CAR_Public/140704.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, July 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 132

                             Headlines


1443 YORK GOTHAM: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
ACADIAN AMBULANCE: July 24 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
ALLIANCE ONE: Sued in Pa. Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
AMERICAN SALES: "Cuni" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Damages
AMERIGROUP NEW YORK: Faces "Bijoux" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime

BOSTON POST: "Checo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRAKER-PARK: "Soomoro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CAPITAL ONE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fee Class Action
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Has Made Unsolicited Call, "Staveley" Suit Says
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces "Reo" Suit in Ohio Over TCPA Violations

CATERPILLAR INC: Sued in Colo. Over Defective Emission Controls
CHEVRON FEDERAL: Sued Over Collection of Excessive Overdraft Fees
COINTERRA: Seeks Mediation in Breach of Contract Litigation
CONRAD ROOFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Klek" Suit Claims
COVISINT CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York

DAVISON PUBLISHING: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax, Suit Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
FIRSTMERIT BANK: Faces "Hess" Suit Over Inaccessible Facilities
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Water Contamination Class Suits Consolidated
GENERAL MOTORS: "Favro" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL

GENERAL MOTORS: "Forbes" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Foster" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Higginbotham" Suit Joined in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "McCarthy" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Nava" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL

GENERAL MOTORS: "Ross" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Ruff" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Saclo" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Salerno" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: "Spangler" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL

GENERAL MOTORS: "Villa" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: Temporary Lead Counsel Appointed in Ignition Suits
GENERAL MOTORS: Deaths Linked to Faulty Ignition-Switches Rise
GENZYME CORP: Faces Class Action Over Gaucher Disease Drug
GLOBAL AIRCRAFT: "Venegas" Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Overtime

GRACE CAR WASH: Faces "Nabay" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
HERTZ CORP: Settles Class Action Over Toll Charges for $14 Mil.
HERTZ GLOBAL: Seeks Dismissal of Investor Class Action
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Autonomy Deal
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action

HIBACHI SUPREME: "Heard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
IC SYSTEM: Faces "Rush" Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations
J&J PAVING: Fails to Pay OT, "Espindola" Suit Claims
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settles PAGA Class Action for $2.8 Million
K-LINE: Recalls Soul Due to Improperly Applied Adhesive

KANGAROO PAK: Faces "Qi" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over Unpaid Overtime
KENDALL SPRINKLER: "Wall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KI MAMA RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LE MAITRE: Recalls St-Hubert Chicken Pies Due to Swollen Packages
MAGNUM HUNTER: Judge Dismisses New York Securities Class Action

MATTRESS GIANT: Faces "Nuez" Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MEDIN CORP: 401(k) Plan Trustee Sued Over Illegal Use of Funds
MODE CHOC: Recalls Baby Sleepers Due to Flammability Hazard
MOTOR COACH: Recalls D4000, D4500 & D4505 Buses Due to Defects
MOTOR COACH: Recalls 102DL3 & D4505 Buses Due to Steering Control

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Parties Revise Settlement in Concussion Litigation
NEW YORK TIMES: Faces "Rabin" Suit for Overcharging Subscription
NICHOLAS DIPAOLO: Sued Over Breach of Securities Exchange Act
NORTH OLMSTED, OH: Residents Urged to Join Flooding Class Action
OCWEN FINANCIAL: NC Residents to Receive Settlement Claim Forms

OFFICE DEPOT: Recalls Gibson Leather Task Chair
PAYTIME HARRISBURG: Accused of Breaching Contract in Pennsylvania
PERFORMANCE PLUMBING: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
PISTILLI REALTY: Faces "Tesen" Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
REPUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Billing Practices

ROUGE VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Breach
SAROMA CORP: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
SEMINOLE WIND: "Kenny" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SESAMECOL Recalls Al Fakher Tahina Due to Salmonella
SHOWROOM CONDITION: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

SIEMENS AG: Recalls Artis Zeego and Artis Zee Systems
SIEMENS SHANGHAI: Recalls Somatom Emotion 16-Slice Configuration
SPORTS MASKA: Recalls Reebok Goalie Throat Collars
STAWNICHY'S MEAT: Recalls Meat Products Due to Undeclared Wheat
STAWNICHY'S MEAT: Recalls Soups Due to Undeclared Milk, Wheat, Soy

T-BROTHERS FOOD: Recalls Korepab Potato Pizza (Crackers)
TAMKO BUILDING: Faces "Disher" Suit Alleging Product Liability
TD BANK: Sued in Pa. Over Processing of Debts from Payday Lenders
TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: Sued Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
TJX CANADA: Recalls Fahrenheit 1600W Hair Dryer

UNDER THE NILE: Recalls Side-Tie Kimonos
UNITED HEALTH: Fails to Make Benefit Payments, Suit Claims
UNO FOODS: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee
VENEZIA'S NY STYLE: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Cole" Suit Claims
VW CREDIT: Faces "Byrd" Suit in C.D. Cal. Over Unsolicited Calls

WAL-MART INC: Averts Equate False Advertising Class Action
WYCEN FOODS: Recalls Lot 100 Pudding Due to Undeclared Milk
ZOLL MEDICAL: Faces "Laster" Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over Unpaid Wages


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Shows Bankr. Does Not Trump Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal-Mogul Trust Wins $9.3MM Fibro Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs Object to Garlock's Claims Deadlines
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Unit Increases Net Fibro Reserves by $19MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,310 Outstanding Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Continues to Defend PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Had 311 Pending Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Had 550 Pending Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Office Depot Unit Has Responsibility Over Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Recon Ruling in "Lipson" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Air Act Suit v. Colorado Agencies Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Proceed with Civil Rights Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Denies Bid to Remand "McMann" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Court Dismisses Suit v. Soft Drinks Companies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Refuses to Remand "Osterhout" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insured Awarded $650,000 in Breach of Duty Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Award to Sears, et al., Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Patrico" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Pettinelli" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Or. Ct. Upholds $800,000 Award in Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Inmate's Civil Rights Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Edison Dropped as Defendant in Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms $990,000 Judgment in PI Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Scott" Suit Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Shewmake" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Doctor Affidavit in PI Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Convictions in Clean Air Act Suit Vacated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retrial Bid in Improper Fibro Removal Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Ward" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Adler" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Auth. Defense Costs in Insurance Suit OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates Allowed to Amend Civil Rights Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand South Carolina Take-Home Suit OK'd

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Gypsum, Quigley Can Pursue Claims v. G-I
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing Set for Bids to Access Garlock Files
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankr. Court Junks Tax Claim v. Predecessor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leave to Appeal Ruling in "Suttner" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tishman Dropped as Defendant in "Houston" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Order Dismissing Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Stay "Morvant" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Ricks" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alabama Dist. Court Dismisses Inmate's Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Trust Dropped as Defendant in "Bell" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Reverses Ruling in "Graver" PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Defendants Granted Summary Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Dismissing Suit v. Law Firm Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton May Rebut Class Suit Presumption
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Re-Open Discovery in PI Suit Denied


                            *********


1443 YORK GOTHAM: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Adalberto Navarro Flores, Aureliano Tapia And Israel Juarez
Luna, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
1443 York Gotham Pizza Inc., (d/b/a Gotham Pizza), 144 Ninth
Gotham Pizza, Inc., (d/b/a Gotham Pizza), 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza
Inc. (d/b/a Gotham Pizza), 852 Eight Gotham Pizza Inc. (d/b/a
Gotham Pizza), Michael Shamailov, Lana Shamailov, Case No. 1:14-
cv-04563 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime premiums, liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Gotham Pizza is comprised of 1443 York Gotham Pizza, Inc., 1667
First Gotham Pizza, Inc., 144 Ninth Gotham Pizza, Inc., 852 Eighth
Gotham Pizza Inc. and 852 Eight Gotham Pizza Inc., that act in
partnership with one another in the operation and management of a
chain of pizzerias in the state of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


ACADIAN AMBULANCE: July 24 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Goff, writing for The Advertiser, reports that there are
440 Louisiana residents who have filed claims that they were
overcharged by Acadian Ambulance for services sometime in the last
decade.

A hearing on a proposed settlement in the $5.9 million class
action lawsuit against the Lafayette-based ambulance company was
scheduled for June 27 in Avoyelles Parish.

The lawsuit, Keisha Desselle, et al., vs. Acadian Ambulance
Service, accuses the company of billing and collecting higher fees
than the agreed amounts by insurance carriers, attorney Larry
Centola said.

The suit alleges that Acadian was providing services to insured
customers at an insurance approved reduced rate for medical
emergencies such as heart attacks.  However, if a third party was
at fault in a car accident for example, Acadian would bill
individual patients in full, not through the insurance company,
Mr. Centola said.

"What Acadian was doing is that if a person was in a car wreck the
company was not talking the health insurance and instead billing
the individual for the third party liability car insurance for a
higher amount," Mr. Centola said.

The class action lawsuit involves people who were billed by or
paid for services from Acadian between Jan. 1, 1994, and Dec. 31,
2013.  The deadline to file a claim is July 24.

Details about the suit can be found at www.acadianclass2.com


ALLIANCE ONE: Sued in Pa. Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrey Krylyuk on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc.; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-03845 (E.D. Pa., June 23,
2014) is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc., is engaged in the
business of debt collection within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


AMERICAN SALES: "Cuni" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Cuni and Hector Dominguez, on their own behalf and others
similarly situated v. American Sales and Management Organization,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and Livan Acosta,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22349 (S.D. Fla., June 24, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under Fair Labor
Standards Act.

American Sales and Management Organization, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company that provides cabin cleaning services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      THE SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Hwy., Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com
              gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew Ira Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road,
      Building 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone:(305) 726-0060
      Facsimile: (305) 726-0046
      E-mail: Jaffe.glenn@me.com
              aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


AMERIGROUP NEW YORK: Faces "Bijoux" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luc A. Bijoux and Juan Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Amerigroup New York, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-03891 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation for the Plaintiffs and their similarly
situated co-workers who have worked for the Defendant in New York
as Medicaid Marketing Representatives.

