. Wins Summary Judgment in PI Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved and adopted the report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Rueter granting defendant Viad Corporation's motion for summary judgment in the asbestos- related personal injury lawsuit captioned IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI) relating to SCHOTT, v. VARIOUS Defendants, MDL DOCKET NO. 875, E.D. PA NO. 09-63308 (E.D. Pa.), holding that summary judgment in favor of the Defendant is warranted with respect to all of the Plaintiff's claims against it because the Plaintiff has failed to identify sufficient evidence of product identification/causation. A full- text copy of Judge Robreno's March 13, 2014, Order is available at http://is.gd/NkiN5Rfrom Leagle.com. Robert Thomas Schott, and Theresa M. Schott, Plaintiffs, are represented by Brian P. Barrow, Esq., Jennifer L. Bartlett, Esq., Evan Blair Delgado, Esq., Jonah D. King, Esq., Lisa M. Barley, Esq., and Robert A. Green, Esq., at Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC, in Dallas, Texas; Ronald Cary Eddins, Esq., at Eddins Law Firm, in Louisville, Kentucky; and Rebecca A. Cucu, Esq., Napoli Brern Ripka Shikolnik & Associates, LlP, in New York. Viad Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Peter B. Langbord, Esq. -- plangbord@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley Mansfield PLLP, in Los Angeles, California. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. App. Court Affirms Ruling in "Durham" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Keitha Durham, individual, and as executrix of the estate of O. David Durham, who was diagnosed with asbestos-induced mesothelioma, appeals the orders of the Jefferson Circuit Court, which granted summary judgment and partial summary judgment to Ford Motor Company. Ford filed a cross-appeal with respect to the order of partial summary judgment. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky rendered a decision on March 14, 2014, affirmed as to both the appeal and the cross-appeal. Judge Sara Walter Combs, who penned the decision on behalf of a three- judge panel, found that David's deposition supports the findings of the trial court and Keitha has not presented evidence to the contrary. She offers proof that some Ford brakes at one time contained asbestos but that evidence does not indicate that David worked with brakes which Ford manufactured, Judge Combs noted. Therefore, she has failed to establish a probability that brakes made by Ford were the cause of David's mesothelioma, Judge Combs said. The Court said it cannot conclude that the trial court erred when it granted Ford's motion for summary judgment on the products liability claim. The case is KEITHA DURHAM, Individually, and as Executrix of THE ESTATE OF O. DAVID DURHAM, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, NOS. 2012-CA-000889-MR, 2012-CA-001209-MR (Ky. App.). A full-text copy of Judge Combs' Decision is available at http://is.gd/jfY2sGfrom Leagle.com. Joseph D. Satterley, Esq., Paul J. Kelley, Esq., and Hans Poppe, Jr., Esq., in Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEF FOR APPELLANT/CROSS- APPELLEE. Byron N. Miller, Esq., Adam B. Shadburne, Esq., and Heather R. Cash, Esq., in Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEF FOR APPELLEES/CROSS- APPELLANT. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Bid to Dismiss "Bova" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In an asbestos personal injury action, defendants The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Goodyear Canada, Inc., move for summary judgment dismissing the action and all cross-claims asserted against them on the grounds that there is no evidence to show that decedent Dorothy Bova was exposed to asbestos released from a Goodyear product. Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated March 5, 2014, denied the motion holding that Mr. Bova's testimony that he worked with Goodyear asbestos-containing gaskets and that his wife consistently came into contact with his asbestos-laden work clothes is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether Goodyear gaskets in fact contributed to her injuries. The Defendants' contention that the testimony is not admissible is a matter for determination by the trial judge in limine, Judge Heitler said. In addition, Goodyear's contention that the majority of its gaskets produced during the relevant time period were asbestos-free is not supported by the record, Judge Heitler pointed out. The case is ANTHONY M. BOVA, as Executor for the Estate of DOROTHY T. BOVA, and ANTHONY M. BOVA, individually, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 116852/06, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/OZimDMfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Granted Leave to Amend NY PI Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In an asbestos personal injury action, David Parouse, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Charles Sullivan, moves for leave to amend the complaint to add Carrier Corporation, Eaton Corporation, FMC Corporation, Warren Pumps, LLC, and York International Corporation, as defendants to the action and to deem its second supplemental summons and second verified complaint timely served on all parties. The motion is opposed by Eaton, FMC, and Warren on the ground, among others, that the Statute of Limitations in respect of the Plaintiff's claims against them has expired. Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated March 6, 2014, granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint, and directed the Plaintiff to serve copies of the amended complaint and the decision and order on all interested parties. In granting the motion for leave, Judge Heitler ruled that there can be no serious dispute that the Plaintiff did file the Second Amended Complaint with the ex-parte clerk of the Court and that the Plaintiff effected service of the amended complaint on each defendant prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. In addition, Judge Heitler said the action is governed by the NYCAL Case Management Order, which permits a plaintiff to amend his/her complaint without leave of the court at any time prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. The case is DAVID PAROUSE, as Special Administrator of the Estate of CHARLES SULLIVAN, deceased, Plaintiff, v. A.P. MOLLER-MAERSK, INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190105/11, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/CUBGdefrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Awarded Summary Judgment in "Vedros" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Carl J. Barbier of the of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in a March 14, 2014, order and reasons granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant General Electric Company in the action arising from the death of Sally Gros Vedros due to mesothelioma. In awarding summary judgment to GE, Judge Barbier found that the Plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence that Vedros was exposed to asbestos that was manufactured, sold, supplied, or distributed by GE. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence to rebut GE's evidence that GE only manufactured and distributed bare metal turbines and not asbestos-containing insulation. The case is VEDROS, ET AL., v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING, INC., ET AL., SECTION J., CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1198 (E.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at http://is.gd/cVTowWfrom Leagle.com. Sally Gros Vedros, Plaintiff; Lori Vedros Kravet, Major Child of Sally Gros Vedros; Valerie Vedros White, Major Child of Sally Gros Vedros; and Gerald Vedros, Major Child of Sally Gros Vedros; represented by: Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Esq. Jonathan Brett Clement, Esq. Lauren Roussel Clement, Esq. Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Esq. ROUSSEL & CLEMENT 1714 Cannes Drive La Place, LA 70068-2407 Phone: (985) 651-6591 Fax: (985) 651-6592 Albert Bossier, Jr., Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Esq. -- jfutrell@leefutrell.com -- Anita Ann Cates, Esq. -- acates@leefutrell.com -- Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq. -- gwilson@leefutrell.com -- and Richard Marshall Perles, Esq. -- rperles@leefutrell.com -- at Futrell & Perles, LLP. Onebeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq. -- ademahy@twpdlaw.com -- and Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq. -- srosamond@twpdlaw.com -- at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC; and Gary Allen Lee, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. American Employers Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq., and Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq., at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC; and Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., and Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. American Motorists Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Esq. -- bbossier@bluewilliams.com -- Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Esq. -- cgrace@bluewilliams.com -- Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Esq. -- eellinghausen@bluewilliams.com -- Erin Helen Boyd, Esq. -- eboyd@bluewilliams.com -- at Blue Williams, LLP; and Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., and Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq. at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Esq. -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Ernest G. Foundas, Esq. -- efoundas@kuchlerpolk.com -- Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Esq. -- fdeblanc@kuchlerpolk.com -- Lee Blanton Ziffer, Esq. -- lziffer@kuchlerpolk.com -- McGready Lewis Richeson, Esq. -- mricheson@kuchlerpolk.com -- Michael H. Abraham, Esq. -- mabraham@kuchlerpolk.com -- and Robert Edward Guidry, Esq. -- rguidry@kuchlerpolk.com -- at at Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Eagle, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Esq. -- suek@spsr-law.com -- Douglas Kinler, Esq. -- dkinler@spsr-law.com -- James R. Guidry, Esq. -- jguidry@spsr- law.com -- and Michael David Harold, Esq. -- michaelh@spsr- law.com -- at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Foster-Wheeler LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Esq. -- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Angela M. Bowlin, Esq. -- abowlin@frilot.com -- James H. Brown, Jr., Esq. -- jbrown@frilot.com -- Meredith K. Keenan, Esq. -- mkeenan@frilot.com -- Peter R. Tafaro, Esq. -- ptafaro@frilot.com -- and Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Esq. -- rzotti@frilot.com -- at Frilot L.L.C. McCarty Corporation, Defendant and Cross Claimants, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Esq., Douglas Kinler, Esq., James R. Guidry, Esq., and Michael David Harold, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Esq. -- klightfoot@hmhlp.com -- and Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Esq. -- rgarvey@hmhlp.com -- at Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Esq., Angela M. Bowlin, Esq., James H. Brown, Jr., Esq., Meredith K. Keenan, Esq., Peter R. Tafaro, Esq., and Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C. Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Edward T. Hayes, Esq. -- ehayes@leakeandersson.com -- Lauren Fajoni Bartlett, Esq. -- lbartlett@leakeandersson.com - - and Marc E. Devenport, Esq. -- mdevenport@leakeandersson.com -- at Leake & Andersson, LLP. Continental Insurance Co, (successor by merger to Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York), Defendant, represented by Glenn Gill Goodier, Esq. -- ggoodier@joneswalker.com -- and William P. Wynne, Esq. -- bwynne@joneswalker.com -- at Jones Walker. J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., David Leroy Hoskins, Esq., and Richard Marshall Perles, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross Claimants, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., David Leroy Hoskins, Esq., and Richard Marshall Perles, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP; Brian C. Bossier, Esq., Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Esq., Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Esq., and Erin Helen Boyd, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP; & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Esq. -- trotharmel@liskow.com -- at Liskow & Lewis. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq. -- kcourington@courington-law.com -- Blaine Augusta Moore, Esq. -- bmoore@courington-law.com -- Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Esq. -- jmclaughlin@courington-law.com -- Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Esq. -- jhilbun@courington-law.com -- at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC; and Louis Oliver Oubre, Esq. -- louiso@spsr-law.com -- at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Reilly-Benton, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Esq. -- tomc@willingham-law.com -- Jeanette Seraile- Riggins, Esq. -- jeanettesr@willingham-law.com -- and Jennifer D. Zajac, Esq. -- jenniferz@willingham-law.com -- at Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Esq., Angela M. Bowlin, Esq., James H. Brown, Jr., Esq., Meredith K. Keenan, Esq., and Peter R. Tafaro, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq., Blaine Augusta Moore, Esq., and Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Esq., at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC; and Louis Oliver Oubre, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Refuses Review of Death Claim Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Helen W. Kocher's husband was an employee of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, where he was exposed to asbestos fibers in the early 1940s. He was exposed to enough asbestos fibers that they could have caused asbestosis. He died on January 3, 2007, from complications related to coronary bypass and aortic valve replacement surgery. Helen filed a death benefits claim against Bethlehem Steel and the other respondents under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. After a formal hearing, the administrative law judge dismissed the claim. Kocher appealed that decision to the Benefits Review Board, which affirmed the ALJ. Kocher petitions for review from that order, arguing that the Board and ALJ's orders were not based on substantial evidence. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a memorandum dated March 18, 2014, denied the petition for review, holding that the ALJ's credibility determination about Dr. Revels Cayton's testimony was not incredible, unreasonable, or in conflict with the preponderance of the other evidence. The ALJ, according to the Ninth Circuit, carefully explained why the other evidence Kocher offered was unconvincing. Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's holding in favor of the Respondents. The appellate case is HELEN W. KOCHER, et al., Petitioner, BRB v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM, et al., BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., ABERCROMBIE SIMMONS & GILLETTE OF FLORIDA, Respondents, NO. 12-71891, BRB NO. 11-0533 (9th Cir.). A full- text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Decision is available at http://is.gd/rcdQeWfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Junk "Willis" Suit Partially Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Donald Willis was allegedly exposed to asbestos while serving in the United States Navy between 1959 and 1980 as a result of his work with asbestos products that the Defendant allegedly sold to the U.S. Navy. In 2012, Donald Willis was diagnosed with Malignant Mesothelioma -- a form of cancer that can be caused by inhalation of asbestos particles. Donald Willis and his wife, Viola Willis, brought suit alleging a number of actions including negligence, strict liability, false representation, intentional failure