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 Purísima 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  * * *