Amerigroup New York, LLC, is an insurance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel M. Bien, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor,
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
      E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com

           - and -

     Marijana F. Matura, Esq.
     Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
     SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
     510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 499-9100
     Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
     E-mail: mm@shulmankessler.com
             tk@shulmankessler.com


BOSTON POST: "Checo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Checo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Boston Post Road Food Corp. (d/b/a C-Town), and Ramon
Vargas, Case No. 1:14-cv-04565 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Boston Post Road Food Corp., is a supermarket owned by Ramon
Vargas, located at 4008-4010 Boston Post Road, Bronx, New York
10475.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


BRAKER-PARK: "Soomoro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Nisar Soomro, and all others similarly situated v. Braker-Park LP,
Fuel Management GP LLC, Leemak LP, Leemak GP LLC, Montopolis BK
LLC, North Dallas Petroleum LP, Northwest Petroleum LP, QMart
Stassney LLC, SHF Properties LLC, Travis County Investments LP,
Travis County Investments GP LLC, Fazil Malik, and, Ayaz Malik,
Case No. 4:14-cv-01748 (S.D. Tex., June 23, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Braker-Park LP, Fuel Management GP LLC, Leemak LP, Leemak GP LLC,
Montopolis BK LLC, North Dallas Petroleum LP, Northwest Petroleum
LP, QMart Stassney LLC, SHF Properties LLC, Travis County
Investments LP, Travis County Investments GP LLC, Fazil Malik,
and, Ayaz Malik, are Chevron branded gasoline stations and
convenience stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
      ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
      One Arena Place, 7322
      Southwest Frwy, Suite 1920
      Houston, TX 77074
      Telephone: (713) 223-1300
      Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
      E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


CAPITAL ONE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fee Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge on June 23 found for the third time that national banking
regulations don't protect Capital One NA from a class action over
allegedly illegal overdraft fee practices, saying a recent Ninth
Circuit preemption decision does not thwart the account holders'
state law claims.

U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King distinguished the
accusations that Capital One manipulated the sequence on debit
card transactions to generate excessive overdraft fees from
similar California-based claims against Wells Fargo & Co. that the
Ninth Circuit found in December 2012 were preempted by the
National Bank Act.

Known as Gutierrez, that ruling vacated a $203 million judgment
against Wells Fargo and said that the NBA allows banks to dictate
the order in which they process transactions and charge fees as
"part and parcel" to the process of setting prices for consumer
checking accounts.

Federal courts grappling with Gutierrez have determined that state
law claims surrounding overdraft fees could still survive under
the ruling, according to Judge King.  The judge followed their
lead, ruling that while the plaintiffs were prohibited from
challenging Capital One's right to charge overdraft fees, they
were free to allege that the bank abused that right or acted in
bad faith.

The judge therefore concluded that Gutierrez neither controls the
analysis of the case nor presented an intervening change in
presiding law that that would require him to revisit two previous
rulings that denied the bank's preemption arguments.

The plaintiffs' attorney Bruce S. Rogow told Law360 that the
ruling is only the latest district court decision to distinguish
Gutierrez based on the unique California claims at issue there.

"The fact that all of these cases are alive and well post-
Gutierrez is the proper way to view Gutierrez in light of the
allegations made in all of these other cases," he said.  "This
[case] doesn't affect banks' deposit-taking powers in a way that
would take it into the preemption areas.  There is an area in
which the banks cannot hide behind preemption."

The case is one of less than a dozen still kicking around in the
once-massive multidistrict litigation comprising overdraft fee
suits that popped up all around the country in the late 2000s.

The suits all took issue with banks' practice of deducting money
from accounts not in chronological order but based on the size of
transactions, alleging it was designed to maximize the number of
overdraft fees.  With Gutierrez the notable exception, the bulk of
the suits were clustered in Florida, where they mostly prevailed
on class certification.

Although some banks were able to compel arbitration based on
provisions in their customer agreements, those that were not --
including JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Bank of America NA and TD Bank
NA -- have settled for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Judge King first addressed the preemption issue in a March 2010
omnibus order, before the Capital One case joined the MDL, and
found that the plaintiffs' attack on the way in which banks
operate their overdraft programs "do not more than incidentally
affect the bank's exercise of their deposit taking power."

Capital One subsequently filed -- and lost -- a separate motion to
dismiss on preemption grounds, but after that ruling the Eleventh
Circuit decided a preemption case captioned Baptista v. JP Morgan
Chase Bank NA.  The banks in the MDL, Capital One included, then
failed to persuade Judge King that Baptista compelled the reversal
of the omnibus order.

Capital One mounted the preemption case a third time in a October
by filing the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings, which
Judge King treated as a motion for reconsideration of his earlier
decisions.  In addition to denying the motion, the judge also
barred the bank yet again from seeking immediate review with the
appeals court.

The Gutierrez plaintiffs, meanwhile, saw their judgment against
Wells Fargo reinstated in May 2013 when U.S. District Judge
William Alsup found that the penalty could stand under an
anti-fraud prong of California's unfair competition law that was
left untouched by the Ninth Circuit's decision.  The case is now
on appeal a second time.

The plaintiffs are represented by Bruce S. Rogow of Bruce S. Rogow
PA; and Aaron S. Podhurst, Robert C. Josefsberg, Steven C. Marks,
Peter Prieto, Stephen F. Rosenthal and John Gravante III of
Podhurst Orseck PA.

Capital One is represented by James R. McGuire --
jmcguire@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The case is Steen v. Capital One NA et al., case number 1:10-cv-
22058, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

The MDL is In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, case
number 1:09-md-02036, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Has Made Unsolicited Call, "Staveley" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Staveley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04889
(C.D. Cal., June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently or intentionally contacting the Plaintiff on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., is a national cruise sales company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces "Reo" Suit in Ohio Over TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Reo and Bryan Reo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-01374 (N.D. Ohio, June 24, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently contacting Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs'
landline, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., is a national cruise sales company in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART
     Ste. 101, 2221 Camino Del Rio
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: (619) 233-7770
     Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
     E-mail josh@westcoastlitigation.com

          - and -

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
     Ste. D1, 245 Fischer Avenue
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Tel: (800) 400-6808 x 5
     Fax: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: ml@kazlg.com


CATERPILLAR INC: Sued in Colo. Over Defective Emission Controls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that Caterpillar Inc. was
hit with a putative class action in Colorado federal court on
June 24, alleging its heavy-duty on-highway diesel engines,
designed to adhere to 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
emissions regulations, contain a design defect that requires
extensive repairs and replacements.

The suit claims Caterpillar's 2007-2010 model C-13 and C-15
engines have defective exhaust emission controls that cause the
vehicles to be unreliable for transportation and cannot be fixed
despite repeated repair attempts.

The engines' exhaust emission control systems regularly detect
warning and shutdown readings from the software used to regulate
and monitor certain components, causing the vehicle to require
authorized exhaust emission control diagnoses that eventually are
unable to rectify the problem, the suit says.

"This caused plaintiff and class members to incur significant
damages in the diminution of the value of their vehicles, but also
in the cost of replacing the . . .  engines with other EPA 2007
Emission Standard compliant heavy-duty, on-highway, diesel
engines," the complaint said.

Lead plaintiff K Double D Inc. said it purchased a vehicle
featuring the 2007 heavy-duty on-highway diesel engine that
suffered engine and regeneration problems, costing it thousands of
dollars in damages.

The problems began during the warranty period for the engine, with
numerous and various faults detected in the emissions exhaust
controls, which triggered warning, derating and shutdown,
necessitating delivery of the vehicle to an authorized repair
facility for emissions warranty work, the suit says.

The lead plaintiff said that even though extensive repair work was
completed, the engine experienced repeated instances of warning
lights illuminating, engine derating and shutdown, regeneration
failure and more, as well as other failures that prevented it from
working properly.

"Despite defendant's numerous attempts to correct the . . .
failures, the . . . engine exhaust emission controls do not
function as required under all operating conditions, and will not
do so for the expected life of the vehicle," the complaint said.

The suit alleges the engines were designed to comply with a 2007
EPA regulation that required heavy-duty, on-highway, diesel
emission engines to phase in exhaust emissions control technology
that lowers emission rates under the Clean Air Act.

After the EPA's final rule was released, Caterpillar launched a
design project to create an engine-independent, self-regenerating
diesel particulate filter, going through various designs before
landing on its 2007 through 2010 models.

The lead plaintiff asked the judge to certify a class of all
vehicle owners and lessees who purchased or leased a vehicle
containing the engines.  The suit includes claims of breach of
express and implied warranty, negligence, unfair and deceptive
acts and more.

The lead plaintiff is represented by Richard J. Burke and Jamie E.
Weiss of Complex Litigation Group LLC and Jonathan Shub --
jshub@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss LLP and Mitchell Baker.

The suit is K Double D Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., case number 1:14-
cv-01760, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.


CHEVRON FEDERAL: Sued Over Collection of Excessive Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo E. Roque, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Chevron Federal Credit Union Financial
Services, Inc., a New York Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01531
(S.D. Cal., June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
the alleged improper and excessive assessment and collection of
overdraft fees.

Chevron Federal Credit Union Financial Services, Inc., is a
nationwide Credit Union which serves employees of Chevron
Corporation and its retirees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc Phelps, Esq.
      THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-4735
      Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
      E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com


COINTERRA: Seeks Mediation in Breach of Contract Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cyrus Farivar, writing for Ars Technica, reports that yet another
Bitcoin miner manufacturer, CoinTerra, now faces legal action for
not fulfilling an order when it originally promised to.  CoinTerra
is the third Bitcoin-related startup to face litigation for breach
of contract and/or fraud in recent months.

The CoinTerra lawsuit was filed in late April 2014 by an Oakland,
California-based man seeking to be the lead plaintiff in a
proposed class-action lawsuit.  Lautaro Cline, the suit alleges,
purchased a TerraMiner IV in October 2013 for delivery by January
2014.  The company promised, he claims, that this miner would
operate at two terahashes per second and would consume 1,200 watts
of power.  It did neither.

However, Mr. Cline's suit also claims that CoinTerra did not
deliver the miner until February 2014, and it "operated well below
the speed advertised and consumed significantly more power than
CoinTerra represented, causing Plaintiff to suffer significant
lost profits and opportunities."

Neither CoinTerra nor its attorneys responded to Ars' request for
comment.

Mr. Cline's attorney, Edward Mullins, told Ars that his client and
CoinTerra are currently seeking mediation -- an arrangement that
takes place privately and outside of the court system where the
two sides negotiate a deal.

"We hope to have it resolved sometime this summer," Mr. Mullins
said.  "If it doesn't work out then we will go forward [with the
lawsuit.]"

CoinTerra formally asked the court for more time so it could
arrange mediation.


CONRAD ROOFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Klek" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leszek Klek, on behalf of himself and other Plaintiffs similarly
situated v. Conrad Roofing of Illinois, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
04741 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay wages and overtime wages.

Conrad Roofing of Illinois, Inc., is a Chicago, Illinois company
that provides a variety of roofing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq.
      Martin K. Denis, Esq.
      BARLOW KOBATA & DENIS
      525 W. Monroe St., #2360
      Chicago, IL 60661
      Telephone: (312) 648-5570
      E-mail: bhilbert@bkd-law.com
              mdenis@bkd-law.com


COVISINT CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 25 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Covisint Corporation and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Covisint securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Covisint's September 26, 2013 initial public offering (the "IPO").
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Covisint securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 29, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.

A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at 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.

Covisint provides a cloud engagement platform in the United States
and internationally.  Its platform enables organizations to
connect, engage, and collaborate with distributed communities of
customers, business partners, and suppliers; and allows
organizations with external business relationships to create,
streamline, and automate external business processes that involve
the secure exchange of and access to critical information from
various sources.