to warn, premises owner/contractor liability, and loss of consortium. Donald Willis died from Malignant Mesothelioma on May 5, 2013. Viola Willis subsequently amended the complaint to include a cause of action for wrongful death and was substituted in her deceased husband's place so that she could assert his original claims. On October 3, 2013, the Defendant Metalcad Insulation Corporation moved for summary judgment or partial summary judgment in its favor, arguing that the Plaintiff cannot establish causation and, even if she could, the Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages. In an order dated March 17, 2014, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied in part and granted in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that: (1) The Plaintiff has failed to advance any evidence that the Defendant's officers, directors, or managing agents engaged in or approved of a wrongful act. The fact that California issued a general safety order regulating the amount of dust at industrial work sites and that Defendant knew of the safety order's general existence, but not its content, is a very thin reed on which to hang a case. The Plaintiff need not produce a smoking memorandum signed by the board of directors authorizing a criminal enterprise to obtain punitive damages. (2) The Plaintiff cannot show that the Defendant acted with a "willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." (3) The Plaintiff must establish that the Defendant's conduct was truly "despicable," such that it was comparable to the commission of a crime. While the Defendant's sale of dangerous asbestos-laden products was hardly laudatory, there is no evidence suggesting that the Defendant's conduct was so vile and reprehensible as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of punitive damages. The case is DONALD WILLIS AND VIOLA WILLIS, Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO PUMPS INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12CV744 BTM (DHB)(S.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Moskowitz's Decision is available at http://is.gd/bFBQHGfrom Leagle.com. Viola Willis, Plaintiff, represented by Lance Randall Stewart, Esq. -- LStewart@NapoliBern.com -- and William Y. Sung, Esq. -- WSung@NapoliBern.com -- at Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP. Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glen R. Powell, Esq. -- gpowell@gordonrees.com -- at Gordon & Rees, LLP. CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kevin D Jamison, Esq. -- kjamison@pondnorth.com -- at Pond North LLP. Crane, Co., Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Stephen P. Farkas, Esq. -- stephen.farkas@klgates.com -- and Bradley William Gunning, Esq. -- brad.gunning@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates LLP; and Kathleen L. Beiermeister, Esq. -- kbeiermeister@meagher.com -- at Meagher and Geer PLLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Charles Park, Esq., at Brydon Hugon & Parker. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Russell, Esq. -- arussell@hptylaw.com -- and Julia A. Gowin, Esq. -- jgowin@hptylaw.com -- at Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP. Metalcad Insulation Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradford J. DeJardin, Esq. -- bdejardin@mckennalong.com -- Courtney Vaudreuil, Esq. -- cvaudreuil@mckennalong.com -- and Mary T. McKelvey, Esq. -- mmckelvey@mckennalong.com -- at McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John F. Hughes, Esq. -- jhughes@gordonrees.com -- at Gordon & Rees, LLP. Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Meghan Phillips, Esq. -- meghan.phillips@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Recommends Denial of Bid to Remand PI Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recommended that the Court deny the motion to remand a diversity personal injury action filed by Mary J. Hicks against United Technologies Corporation and other defendants, finding, among other things, that UTC, which removed the case from a state court, has shown a causal nexus between the Plaintiffs' claims and UTC's conduct performed under color of a federal officer. The case is MARY J. HICKS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ALVA HICKS JR. AND MARY J. HICKS INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-393-SLR-SRF (D. Del.). A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation dated March 17, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/InGewufrom Leagle.com. Mary J. Hicks, Plaintiff, represented by Diane M. Coffey, Esq. -- DCoffey@NapoliBern.com -- at Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP. The Boeing Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant represented by Amaryah K. Bocchino, Esq. -- abocchino@mgmlaw.com -- Bryan Patrick Smith, Esq. -- bsmith@mgmlaw.com -- Jason A. Cincilla, Esq. -- jcincilla@mgmlaw.com -- Nathan David Barillo, Esq. -- nbarillo@mgmlaw.com -- and William Bruce Larson, Jr., Esq. -- wlarson@mgmlaw.com -- at Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP; and BorgWarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Matthew P. Donelson, Esq. -- mdonelson@eckertseamans.com -- at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew G. Ahern, III, Esq., and Joseph W. Benson, Esq. General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC. Georgia Pacific LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Amaryah K. Bocchino, Esq., Andrew Ross Silverman, Esq. -- asilverman@mgmlaw.com -- Jason A. Cincilla, Esq., Stephanie Elizabeth Smiertka, Esq. -- ssmiertka@mgmlaw.com -- and William Bruce Larson, Jr., Esq., at Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Amaryah K. Bocchino, Esq., Jason A. Cincilla, Esq., Ryan William Browning, Esq. -- rbrowning@mgmlaw.com -- and William Bruce Larson, Jr., Esq., at Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Joelle Florax, Esq. -- jflorax@rawle.com -- at Rawle & Henderson LLP. Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc., Defendant, represented by Ana Marina McCann, Esq. -- ammccann@mdwcg.com -- and Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq. -- JLTyler@mdwcg.com -- at Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nathan David Barillo, Esq., at Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Northrop-Grumman Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Nancy Shane Rappaport, Esq. -- nancy.rappaport@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by C. Scott Reese, Esq. -- sreese@coochtaylor.com -- at Cooch & Taylor. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq., at Swartz Campbell LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Grants Bid to Junk "Vedros" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in a March 17, 2014, order and reasons granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, in the action arising from the death of Sally Gros Vedros due to mesothelioma. Judge Barbier found that the Plaintiffs' claims against Westinghouse regarding the turbines cannot survive summary judgment, accordingly any claims by the Plaintiffs against Westinghouse based on Westinghouse's manufacturing or distributing the turbines should be dismissed with prejudice. With respect to the Plaintiffs' claims against Westinghouse based on Westinghouse's manufacturing micarta, the Court found that genuine issues of material fact are present, which preclude summary judgment. The case is VEDROS, ET AL., v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING, INC., ET AL, SECTION: J, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1198 (E.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at http://is.gd/RxMvTDfrom Leagle.com. Sally Gros Vedros, Plaintiff; Lori Vedros Kravet, Major Child of Sally Gros Vedros; Valerie Vedros White, Major Child of Sally Gros Vedros; and Gerald Vedros, Major Child of Sally Gros Vedros; represented by: Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Esq. Jonathan Brett Clement, Esq. Lauren Roussel Clement, Esq. Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Esq. ROUSSEL & CLEMENT 1714 Cannes Drive La Place, Louisiana 70068-2407 Phone: (985) 651-6591 Fax: (985) 651-6592 Albert Bossier, Jr., Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Esq. -- jfutrell@leefutrell.com -- Anita Ann Cates, Esq. -- acates@leefutrell.com -- Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq. -- gwilson@leefutrell.com -- and Richard Marshall Perles, Esq. -- rperles@leefutrell.com -- at Futrell & Perles, LLP. Onebeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq. -- ademahy@twpdlaw.com -- and Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq. -- srosamond@twpdlaw.com -- at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC; and Gary Allen Lee, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. American Employers Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq., and Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq., at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC; and Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., and Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. American Motorists Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Esq. -- bbossier@bluewilliams.com -- Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Esq. -- cgrace@bluewilliams.com -- Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Esq. -- eellinghausen@bluewilliams.com -- Erin Helen Boyd, Esq. -- eboyd@bluewilliams.com -- at Blue Williams, LLP; and Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., and Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq. at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Esq. -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Ernest G. Foundas, Esq. -- efoundas@kuchlerpolk.com -- Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Esq. -- fdeblanc@kuchlerpolk.com -- Lee Blanton Ziffer, Esq. -- lziffer@kuchlerpolk.com -- McGready Lewis Richeson, Esq. -- mricheson@kuchlerpolk.com -- Michael H. Abraham, Esq. -- mabraham@kuchlerpolk.com -- and Robert Edward Guidry, Esq. -- rguidry@kuchlerpolk.com -- at at Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Eagle, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Esq. -- suek@spsr-law.com -- Douglas Kinler, Esq. -- dkinler@spsr-law.com -- James R. Guidry, Esq. -- jguidry@spsr- law.com -- and Michael David Harold, Esq. -- michaelh@spsr- law.com -- at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Foster-Wheeler LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Esq. -- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Angela M. Bowlin, Esq. -- abowlin@frilot.com -- James H. Brown, Jr., Esq. -- jbrown@frilot.com -- Meredith K. Keenan, Esq. -- mkeenan@frilot.com -- Peter R. Tafaro, Esq. -- ptafaro@frilot.com -- and Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Esq. -- rzotti@frilot.com -- at Frilot L.L.C. McCarty Corporation, Defendant and Cross Claimants, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Esq., Douglas Kinler, Esq., James R. Guidry, Esq., and Michael David Harold, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Esq. -- klightfoot@hmhlp.com -- and Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Esq. -- rgarvey@hmhlp.com -- at Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Esq., Angela M. Bowlin, Esq., James H. Brown, Jr., Esq., Meredith K. Keenan, Esq., Peter R. Tafaro, Esq., and Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C. Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Edward T. Hayes, Esq. -- ehayes@leakeandersson.com -- Lauren Fajoni Bartlett, Esq. -- lbartlett@leakeandersson.com - - and Marc E. Devenport, Esq. -- mdevenport@leakeandersson.com -- at Leake & Andersson, LLP. Continental Insurance Co, (successor by merger to Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York), Defendant, represented by Glenn Gill Goodier, Esq. -- ggoodier@joneswalker.com -- and William P. Wynne, Esq. -- bwynne@joneswalker.com -- at Jones Walker. J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., David Leroy Hoskins, Esq., and Richard Marshall Perles, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross Claimants, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Esq., Anita Ann Cates, Esq., David Leroy Hoskins, Esq., and Richard Marshall Perles, Esq., at Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP; Brian C. Bossier, Esq., Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Esq., Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Esq., and Erin Helen Boyd, Esq., at Blue Williams, LLP; & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Esq. -- trotharmel@liskow.com -- at Liskow & Lewis. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq. -- kcourington@courington-law.com -- Blaine Augusta Moore, Esq. -- bmoore@courington-law.com -- Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Esq. -- jmclaughlin@courington-law.com -- Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Esq. -- jhilbun@courington-law.com -- at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC; and Louis Oliver Oubre, Esq. -- louiso@spsr-law.com -- at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Reilly-Benton, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Esq. -- tomc@willingham-law.com -- Jeanette Seraile- Riggins, Esq. -- jeanettesr@willingham-law.com -- and Jennifer D. Zajac, Esq. -- jenniferz@willingham-law.com -- at Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Esq., Angela M. Bowlin, Esq., James H. Brown, Jr., Esq., Meredith K. Keenan, Esq., and Peter R. Tafaro, Esq., at Frilot L.L.C. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Esq., Blaine Augusta Moore, Esq., and Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Esq., at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC; and Louis Oliver Oubre, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court to Deny Bid to Junk "Davis" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Harry A. Davis and Madonna S. Davis filed an action for injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos against a multitude of defendants. Defendant Paccar, Inc., filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for Failure to Comply with Florida's Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act. Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, upon finding that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of Section 774.205(2) of the Act, recommended that the motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the Act be granted, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be denied as moot, and ordered that the motion to stay all discovery and pretrial deadlines is granted. The magistrate judge held that if the District Court affirms the recommendation of dismissal, the District Court should thereafter permit the Plaintiffs 45 days to file an amended complaint addressing certain deficiencies. The case is HARRY A. DAVIS and MADONNA S. DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1185-SLR-CJB (D. Del.). A full-text copy of Judge Burke's report and recommendation dated Feb. 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/YXiQRZfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. Court Affirms Ruling in "Paulus" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' decedent, William Paulus, died from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. After trial, a jury found defendant and respondent Crane Co. 10% responsible for plaintiffs' damages. Crane appeals, arguing: (1) 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 decedent's mesothelioma; and (2) the trial court erred in not reducing the damages awarded against it to account for settlements plaintiffs could obtain from other potentially liable parties' bankruptcy trusts. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three, in a decision dated March 24, 2014, rejected both arguments and affirmed the lower court's ruling. 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 Decision is available at http://is.gd/kruAAJfrom 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. Ma. Cristina Canson, 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 * * *