The Complaint alleges that Covisint's Registration Statement, and
the documents referenced and incorporated therein, negligently
failed to disclose the following material facts which existed at
the time of the IPO: (i) that the Company was experiencing a
greater than expected decline in its subscription revenue due to
poor sales execution and late-stage pipeline conversion issues;
(ii) that the Company was facing increased competition in its
services segment as customers were not adding services at a rate
consistent with expectations; (iii) that the Company was
experiencing a decline in General Motors-related service revenue;
(iv) that the Company was losing healthcare customers at an
increasing rate and its pipeline of healthcare-related deals was
steadily declining and included numerous deals that were not
likely to be consummated; and (v) as a result of the foregoing,
there was no reasonable basis to "expect" revenues for 2014 to
increase by 20% from 2013.  These known, but undisclosed, facts
had a material adverse effect on Covisint's operating results
during its fourth quarter and fiscal 2014 full-year.

Shares of Covisint have declined $4.72 per share from the IPO
price of $10.00 per share, or more than 47%, to close at $5.28 on
June 13, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm concentrates its practice in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.  Founded by
the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions.  Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz
Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the
rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duty, and corporate misconduct.  The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.


DAVISON PUBLISHING: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Popular Carpet Distributors, Inc., a New York Corporation,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Davison Publishing Company, LLC and Simmons - Boardman
Publishing Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04678 (S.D.N.Y., June 24,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for sending or having an
agent send unsolicited faxed advertisements, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Davison Publishing Company, LLC and Simmons - Boardman
Publishing Corporation, are Florida-based publishing corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 725,
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


FACEBOOK INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Facebook has
filed a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit against it for allegedly
violating users' privacy by using data from private messages to
generate targeted advertisements.

Facebook believes the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
under the Wiretap Act, according to Facebook's motion to dismiss,
which was file June 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

"Plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claim fails as a matter of law for three
separate reasons: (1) Plaintiffs have not alleged (and cannot
allege) an actionable 'interception;' (2) they consented to the
alleged interceptions; and (3) the challenged conduct does not
involve communications acquired 'during transmission,' but instead
involves 'stored communications' not governed by the Wiretap Act,"
the motion states.

By creating a free Facebook account -- a necessary prerequisite to
sending or receiving a Facebook message -- every user agrees to
Facebook's terms of service and further affirms that he or she has
reviewed the disclosures in Facebook's Data Use Policy.

The Data Use Policy provides "important disclosures about how [a
user] can use Facebook to share with others and how [Facebook]
collect[s] and can use [user] content and information," according
to the motion.

Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley, and David Shadpour each admit
they established a Facebook account and reviewed and agreed to
these policies before electing to use Facebook's free services,
the motion states.

Because the shortcomings in the class action complaint go to the
plaintiffs' theory, and are not mere technical pleading defects,
allowing further amendment would be futile, the motion states. The
complaint should be dismissed with prejudice, it says.

In the complaint, the plaintiff claim contrary to its
representation, "private" Facebook messages are systematically
intercepted by the company in an effort to learn the contents of
the users' communications.

The complaint was first filed on Dec. 30.  It was consolidated
with another similar privacy complaint on April 15.

During the course of the last year, independent security
researchers discovered that Facebook reviews the contents of its
users' private Facebook messages for purposes unrelated to the
facilitation of message transmission, according to the complaint.

"When a user composes a Facebook message and includes a link to a
third part website . . . the company scans the content of the
Facebook message, follows the enclosed link and searches for
information to profile the message-sender's web activity," the
complaint states.

This practice is not done to facilitate the transmission of users'
communications via Facebook, but, because it enables Facebook to
mine user data and profit from those data by sharing them with
third parties-namely advertisers, marketers and other data
aggregators, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking an order determining that the action
may be maintained as a class action; judgment against Facebook for
the asserted causes; appropriate declaratory relief against
Facebook; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against
Facebook; and statutory damages.  They are represented by Michael
W. Sobol, Melissa Gardner, Rachel Geman and Nicholas Diamand of
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; and Hank Bates --
hbates@cbplaw.com -- Allen Carney and David Slade of Carney Bates
& Pulliam PLLC.

Facebook is represented by Joshua A. Jessen --
jjessen@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 4:13-cv-05996


FIRSTMERIT BANK: Faces "Hess" Suit Over Inaccessible Facilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Hess, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Firstmerit Bank, National Association, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00817 (W.D. Pa., June 23, 2014), alleges that the Defendant's
facilities are not fully accessible to, and   independently usable
by individuals who use wheelchairs.

Firstmerit Bank is headquartered at 106 South Main Street, Akron,
OH 44308.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Water Contamination Class Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an order to
consolidate five class action lawsuits involving the water
contamination crisis in West Virginia in January has been filed in
federal court.

The five class action lawsuits were consolidated because they all
involve damages and injuries sustained from the water
contamination crisis in which a chemical called MCHM was released
from a Freedom Industries facility in to the Elk River on Jan. 9
and affected nine West Virginia counties.

The defendants in the lawsuit include American Water Works
Company; American Water Works Service Company; Chemstream Inc.;
Eastman Chemical Company; J. Clifford Forrest; Freedom Industries
LLC; West Virginia American Water Company; Mountaineer Funding
LLC; WV Funding LLC; Etowah River Terminal LLC; Gary Southern; and
the Dow Chemical Company.

The plaintiffs filed a joint motion to consolidate on March 28.

"Our court of appeals affords broad discretion to district courts
in assessing the desirability of consolidation, recognizing the
superiority of the trial court in determining how best to
structure similar pieces of litigation," the June 3 order states.

It has also provided guidelines for exercising that discretion,
according to the order.

"Those guidelines essentially balance the specific risks of
prejudice and possible confusion with the potential for
inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues and
the burden on available judicial resources posed by multiple
lawsuits.  Efficiency from a time and cost perspective are also
considered."

The risk of inconsistent adjudications, substantial expense to the
parties and inefficient use of court resources markedly increases
here if the court declines consolidation at least to some extent,
according to the order.

The court ordered that the five cases be consolidated for all case
events up to and including the conclusion of discovery, at which
time the court will consider further efforts to coordinate and
streamline the litigation, according to the order.

"The purpose of consolidation is to best serve the interests of
the judicial economy," the plaintiffs' March 28 memorandum in
support of the consolidation motion stated.  "Rule 42 is designed
to give the court broad discretion to decide how cases on its
docket are to be tried, to 'promote judicial dispatch and economy
and to guarantee substantial justice to the parties.'"

The plaintiffs claim the tank storing the MCHM at Freedom's
facility was built using rivet construction in the 1930s and on
Jan. 9, government officials discovered a licorice smell
originating from Freedom's facility, according to complaints filed
in January soon after the spill in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia.

Freedom did not self-report the leak of MCHM, although it had an
obligation to do so immediately, according to the suits.

The plaintiffs claim airborne release of MCHM from the facility
caused chemical air pollution, resulting in ambient concentrations
well above the odor threshold for the chemical over an area of
several square miles and over a period of several days after the
Jan. 9 release.

West Virginia-American Water reported that only 2,000 to 5,000
gallons of MCHM leaked into the Elk River, however, that number is
as yet unknown, with recent estimates of 7,500, according to the
suits.

Eastman is the exclusive U.S. manufacturer of MCHM and Eastman had
a duty to make full disclosure on Material Safety Data Sheets for
MCHM under the Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act and
to reflect accurately the state of knowledge of the medical and
scientific communities about the toxicity of MCHM.

Eastman placed MCHM into interstate commerce and issued MSDS
sheets and other warning data that were inadequate and not
protective.

The plaintiffs claimed Southern, Freedom's president, knew or
should have known about the conditions at the facility and is acts
and omissions in ignoring obvious threats to the environment and
failure to take appropriate steps to mitigate them directly
contributed to the plaintiff's damages.

The chemical spill tainted more than 300,000 WVAWC customers'
water in parts of nine counties across the state.

The Center for Disease Control advised pregnant women to not drink
tap water until the chemical is completely gone from the water.

Freedom filed for bankruptcy protection in January.  On Jan. 29,
Freedom's suggestion of bankruptcy was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston.

"The United States Bankruptcy Code, Section 362(a) (1), (2), (4),
(5) and (6) provide that the filing of a petition operates as a
stay of the continuation of any action or proceeding against the
debtor, any action or proceeding to recover a claim against the
debtor to enforce a judgment obtained that arose before the
commencement of the case, to create, perfect or enforce any lien,
or to collect or recover a claim that arose before the
commencement of the case," the document states.

Southern signed a bankruptcy petition, estimating Freedom's debts
at $10 million or less, but the cost of the water contamination
disaster is likely to run much higher.

The plaintiffs are being represented by David R. Barney Jr. and
Kevin W. Thompson of Thompson Barney; Van Bunch -- vbunch@bffb.com
-- of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint; Sean Cassidy, Stuart H.
Smith, Michael G. Stag and Stephen H. Wussow of Smith Stag; and P.
Rodney Jackson of the Law Office of P. Rodney Jackson.

American Water Works Company, American Water Works Service Company
and West Virginia American Water Company are being represented by
William C. Ballard -- wcballard@jacksonkelly.com -- of Jackson
Kelly.

Mountaineer Funding and WV Funding are being represented by
Charles J. Kaiser Jr., Jeffery D. Kaiser and Denise Knouse-Snyder
-- denisesnyder@pgka.com -- of Phillips Gardill Kaiser & Altmeyer.

Chemstream is being represented by Niall A. Paul --
npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman Thomas & Battle.

Freedom is being represented by Stephen L. Thompson --
sthompson@barth-thompson.com -- of Barth & Thompson.

Eastman is being represented by Marc E. Williams --
marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com -- of Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
case number: 2:14-cv-01374


GENERAL MOTORS: "Favro" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Hilarie Favro v. General Motors
LLC, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00690, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04752-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Michael L. Kelly, Esq.
          Heather Marie Baker, Esq.
          KIRTLAND AND PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecreans Avenue, Suite 300
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmb@kirtlandpackard.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Forbes" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Forbes v. General Motors, LLC,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02018, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04798-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq.
          Joanne E. Matusko, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
                  dgallucci@nastlaw.com
                  jmatusko@nastlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Francis J. Grey, Esq.
          RICCI TYRRELL JOHNSON & GREY
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F Kennedy Boulevard
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-3260
          Facsimile: (215) 320-3261
          E-mail: fgrey@rtjglaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Foster" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Foster v. General Motors LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00844, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04775-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew T. Legando, Esq.
          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN
          1360 West Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com
                  jack@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN - SAN FRANCISCO
          3000 Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  twalburg@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Sudarsana Srinivasan, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                  dsrinivasan@lchb.com

               - and -

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          LACKEY HERSHMAN LLP
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 560-2232
          Facsimile: (214) 560-2203
          E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net

               - and -

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          6810 FM 1960 W
          Houston, TX 77069
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
          E-mail: ere@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eugene R. Egdorf, Esq.
          LANIER LAW FIRM PC
          6810 FM 1960 West
          Houston, TX 77069
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
          E-mail: ere@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          Eric B. Snyder, Esq.
          BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
                  esnyder@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          Robin Greenwald, Esq.
          WEITZ AND LUXENBERG PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5856
          Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
                  rgreenwald@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP PA
          404 Court Square North
          PO Box 987
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2376
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel Miles, III
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES
          272 Commerce Street
          P.O. Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

Defendants General Motors L.L.C. and General Motors Holding, LLC
are represented by:

          Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq.
          Leonid Feller, Esq.
          Robert B. Ellis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2482
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
                  lfeller@kirkland.com
                  robert.ellis@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Johanna Fabrizio Parker, Esq.
          Stanley Weiner, Esq.
          JONES DAY - CLEVELAND
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 586-7263
          Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
          E-mail: jfparker@jonesday.com
                  sweiner@jonesday.com

Defendant Delphi Automotive PLC is represented by:

          Eugene A. Schoon, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: eschoon@sidley.com

               - and -

          Joyce D. Edelman, Esq.
          PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR
          41 South High Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 227-2083
          Facsimile: (614) 227-2100
          E-mail: jedelman@porterwright.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Higginbotham" Suit Joined in Ignition Switch MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Higginbotham v. General Motors
LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00306, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04759-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Slade, Esq.
          James Allen Carney, Jr., Esq.
          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: dslade@cbplaw.com
                  acarney@cbplaw.com
                  hbates@cbplaw.com
                  rpulliam@carneywilliams.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "McCarthy" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled McCarthy v. General Motors LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00895, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04758-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
          Bruce S. Kingsdorf, Esq.
          Zachary Logan Wool, Esq.
          BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
          One Shell Square
          701 Poydras St., Suite 3650
          New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
          Telephone: (504) 524-3300
          E-mail: barrios@bkc-law.com
                  kingsdorf@bkc-law.com
                  zwool@bkc-law.com

               - and -

          Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq.
          Morris Bart, III, Esq.
          MORRIS BART, LLC (NEW ORLEANS)
          909 Poydras St., Suite 2000
          New Orleans, LA 70112-4000
          Telephone: (504) 599-3385
          Facsimile: (504) 599-3380
          E-mail: malvarez@morrisbart.com

Defendant General Motors L.L.C. is represented by:

          Thomas A. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          201 St Charles Ave., 49th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 582-8000
          Facsimile: (504) 589-8294
          E-mail: tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Nava" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Sonia Nava v. General Motors,
LLC, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00755, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04754-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM PC
          3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: adrianne@desai-law.com
                  aashish@desai-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Ross" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ross, et al. v. General Motors
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02148, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04756-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robin Greenwald, Esq.
          James Jackson Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5802
          E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
                  jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian K. Herrington, Esq.
          Sterling Starns, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          404 Court Square North
          Po Box 927
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-9168
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P.
          275 Battery Street
          Embarcadero Center W.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  twalburg@lchb.com

               - and -

          Wilson D. Miles, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

Defendants General Motors L.L.C. and General Motors Holding, LLC
are represented by:

          Lisa Verna LeCointe-Cephas, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4721
          Facsimile: (212) 446-6460
          E-mail: lisa.lecointe-cephas@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Ruff" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ruff, et al. v. General Motors
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02375, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04764-JMF
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John McNeill Broaddus, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 755-1115
          E-mail: jbroaddus@weitzlux.com

Defendants General Motors LLC and General Motors Holding, LLC are
represented by:

          Stephen F. Payerle, Esq.
          MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP (NJ)
          Three Gateway Center
          100 Mulberry Street, 17th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (201) 622-7711
          E-mail: spayerle@mdmc-law.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Saclo" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ken Saclo, et al. v. General
Motors, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00604, was transferred from
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The New York
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04751-JMF to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Lance Cooper, Esq.
          THE COOPER FIRM
          531 Roselane Street, Suite 200
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Telephone: (770) 427-5588
          Facsimile: (770) 427-0010

               - and -

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          THE COOPER LAW FIRM PC
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 724-9200
          Facsimile: (949) 724-9255
          E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Miller, Esq.
          Roland K. Tellis, Esq.
          Mark P. Pifko, Esq.
          BARON AND BUDD PC
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: imiller@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  MPifko@baronbudd.com

Defendant General Motors, LLC is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Salerno" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Salerno v. General Motors LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02132, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04799-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net
                  ssavett@bm.net

Defendants General Motors L.L.C. and General Motors Holdings LLC
are represented by:

          Francis J. Grey, Esq.
          RICCI TYRRELL JOHNSON & GREY
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F Kennedy Boulevard
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-3260
          Facsimile: (215) 320-3261
          E-mail: fgrey@rtjglaw.com

Defendant Delphi Automotive PLC is represented by:

          Eugene A. Schoon, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: eschoon@sidley.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Spangler" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Randi Spangler v. General Motors
Corporation LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00816, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04755-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Buccola, Esq.
          Steven M. Campora, Esq.
          Jason J. Sigel, Esq.
          DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA LLP
          20 Bicentennial Circle
          Sacramento, CA 95826
          Telephone: (916) 379-3500
          Facsimile: (916) 379-3599
          E-mail: scampora@dbbwlaw.com
                  jsigel@dbbwlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Villa" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Villa, et al. v. General Motors,
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02548, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-04801-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of
GM vehicles.  The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch
system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving
conditions.  When the ignition switch system fails, the switch
turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or
"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed
control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.
GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeanne A. Markey, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
          3 Logan Square
          1717 Arch St., Suite 3610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 207-3477
          E-mail: jmarkey@cohenmilstein.com

Defendants General Motors L.L.C. and General Motors Corporation
are represented by:

          Francis J. Grey, Esq.
          RICCI TYRRELL JOHNSON & GREY
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F Kennedy Boulevard
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-3260
          Facsimile: (215) 320-3261
          E-mail: fgrey@rtjglaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Temporary Lead Counsel Appointed in Ignition Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a judge in New York has appointed temporary lead counsel in
the ignition switch lawsuits filed against General Motors Co. but
is considering delaying those claims until key questions in the
automaker's bankruptcy are resolved.

In the first order he has entered in the litigation, U.S. District
Judge Jesse Furman on June 24 scheduled an initial status
conference for Aug. 11.  He asked both sides to collaborate on
whether discovery in the cases before him, now stayed, should
track parallel proceedings in GM's bankruptcy.

Judge Furman also asked whether he should wait for the bankruptcy
court's rulings before making his own decisions in the cases.  He
ordered GM, represented by Andrew Bloomer, a partner at Chicago's
Kirkland & Ellis, to file a letter outlining GM's views by
July 28.

GM has moved in bankruptcy court to toss out lawsuits filed over
the defects, which prompted recalls of 2.6 million vehicles this
year. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber is expected to decide on
July 2 the "threshold issues" in GM's motion.  The automaker
claims that certain cases, including class actions filed by
consumers, are barred under a provision of its 2009 bankruptcy.
Plaintiffs lawyers disagree.

Meanwhile, Judge Furman, of the Southern District of New York,
asked plaintiffs lawyers to file a letter by July 7 regarding
whether he should hold off appointing lead counsel in the
litigation until Judge Gerber, also in that district, decides the
bankruptcy issues.  He gave GM until July 14 to respond to the
plaintiffs.

Judge Furman appointed three lawyers as temporary lead counsel for
the plaintiffs: Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro; Mark Robinson, senior partner at Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach, Calif.; and
Elizabeth Cabraser, a partner at San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein.  All three served in lead roles in litigation
against Toyota Motor Corp. over sudden acceleration defects.
Berman focused primarily on consumer class actions, while
Mr. Robinson and Ms. Cabraser handled personal-injury and
wrongful-death cases.

Most of the cases transferred to Judge Furman's courtroom are
consumer class actions.

"Hagens Berman is incredibly pleased that the court has placed its
confidence in us to fight for this class of consumers, at least on
an interim basis," Mr. Berman said in an emailed statement.  "We
are committed to pursuing the best possible outcome for vehicle
owners and will tenaciously fight to make consumers whole."

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, citing the
bankruptcy proceedings, on June 9 transferred the ignition-switch
lawsuits to Judge Furman for pretrial purposes.  Since then, the
MDL panel has transferred some personal-injury and wrongful-death
cases to Furman's courtroom.  Plaintiffs lawyers in some of those
cases opposed the transfers.


GENERAL MOTORS: Deaths Linked to Faulty Ignition-Switches Rise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cowan, writing for Reuters, reports that General Motors
Co.'s ongoing safety crisis over deadly ignition switches deepened
on June 30 with the recall of 8.23 million mostly older cars
linked by the U.S. automaker to three deaths.

The latest recalls boosted the number of deaths acknowledged by GM
to at least 16.  The automaker said it now knows of 61 crashes
tied to faulty ignition switches, although U.S. lawmakers and
safety regulators have said they expect the death toll to climb.

A Reuters investigation in early June found that at least 74
people had died in GM cars in accidents with similarities to those
that GM earlier had linked to 13 deaths involving defective
ignition switches.

The report on June 30 of additional fatalities and recalls
"confirms our fears that GM's safety failures were much more
widespread than initially reported," said U.S. House Energy and
Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, whose
committee twice has interviewed GM Chief Executive Officer
Mary Barra.

GM said the latest victims will not be included in a compensation
fund set up to provide at least $1 million to victims of crashes
tied to defective switches in older compact cars, including the
Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion.  Details of that fund, which is
being administered by attorney Kenneth Feinberg, were announced
earlier on June 30.

The latest victims were killed in two separate high-speed crashes,
one involving a 2003 Chevrolet Impala, the other a 2004 Impala,
according to GM spokesman Jim Cain.  The air bags failed to deploy
in both crashes, Mr. Cain said, but GM cannot conclusively link
the nondeployment to the ignition switches.

The latest recalls, covering compact and midsize cars, sedans and
crossovers from model years 1997-2014, swell the total number of
vehicles recalled by GM this year to 29 million.  GM last year
sold 2.8 million vehicles in the United States and 9.7 million
globally.  So far this year, GM has recalled more cars than the
entire U.S. industry did in 2013.

The automaker also said on June 30 it would increase by $500
million a second-quarter charge to cover the cost of the recalls.
So far this year, the writedowns are expected to total $2.5
billion.

GM earlier this year recalled nearly 2.6 million Cobalts, Ions and
other small cars with defective switches that it linked to 54
crashes and at least 13 deaths.

Earlier this month, it recalled more than 500,000 Chevrolet Camaro
sports cars and another 3.4 million midsize and fullsize sedans,
including Chevrolet Impalas and Cadillac DeVilles.

                         Legal Problems

On June 30, GM issued two separate recalls, both related to
ignition switches which it said could be turned off because of
"inadvertent key rotation."  In turn, that could shut off the
engine and cut power to steering, brakes and air bags -- issues
similar to those that triggered the earlier recalls.

Affected are 7.61 million older sedans and coupes dating back to
model year 1997, including 2000-2005 Chevrolet Impalas and
1997-2005 Chevrolet Malibus.  Also recalled were 616,179 Cadillacs
from model years 2003-2014, including the CTS coupe and sedan and
the SRX crossover.

The 2004-2006 Cadillac SRX used a switch part similar to that on
the 2003 Saturn Ion, Reuters reported in April.  GM engineers told
the switch supplier, Delphi Automotive, about accidentally turning
off ignition switches in a Cadillac SRX with their knees more than
eight years ago, according to documents provided to U.S. safety
regulators.

The original SRX ignition-switch part also was used in the
2003-2007 Cadillac CTS, according to online GM parts catalogs
reviewed by Reuters.  Delphi supplied the switches for the 2003-
2007 CTS and the 2004-2009 SRX, it told the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.

GM did not recall the SRX and the CTS for switch-related issues,
however, until June 30.

As it has done previously, GM urged owners to remove all items
from key rings, including the fob, leaving only the ignition key.
It said it would provide dealers with an insert to change the
key-head design from a slot to a hole to reduce the chance of the
key ring and fob turning off the switch.

In early June, GM released a 325-page report on the 11-year
process of identifying defects in the Cobalt and Ion that
eventually led to the recall of those cars earlier this year.  The
report was prepared by Anton Valukas, chairman of GM's outside law
firm Jenner & Block, and largely exonerated top executives.

But GM faces legal problems on a number of fronts.  A county
district attorney in California on June 30 announced a lawsuit
accusing GM of being a threat to public safety by concealing at
least 35 safety defects that have prompted the recall of millions
of vehicles.

GM previously has acknowledged that the U.S. Department of Justice
is investigating how it handled the recall of the Cobalt and Ion.


GENZYME CORP: Faces Class Action Over Gaucher Disease Drug
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Genzyme Corporation after a
Colorado man claims it distributed and sold impure and untested
drugs.

Sometime prior to 2009, Genzyme experienced a contamination of the
drug Cerezyme, which the plaintiff was prescribed for Gaucher
Disease, the complaint says.

The Cerezyme Stakeholders Working Group and Express Scripts Inc.
were also named as defendants in the suit.

"Cerezyme was a miracle drug for Gaucher patients, but Genzyme
[allegedly] contaminated it with a dangerous virus, and cut doses
to less than a third for many Gaucher patients in response to a
shortage Genzyme itself created," said Rachel Goldfarb, managing
attorney of the Bell Law Firm's Colorado office.

"Genzyme [allegedly] knew the diluted medication was experimental
and dangerous but still decided to give it to certain Gaucher
patients, including our client.  Our client was deprived of FDA-
approved doses and instead injected with a live pathogenic virus,
without his informed consent.  As a result, he now suffers from an
incurable cancer."

Goldfarb said Congress enacted the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and
the states passed their own pure food and drug laws more than 70
years ago to protect against this type of conduct.

"We are hopeful that a jury will hold Genzyme and its partners
responsible for their actions in endangering and forever altering
the lives of thousands of patients, including our client's," she
said.

Gregory Reich and Lynn Reich claim between July 2009 and
September 2011, the defendants forcibly substituted Gregory
Reich's intravenous injections of Cerezyme for experimental doses
of an untested drug that was intentionally mislabeled, diluted
below FDA-approved levels, adulterated with glass, rubber and
steel particles and contaminated with a viral pathogen known to be
dangerous to humans, according to a complaint filed June 17 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Once placed on treatment for Gaucher Disease, patients are advised
to never go off enzyme replacement therapy because the disease is
progressive.  Gregory Reich was diagnosed more than 21 years ago
and has had bi-weekly injections of Cerezyme to help with his
disease, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the experimental drug is a medicinal product
that has not received approval from governmental regulatory
authorities for routine use in human or veterinary medicine.

Sometime prior to July 2009, Genzyme contaminated its bioreactors
with vesivirus, which caused reduced output, according to the
suit.

The plaintiffs claim due to the viral contamination, Genzyme could
not meet customer demand, so it implemented a plan that it
designed to ration a drug that was, in the first place, illegal to
sell or market because the drug was experimental, mislabeled,
impure, filth-contaminated, ineffective, diluted and illegally
substituted but marketed as if it were a beneficial treatment for
Gaucher Disease, despite never having been previously tested in
animals or gravely ill human beings.

Genzyme stated that due to the shortage, Cerezyme patients could
go without one or two treatments, according to the suit.

It also alleged that the missed doses would not cause significant
health problems because most patients' bodies have been cleansed
of the fatty substances, and it takes more than a few skipped
treatments for them to return.

The defendants sold the plaintiffs an impure and ineffective drug
substitute for which his insurance company paid the defendants on
multiple occasions, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim on June 19, 2012, Gregory Reich was diagnosed
with multiple myeloma.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants violated the Food, Drug &
Cosmetic Act.

The defendants' motive in creating and operating the fraudulent
scheme and RICO enterprises was to fraudulently obtain revenues
from marketing illegally substituted, impure and effective
medication while representing to the public that the substitute
medications were an effective and safe alternate to treat Gaucher
Disease and the prevention of sequela, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Raymond P. Moore.

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado case number:
1:14-cv-01684


GLOBAL AIRCRAFT: "Venegas" Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Venegas, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Global Aircraft Service, Inc., 4500 Claire
Chennault St., Addison, TX 75001, and Lufthansa Technik North
America Holding Corp., 5100 E. Skelly Drive, Ste. 570, Tulsa, OK
74135, Case No. 2:14-cv-00249 (D. Me., June 24, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
costs and reasonable attorney's fees under Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Global Aircraft Service, Inc., a Texas for-profit corporation,
conducts business and provides services at the Auburn-Lewiston
Municipal Airport.

Lufthansa Technik North America Holding Corp., is the world's
leading independent provider of maintenance, repair and overhaul
services for civil commercial aircraft.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allison G. Gray, Esq.
      Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
      JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP
      160 Capitol Street, PO Box 79
      Augusta, ME 04332
      Telephone: (207) 623-5110
      E-mail: agray@johnsonwebbert.com
              jyoung@johnsonwebbert.com


GRACE CAR WASH: Faces "Nabay" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abubakarr Nabay, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Grace Car Wash, Inc.; Hong Ko a/k/a John Ko; and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-03844 (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Grace Car Wash, Inc., operates a car wash facility, located at
7539 Haverford Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19151.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


HERTZ CORP: Settles Class Action Over Toll Charges for $14 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
car rental giant Hertz Corporation has agreed to an $11 million
settlement of a class action by customers hit with unauthorized
charges for using the company's electronic toll payment system.

The agreement, given final approval by a federal judge in Camden,
N.J., on June 25, also provides for $3 million in fees to class
counsel.

The suit alleged that Hertz, of Park Ridge, N.J., failed to tell
customers in advance that a $2.50 daily administrative fee would
be tacked on to their bills when they used its PlatePass service
to pay tolls electronically, on top of the amount of the tolls
themselves.  Hertz did not honor a promise to cap such charges at
$10 per week, the suit said.

The complaint included claims of violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, conversion, unjust enrichment and civil
conspiracy.  The class consists of all persons in the U.S. who
rented a car from Hertz between July 1, 2006, and March 31, 2010,
used PlatePass and paid for it.

U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman said approval of the settlement
was warranted because only 51 of the 1.6 million class members
opted out of the settlement and only two members objected.

Judge Hillman found resolution as a class action appropriate
because the members' average losses of roughly $10 made it
unlikely that they would have their day in court otherwise.

Class members will receive a refund of 67 percent of all PlatePass
charges for their first rental transactions and a 38 percent
refund for subsequent transactions.  The difference was attributed
to the likelihood that additional knowledge of the PlatePass terms
can be imputed to repeat renters, the plaintiffs said.

The defendants must set aside a common fund of $11 million for
satisfaction of claims, as well as $3 million in legal fees and
$100,000 in expenses.  They also agree to pay $5,000 each to the
two class representatives, Susan Doherty and Dwight Simonson.
Hillman said the $3 million in legal fees is reasonable
considering that it comes to 20 percent of the aggregate class
recovery, meaning the common fund, legal fees, costs, service
awards to class representatives and costs of administering the
settlement.

Although Judge Hillman previously expressed concern that the legal
fees were unreasonable when compared to the amount actually
realized by class members, he reconsidered based on the
defendants' consent to the fee award.

"We're happy the judge understood the case and saw it was a good
case for the consumers of this country," said Steven Jaffe of
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman in Fort
Lauderdale, Fla., who represented the class along with Christopher
Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Red Bank.

Hertz was represented by Michael Vassalotti of Brown & Connery in
Westmont, and John Ward -- jward@jenner.com -- and Ross Bricker --
rbricker@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block in Chicago.  Mr. Ward
referred a reporter's questions to Hertz. Corporate spokesman
Richard Broome said only that "we are satisfied with the
settlement in this matter."

The parties reached the settlement after a series of mediation
sessions in 2011, 2012 and 2013 with former U.S. Magistrate Judge
Joel Rosen, now of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads in
Cherry Hill.

Also bound by the settlement is American Traffic Solutions of
Tempe, Ariz., which provides the PlatePass service through a
subsidiary.

Mr. Jaffe said Hertz and ATS did not disclose how much of the
settlement funds each of them contributed.

ATS's lawyers, Robert Friedman and Benjamin Caldwell of Burns &
Levinson in Boston, did not return a reporter's calls seeking
comment.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Seeks Dismissal of Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Tom Zanki, writing for Law360, reports that Hertz Global Holdings
Inc. on June 24 asked a New Jersey federal judge to toss a
putative class action accusing it of misleading investors, arguing
that the suit wrongly holds the company liable for optimistic
opinions that contain no actionable misstatements.

The car rental giant claims the suit filed in November by
plaintiff Pedro Ramirez on behalf of shareholders represents a
"kitchen sink" pleading "filled with a broad range of legally
flawed criticisms."

The class action alleges Hertz knowingly issued false statements
regarding its financial projections and the spinoff of its
Advantage Rent A Car unit, resulting in inflated stock prices that
later sank after the company restated its guidance.

"Plaintiffs criticize defendants for expressing anything but
pessimism with regard to future performance and business
prospects," Hertz's motion states.

The motion adds that the class action "improperly attempts to hold
the company liable for not continuously and instantaneously
updating investors on every event in its business" during the
six-month class period between March and September 2013.

Hertz said it confronted several challenges during that period,
including integrating its $2.3 billion purchase of Dollar Thrifty
Automotive Group Inc., adding 113,000 vehicles to its fleet, which
in turn prompted the company to sell its Advantage Rent A Car unit
to avoid antitrust concerns.

The company said that adjustment happened on top of spending cuts
mandated by the federal sequester -- hurting Hertz's government
business -- and normal seasonal and geographic fluctuations in the
car rental industry.

"Nonetheless, plaintiffs fault Hertz for not immediately issuing
updates how these events might impact its business," Hertz's
motion argues.

The class action claims that Hertz's stock price rose throughout
2013, supported by optimistic projections by key executives, but
dove about 16 percent -- from $25.78 to $21.63 per share -- on
Sept. 26 after Hertz restated its 2013 guidance to account for
losing sales in the "all-important" U.S. airport rental market.

Hertz argues that optimism concerning financial growth -- often
termed "puffery' -- is not actionable under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act and other securities laws unless it can be
demonstrated that the opinions were objectively false and that the
person who made them knew so, which the company argues Mr. Ramirez
failed to demonstrate.

The class action also claims that Hertz covered up problems with
its Advantage divestiture, including a disagreement with the new
owner about the value of the company's fleet, but failed to timely
record an impairment charge.

Hertz, which sold Advantage's owner Simply Wheelz LLC to Franchise
Services of North America inc., said it was not aware that FSNA
was selling Advantage vehicles at a loss.

Hertz is represented by Kevin H. Marino -- kmarino@khmarino.com --
and John D. Tortorella -- jtortorella@khmarino.com -- of Chatham
N.J. law firm Marino Tortorella & Boyle, PC.

Mr. Ramirez is represented by Peter S. Pearlman --
psp@njlawfirm.com -- of Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf
LLP, Samuel H. Rudman and Mary K. Blasy of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Jeffrey Abraham -- jabraham@aftlaw.com -- of Abraham
Fruchter & Twersky LLP.

The class action also lists Hertz CEO Mark Frissora and Chief
Financial Officer Elyse Douglas as defendants.

The case is Ramirez et al. v. Hertz Global Holdings Inc. et al.,
case number 2:13-cv-07050, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Autonomy Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Abhirup Roy, writing for Reuters, reports that Hewlett-Packard Co.
and attorneys representing shareholders confirmed on June 30 they
had agreed to settle litigation over the $11.1 billion acquisition
of British software company Autonomy Corp.

Reuters exclusively reported news of the settlement on June 27.

Under the terms of the settlement, all claims against HP's current
and former directors, officers and advisers, other than legacy
Autonomy officials and advisers, will be dropped, the company said
in a statement.

Plaintiffs and their counsel at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP,
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP will help HP bring claims
against former Autonomy CEO Michael Lynch, Shushovan Hussain, its
former finance chief and potentially others, HP added.

HP took an $8.8 billion impairment charge in November 2012 for its
purchase of Autonomy only just over a year earlier, with more than
$5 billion of that linked to what HP said at the time were
"serious accounting improprieties, misrepresentation and
disclosure failures."


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
tossed a securities class action on June 26 that slammed Hewlett-
Packard Co. for touting its code of conduct even as its former CEO
became embroiled in an ethics scandal.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar granted HP's motion to dismiss a
putative class action that reached back to the fall of former HP
CEO Mark Hurd, who resigned in 2010 after a contractor claimed
Mr. Hurd made inappropriate sexual advances toward her.
Plaintiffs alleged that HP misled investors by adopting a new
ethics code without disclosing Mr. Hurd's missteps.

But Judge Tigar ruled in a 14-page order that plaintiffs had
failed to show the "standards of business of conduct" HP issued in
2008 contained false statements that investors might have relied
on.  He also rejected plaintiffs' argument that Hurd's adoption of
the code suggested that he abided by it.

"These representations . . . established only that HP aspired to
comply with its own policies," Judge Tigar wrote.

Judge Tigar dismissed plaintiffs' claims against HP and Mr. Hurd
without leave to amend, noting they had already been given a
chance to improve their case.

Plaintiffs claimed Mr. Hurd was keenly aware that HP would have to
live up to a high ethical standard after revelations of an
improper investigation into leaks rocked its board.  By allegedly
falsifying expense reports to cover up his improper relationship
with a contractor, Mr. Hurd risked losing his title and sinking
HP's stock price, plaintiffs alleged.

But Judge Tigar found Mr. Hurd's silence was not enough to support
securities fraud allegations.

"Plaintiff's theory of liability appears to be that a corporation
or senior executive is liable whenever that executive is involved
in conduct that might lead to his or her resignation or
termination, regardless of the nature of that misconduct, unless
the misconduct is disclosed," Judge Tigar wrote.  "But that is not
the law."

HP was defended by a Morgan, Lewis & Bockius team led by
Philadelphia-based partner Marc Sonnenfeld --
msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com

Ira Press of New York's Kirby McInerney and Lionel Glancy of Los
Angeles's Glancy Binkow & Goldberg represented the plaintiffs in
Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. HP, 12-
4115.

Mr. Hurd, now president of Oracle Corp., tapped Lawrence Lewis, an
Orange County-based partner at Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory &
Natsis, to defend him.


HIBACHI SUPREME: "Heard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Heard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hibachi Supreme Dining, Inc. d/b/a Teppanyaki Grill &
Supreme Buffet, Teppanyaki Grill & Supreme Buffet, and Doe
Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-03846 (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hibachi Supreme Dining, Inc., is a restaurant in Pennsylvania
operating under the trade name Teppanyaki Grill & Supreme Buffet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A,
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


IC SYSTEM: Faces "Rush" Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Berliner Rush, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. IC System, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:14-cv-04542
(S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
sending debt collection letters and notices which are in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

IC System is a debt collector with its principal place of business
located at 444 Highway 96 East, PO Box 64378, St. Paul, Minnesota,
55164-0378.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
      Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
              jkj@legaljones.com


J&J PAVING: Fails to Pay OT, "Espindola" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Manuel Espindola, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs v. J&J Paving & Sealcoating Corp. and Joseph Matarazzo,
Case No. 2:14-cv-03857 (D.N.J., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

J&J Paving & Seal coating Corp. is a paving and seal coating
business, located at 681 Franklin Avenue, Second Floor, Nutley, NJ
07011.

Joseph Matarazzo is the Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of
Defendant, J&J Paving & Sealcoating Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Louis Kraselnik, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
      271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 576-1857
      Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
      E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settles PAGA Class Action for $2.8 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey and Benjamin Horney, writing for Law360, report
that auto parts giant Johnson Controls Inc. will pay $2.8 million
to settle a putative class action and Private Attorneys General
Act suit with 1,441 current and former California employees who
allege the company withheld vacation wages and committed other
labor violations, according to a settlement motion filed on
June 23.  The settlement, if approved, would bring to a close a
year-long case with a complaint that sought at least $10 million.

Under the terms of the deal, a maximum of more than $2 million
would be distributed among class members.  The 1,441 members of
the vacation class would each receive about $280, while each of
the 1,160 members of the waiting time class would receive about
$1,400, according to court documents.

Class representative Linda Delatorre would receive $5,000, class
counsel would receive $700,000, and the claims administrator would
receive $30,000.

Under the PAGA claims, Johnson would pay $7,500 to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency, according to a memorandum
supporting an unopposed settlement motion.

Linda Delatorre sued Johnson in state court in April 2013,
alleging a series of wage and hour violations including not being
paid for some 80 hours of vacation and floating holiday time.  The
case was removed to federal court in July 2013.

Johnson has maintained that it had paid out all necessary vacation
wages and is not liable.

The parties announced a tentative agreement following mediation in
February and filed a settlement motion on June 23.

Johnson Controls is a global company with 170,000 employees that
has sales in more than 150 countries, according to its website.

The firm focuses on lead-acid automotive batteries and batteries
for hybrid and electric vehicles, along with automobile interior
systems, according to the website.  In addition, the company
provides equipment, controls and services for buildings' heating,
air conditioning, refrigeration and security systems, among other
services.

In May, Johnson announced a joint venture with Shanghai Automotive
Industry Corp. that would create the largest automotive interiors
company in the world.

Ms. Delatorre is represented by Graham S.P. Hollis and Vilmarie
Cordero of GrahamHollis APC.

Johnson Controls is represented by Lynne C. Hermle --
lchermle@orrick.com -- Jessica R. Perry -- jperry@orrick.com --
and Lindsey Connor Hulse -- lhulse@orrick.com -- of Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Linda Delatorre v. Johnson Controls Inc., case number
5:13-cv-03214, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


K-LINE: Recalls Soul Due to Improperly Applied Adhesive
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           994
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014237
TC ID number:             2014237
Manufacturer recall
number:                   RC090

On certain vehicles, insufficient thread-locking adhesive may have
been applied to the steering gear pinion plug at time of assembly.
This could allow the plug to loosen and potentially separate from
the steering gear assembly, causing a loss of steering which could
result in a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will install a new pinion plug with properly applied
thread-locking adhesive.

Affected products: 2014 KIA Soul


KANGAROO PAK: Faces "Qi" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liuhui Qi, Xinyan Huang, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. Kangaroo Pak Inc., Eric Tang, John
Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-03898 (E.D.N.Y., June
23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work for
which the Plaintiff did not receive overtime premium pay, as
required by law, and liquidated damages, declaratory relief,
costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Kangaroo Pak Inc. is a plastic and paper bag manufacturing
company, located at 180 Morgan Ave, Brooklyn, New York, 11237.

Eric Tang is an owner, officer, shareholder, and manager of
Kangaroo Pak Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


KENDALL SPRINKLER: "Wall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Wall, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Kendall Sprinkler Service, Inc., Dale Ormes, individually, Case
No. 1:14-cv-22316 (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kendall Sprinkler Service, Inc., is engaged in the business of
commercial irrigation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KI MAMA RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Zamora-Herrera, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Ki Mama Restaurant Inc. d/b/a
Souen, Miso Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Souen, Masaaki Yamaguchi, and
Hirokazu Yoda, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-04501
(S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid
overtime compensation, spread-of-hours wages, and such other
relief available by law.

Ki Mama Restaurant Inc.,  is a full-service restaurant doing
business as Souen, Miso Restaurant Inc., Souen, Masaaki Yamaguchi
or Hirokazu Yoda and located at 326 East 6th Street and 210
Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A.Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com


LE MAITRE: Recalls St-Hubert Chicken Pies Due to Swollen Packages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Le Maitre Saladier Inc.
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8922

Affected products: 715 g. St-Hubert Chicken Pie with only product
shipped to and sold by DMB Distribution Alimentaire


MAGNUM HUNTER: Judge Dismisses New York Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation on June 24 disclosed that the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against the
Company last year has now been dismissed in its entirety by the
judge overseeing the case in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

With the dismissal of this consolidated securities class action
lawsuit on June 23, 2014, the Company has been successful in
securing dismissals of a total of five separate securities class
action and shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in four different
judicial courts without any monies paid to any plaintiffs or their
respective legal counsel.  Three of the lawsuits were dismissed on
motions by the defendants, while the other two were voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs.  The Company is currently working to
obtain dismissal of the last remaining shareholder derivative
lawsuit.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class
action lawsuit can appeal the June 23 dismissal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

A Form 8-K, including a copy of the opinion and order of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissing the consolidated securities class action lawsuit, is
being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                 Magnum Hunter Management Comments

Mr. Paul M. Johnston, Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
commented, "It is very gratifying that we have been successful in
securing the dismissal of such a large number of lawsuits against
our Company and certain directors and officers.  Fortunately,
courts throughout the country are taking a much tougher stance on
these types of complaints against companies and their directors
and officers.  We would like to also express our appreciation to
the litigation team at Norton Rose Fulbright in Houston who led
our efforts in all of these dismissals."

            About Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation

Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation and subsidiaries are a
Houston, Texas-based independent exploration and production
company engaged in the acquisition, development and production of
crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids, primarily in the
States of West Virginia, Ohio, and North Dakota.  The Company is
presently active in three of the most prolific unconventional
shale resource plays in North America, namely the Marcellus Shale,
Utica Shale, and Williston Basin/Bakken Shale.


MATTRESS GIANT: Faces "Nuez" Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Nuez, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Mattress Giant Corporation, a Foreign Profit Corporation,
Mattress Firm, Inc. a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:14-
cv-22337 (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mattress Giant Corporation is a mattress retail corporation and
owns the Mattress Firm, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
              pmh@rgpattorneys.com


MEDIN CORP: 401(k) Plan Trustee Sued Over Illegal Use of Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Librot v. Jay D. Schainholz, as a Trustee of the
Medin Corporation 401(k) Plan and Medin Corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-03882 (E.D.N.Y. Jun 22, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for the alleged conversion of the Plaintiffs funds which
were Elective Deferrals of income which were required to be paid
to the 401(k) Plan, but were instead converted and used by the
Defendant, without the consent of the Plaintiff

Jay D. Schainholz has authority or control over the 401(k) Plan's
management and authority or control over management or disposition
of the 401(k) Plan assets.

Medin Corporation is the sponsor and administrator of 401(k) Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Rosen, Esq.
      GARY ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 322
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 437-3400
      Facsimile: (516) 706-4981
      E-mail: grosen@garyrosen.com


MODE CHOC: Recalls Baby Sleepers Due to Flammability Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 18, 2014
Posting date:             June 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40083

Affected products: Baby Sleepers

The recall involves the "Deux petits canards" brand, 100% cotton
sleeper, model number 3F-07, sizes 6/9 months and larger.  The
long-leg sleeper features a striped design of several pastel
colors, a front opening and snap buttons.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that this products does not meet the flammability requirements for
children's sleepwear under Canadian law.

Loose-fitting children's sleepwear can contact ignition sources
such as stove elements, candles, and matches more readily than
tight-fitting sleepwear, and once ignited will burn rapidly,
potentially resulting in severe burns to large areas of the
child's body.  For this reason, cotton is not permitted in loose-
fitting sleepwear.

Neither Mode Choc nor Health Canada has received reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product.

A total of 642 units were sold at Mode Choc stores in Canada.

The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold between
Oct. 10, 2013, and May 26, 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Quanzhou Xietai Textile Products Ltd.
                    China

   Distributor      Mode Choc
                    Alma
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using this sleeper and return it
to the place of purchase for a refund.


MOTOR COACH: Recalls D4000, D4500 & D4505 Buses Due to Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           85
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014236
TC ID number:             2014236

Certain coaches previously repaired as part of recall 2012173 may
require additional modifications.  The power draw from the LED
interior lights may exceed the design limits of the fuse block
terminal and power splice connector installed as part of the
previous recall.  As a result, these components could overheat,
potentially resulting in a vehicle fire causing property damage
and/or personal injury.

MCI authorized facilities will install a revised fuse holder for
the LED interior lights.

Affected products:

   Maker     Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----     -----       ----------------------
   MCI       D4500       2009, 2010, 2011
   MCI       D4000       2009, 2010, 2011
   MCI       D4505       2009, 2010, 2011


MOTOR COACH: Recalls 102DL3 & D4505 Buses Due to Steering Control
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           11
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014238
TC ID number:             2014238

On certain vehicles equipped with a driveshaft with a compressed
length of 30 inches or less, with a steerable trailing axle that
changes the axle caster when the vehicle is in reverse caster, and
that lack electronic stability control, the driveshaft could
decouple from the transmission due to a universal joint failure.
If hard braking is applied, resulting in the drive axle brakes
locking up, the potential exists for the driveshaft to escape its
containment.  This could result in a loss of steering control and
ultimately result in a crash causing property damage and/or
personal injury.

Dealers will add a secondary drive shaft hoop.

Affected products:

   Maker     Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----     -----       ----------------------
   MCI       102DL3      1993, 1994, 1995
   MCI       D4505       2006, 2008


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Parties Revise Settlement in Concussion Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the National Football League and a group of retired players have
agreed to a revised settlement in the concussion injury litigation
that would not place any cap on the damages available to players,
the parties jointly announced on June 25.

The revised settlement comes after the parties' initial $765
million proposed accord was denied preliminary approval by U.S.
District Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania over her concerns that all of the former players who
would qualify for settlement money due to various types of brain
injuries sustained while they played in the NFL would not actually
be able to collect from the fund.

Judge Brody appointed Perry Golkin as special master to help the
parties reach a settlement that better protected the interests of
all the potential class members. In the joint statement, counsel
for both sides said the new settlement was a result of working
with Mr. Golkin and Judge Brody.

"While actuarial estimates from both parties supported the $765
million settlement that was announced in August, this new
agreement will ensure funds are available to any eligible retired
player who develops a compensable injury," the parties said.

The NFL will also set aside $75 million for the baseline
assessment program that would offer players a one-time exam to
test for neurocognitive impairment, as well as $10 million for
education on concussion prevention.  The league will also pay the
costs for notice to the class and administration of the
settlement.  The revised settlement also removed a previously
included bar on the proposed class members suing the National
Collegiate Athletic Association or other entities over the same
injuries.

The proposed settlement will now go back before Judge Brody for
her preliminary approval.

Under the initial settlement, $675 million of the total was
designated for a pool from which eligible former players could
draw.  That figure is now unlimited and will be available for
eligible retired players who have suffered cognitive impairment
such as dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease or ALS.

"The settling parties became so confident in the prior actuarial
assumptions and projections that an agreement to uncap the amount
of the Monetary Award Fund was reached in order to address the
court's concern that all eligible class members over the 65-year
lifespan of the deal would be compensated at the significant award
levels for which the deal provided," the parties said in their
memorandum of law in support of preliminary approval.  "Staying
true to the initial deal, the plaintiffs insisted upon maintaining
the same significant award levels and maintaining the NFL parties'
obligation to pay for the costs and expenses of claims
administration."

Co-lead plaintiffs counsel Christopher Seeger --
cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss, who led the plaintiffs
team along with Sol Weiss -- sweiss@anapolschwartz.com -- of
Anapol Schwartz, held a press conference on June 25 to detail the
revised plan.

The settlement, as it was before, is available to any player who
retired before the date of the preliminary approval of the
settlement, Mr. Seeger said.  The settlement fund will be
available for 65 years to the proposed class, which was estimated
to be about 20,000 retired players or, if the player had died
after 2006, their families.  Under the monetary fund construction,
players will be eligible for up to $5 million in damages depending
on their age and years in the league, Mr. Seeger said.

Mr. Seeger described the fund as a "pay as you go" fund in which
the fund will have to maintain a certain number of millions of
dollars at any one time, but will largely be funded monthly by the
NFL as claims arise.

"We have some real security in this case," Mr. Seeger added,
noting that under the terms of the accord, after 10 years,
actuaries will provide an estimate on what the fund will require
between year 10 and year 65 and the NFL will be obligated to
pledge that amount as collateral.

Mr. Seeger said the attorney fees remain the same under the
revised settlement at $112.5 million. He said he wouldn't ask the
judge for approval of those fees until after the settlement is
approved and payments are being made.

Mr. Seeger cautioned potential class members from opting out of
the suit, saying the NFL has a number of defenses it would use in
fighting individual suits, including statute of limitations,
assumption of risk, causation and federal preemption.  Mr. Seeger
said there were no causation requirements for those participating
in the settlement.

When asked what the settlement meant for current players who may
later develop brain injuries, Mr. Seeger said he isn't
representing any current players, but, as a lawyer, he would think
they would have to file individual claims.

"[The] agreement reaffirms the NFL's commitment to provide help to
those retired players and their families who are in need, and to
do so without the delay, expense and emotional cost associated
with protracted litigation.  We are eager to move forward with the
process of court approval and implementation of the settlement,"
said NFL Senior Vice President Anastasia Danias in the parties'
joint statement.

Robert C. Heim of Dechert, who is local counsel for the NFL, said
the main goal of the revised settlement was to remove any
uncertainty about the players' ability to recover under the terms
of the settlement.

Calls to some of the players' counsel who were previously
skeptical of how the initial settlement figures were reached were
not immediately returned.


NEW YORK TIMES: Faces "Rabin" Suit for Overcharging Subscription
----------------------------------------------------------------
I. Stephen Rabin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The New York Times Company, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.,
and Forbes, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04498 (S.D.N.Y., June 23,
2014), alleges conspiracy with Circulation Billing Services or
permitted Circulation Billing Services to defraud the Plaintiffs
and class members specifically by overcharging the subscriptions
and new orders, permitting the sender of the notices to remit to
the Defendants the amount necessary for new orders or continuation
of subscriptions and retaining excess amounts which they charged
the Plaintiff, falsely indicating that subscriptions were about to
lapse, falsely indicating to the Plaintiff that he had
subscriptions to certain magazines, falsely indicating that the
rates for subscriptions were low, when, in fact, they were
exorbitant and substituting one magazine subscription for another
without the consent of the subscribers.

The New York Times Company is the publisher of the New York Times.

Dow Jones & Company is the publisher of Barron's and the Wall
Street Journal.

Forbes, Inc., is the publisher of Forbes Magazine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond A. Bragar, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212)486-0462
      E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
              kuehn@bespc.com


NICHOLAS DIPAOLO: Sued Over Breach of Securities Exchange Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
LR Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Nicholas Dipaolo, David P. Lauer, David L. Nichols, Janice E.
Page, Greg A. Tunney, Thomas M. Von Lehman, and Harvey A.
Weinberg, Case No. 2:14-cv-00612 (S.D. Ohio, June 24, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants and the members of the Board of
Directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act,
specifically out of the Board's agreement to sell the RG Barry
Company to Mill Road Capital II, L.P. through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, MRGB Hold Co. and MRVK Hold Co.

Nicholas Dipaolo, David P. Lauer, David L. Nichols, Janice E.
Page, Greg A. Tunney, Thomas M. Von Lehman, and Harvey A.
Weinberg, are board of directors of RG Barry, an Ohio corporation,
that creates and markets accessories brands and fashionable,
solution-oriented products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Camillus, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C CAMILLUS, LLC
      PO Box 141410,
      Columbus, OH 43214
      Telephone: (614) 558-7254
      Facsimile: (614) 559-6731
      E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com


NORTH OLMSTED, OH: Residents Urged to Join Flooding Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Geiselman, writing for Cleveland.com, reports that residents
whose homes flooded when 4 inches of rain dropped on North Olmsted
May 12 have been invited to join a two-year-old class-action
lawsuit against North Olmsted and Cuyahoga County, arguing the
governments didn't properly maintain sewers.

"The sewage speaks for itself," said the residents' attorney,
David Dubin.  "This is a horrific incident no one should have to
live with, and some people have had to live with it on three
separate occasions."

Attorneys for Nurenberg, Paris, Heller and McCarthy, of Cleveland,
and Macuga, Liddle and Dubin, of Detroit, have sent letters to
North Olmsted homeowners, hoping to expand an existing class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of North Olmsted and Olmsted
Township residents who suffered flooding three years ago.

The initial lawsuit, filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
in 2012, seeks money for residents whose homes were damaged when
sanitary sewers backed up into basements and first floors in
February and July 2011.

Why expand the lawsuit?

On May 12, hundreds of homes flooded in North Olmsted when heavy
rain overwhelmed the sanitary sewers and sent sewage burbling into
basements.  Several hundred people crowded into North Olmsted High
School May 16 to demand answers from city officials.

Many people who flooded in 2011 also flooded this May, prompting
the attorneys to seek to expand the lawsuit to include this year's
flood damage, Mr. Dubin said.  However, attorneys also are finding
some people who were not flooded in 2011 who had flooding this
year.

About 260 households have contacted his law firm concerning May
flooding complaints, Mr. Dubin said.

What does the lawsuit claim?

The lawsuit claims poor maintenance of storm and sanitary sewers
led to water entering the sanitary sewer system and backing up
into basements.

"The water and sewage which physically invaded Plaintiffs'
property contained feces, dirt, debris, noxious odors, and other
unknown materials," according to the lawsuit.  "The water and
sewage which entered and settled on the Plaintiffs' property
originated from the sewers owned and controlled by Defendants."

North Olmsted and Olmsted Township have separate sanitary and
storm sewers that should prevent large volumes of storm water from
entering the sanitary system if both systems are properly
maintained, Mr. Dubin said.

"Holes in the system and cracks allow water to enter," he said.

Cuyahoga County is named as a defendant because it maintains
sewers in Olmsted Township, he said.  Part of the township's
sewers tie into the North Olmsted sewage treatment plant.

What does the lawsuit seek?

The lawsuit asks for more than $25,000 in compensatory damages.
It also seeks an order requiring the defendants to repair damages
to residents' property, award "just compensation for
unconstitutional taking of Plaintiff's property," damages for
residents having to clean their homes of sewage, and damages for
mental anguish, suffering, anxiety, humiliation and distress.

"We are asking to have people compensated for their losses,"
Mr. Dubin said.  "The average flood victim isn't trying to hit a
home run or retire.  They want enough money to put their lives
back together."

What do the defendants say?

North Olmsted Law Director Michael Gareau said the city's
insurance company has hired an attorney to defend the city.
However, Mr. Gareau said North Olmsted has not been negligent in
maintaining its sewer systems.

"The plaintiffs case turns on the argument we were negligent in
maintaining our system, and we feel we were not negligent,"
Mr. Gareau said.

The city, during public forums in May and a second one in June,
outlined steps it has taken to address flooding issues.  Steps
include building underground holding areas for the sanitary sewer
system that can hold more than 2 million gallons of water during
heavy rainfalls to take pressure off the sewer system.  City
officials outlined more than $10.5 million in improvements they
have made to the sewer system in recent years.

Mr. Gareau predicted the case would be lengthy.

"We have been engaged in the discovery process for quite some
time," he said.  "It will be around a while before we see
movement.  These cases are measured in years, not months.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: NC Residents to Receive Settlement Claim Forms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deon Roberts, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that
more than 3,400 North Carolinians who might be eligible for
payments from a national mortgage settlement with Ocwen Financial
Corp. should start receiving claim forms this week, Attorney
General Roy Cooper's office said on July 1.

As part of the settlement reached with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and attorneys general from 49 states and the
District of Columbia, Ocwen has agreed to pay $125 million to
refund approximately 184,000 U.S. borrowers.

According to Mr. Cooper's office, affected borrowers will likely
receive refunds of $679 to $1,235 apiece.  Payment amounts will
depend on how many people submit claims by a deadline of Sept. 15,
the office said.

Payment checks are expected to be mailed to borrowers in late 2014
or early 2015.

"Foreclosures can be devastating to individual families, their
neighborhoods and communities," Mr. Cooper said in a statement.
"With this settlement, people who lost their homes to foreclosures
done wrong can get some money back."

Claims packages will be sent to North Carolina borrowers who lost
their home to foreclosure between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012,
and whose loans were serviced by Ocwen, Litton Loan Servicing and
Homeward Residential Holdings, formerly known as American Home
Mortgage Servicing, Cooper's office said.

Approximately $2 billion of the national settlement is expected to
be used to help borrowers avoid losing their homes to foreclosure
by reducing the principal on their loans.  North Carolina is
receiving $26 million of the settlement for that purpose.

In addition to the Ocwen deal, North Carolina has participated in
other settlements over mortgage practices.


OFFICE DEPOT: Recalls Gibson Leather Task Chair
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 17, 2014
Posting date:             June 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40029

Affected products: Office Depot Gibson Leather Task Chair

The black, armless, adjustable chairs have a black base with five
wheels.  The affected chairs have the SKU number 105479 and the
registration numbers PA 27248 (CN), PA 25498 (CN), PA 25276 (HK)
or CA 35181 (RC) that can be found next to the words "Made in
China," printed on a label located on the underside of the seats.

The mounting plate weld can break and separate the seat from the
base of the chair, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Office Depot has received an unknown number of reports of
mechanical failures in Canada.  Health Canada has not received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these products.

Approximately 52,011 units of this product were sold in Canada at
various Office Depot locations (now closed) and online.

The recalled product was manufactured in Taiwan and China and sold
in Canada prior to 2010.

Companies:

   Importer      Office Depot
                 Boca Raton
                 Florida
                 United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the chair and contact
Office Depot to receive a merchandise card of $55 US, which can be
used to purchase Office Depot products online (upon sufficient
proof of purchase by the consumer).


PAYTIME HARRISBURG: Accused of Breaching Contract in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Holt and Linda Redding, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Paytime Harrisburg, Inc. d/b/a
Paytime, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03964-LDD (E.D. Pa., June 27,
2014) arises from alleged breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joel C. Meredith, Esq.
          MEREDITH & NARINE
          100 S. Broad St., Suite 905
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 564-5182
          E-mail: jmeredith@mcgslaw.com


PERFORMANCE PLUMBING: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Cerritos, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Larry Langley, individually, and Randal Langley,
individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-00342 (M.D. Fla., June 23, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Performance Plumbing of Southwest Florida, Inc., is a plumbing
company located in Naples, Collier County, Florida.

Larry Langley and Randal Langley, own, manage, and operate
Performance Plumbing Of Southwest Florida, Inc., and regularly
exercised the authority to hire and fire employees, determine the
work schedules of employees, set the rate pay of employees, and
control the finances and operations of Performance Plumbing of
Southwest Florida, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar R. Jones, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      Suite 404, 1515 S. Federal Hwy
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


PISTILLI REALTY: Faces "Tesen" Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Humberto Tesen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pistilli Realty Group, Sky View Towers Holding, LLC,
Lidia Management Corp., Joseph Pistilli, and Michael Pistilli,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03921 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pistilli Realty Group, Sky View Towers Holding, LLC, Lidia
Management Corp., are companies that own, manage, maintain,
repair, supervise, and operate building in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emiliano Perez, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE EMILIANO PEREZ
      3732 75th St.
      Jackson Heights, NY 11372
      Telephone: (718) 440-9214
      Facsimile: (718) 440-9178
      E-mail: eperezlaw@hotmail.com


REPUBLIC SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Billing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Hyde, writing for San Angelo LIVE, reports that plaintiffs are
seeking at least $27 million in refunds and damages over Republic
Service's billing practices for commercial customers.  The
plaintiffs are also seeking all court fees and attorney fees,
along with interest.

The lawsuit, a draft of which was reviewed by LIVE!, was set to be
filed against Republic Services last week for the alleged
overbilling of commercial customers in San Angelo.  Petitioners
will argue that Republic Services harmed commercial trash-pickup
customers within the City of San Angelo by charging fees not
authorized by City ordinance.

Specifically, the plaintiffs said, commercial trash customers'
bills show a single line for "Total Fuel/Environmental Recovery
Fee" that is alleged to be equal to 32 to 34 percent of the roll-
off trash service charges.

A City franchise fee, four percent, was charged against these
customers' inflated amount on a separate line on customer
invoices.

The plaintiffs will argue that commercial trash customers with
trash service in containers that are commonly referred to as
"dumpsters" were affected.

The lawsuit alleges Republic Services of:

  -- Breach of contract: By invoicing and cashing checks of
customers for service, plaintiffs allege that Republic was in a
legal contract with all of them.  And because the invoicing amount
is alleged to not be legal, Republic was in breach of contract
with the plaintiffs.

  -- Unjust enrichment: If this allegation is proven, the
plaintiffs are seeking treble damages (or three times the judgment
amount).

  -- Discriminatory Treatment by a Public Utility: Residential
customers were only charged 5 percent fuel surcharges, and
customers with carts were charged only 6.4 percent.  Meanwhile
commercial dumpster customers were charged 33 to 34 percent in
surcharges.  This was discrimination, the plaintiffs alleged.

  -- Deceptive Trade Practices.

The plaintiffs will ask the court to certify the plaintiffs as a
class since there are common issues and calculations of the amount
of the harm.

The lawsuit will seek approximately $9 million, which is the
approximate calculated amount of the alleged illegal surcharges
over 14 years, plus all legal fees, court costs, and interest.

The San Angelo attorney representing the plaintiffs is Paul
Stipanovic of the San Angelo law firm Gossett, Harrison, Millican
& Stipanovic, PC.

The plaintiffs have yet to be named, but the organization of the
class action lawsuit is being conducted by Texas Disposal Systems,
or TDS.  TDS CEO Bob Gregory made the allegation of Republic's
overcharging of commercial customers in his cover letter in the
TDS bid for the City of San Angelo trash pickup and landfill
management requests for proposals on April 1.


ROUGE VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Joel Eastwood, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a
C$412-million class action lawsuit has been brought against a
Scarborough hospital on behalf of thousands of patients whose
personal information was leaked by two former employees.

The hospital revealed earlier in June that the contact information
of as many as 8,300 patients at Rouge Valley Centenary, mainly
mothers who gave birth between 2009 and 2013, had allegedly been
handed over to private companies which marketed RESP investments
to the new parents.

The hospital subsequently contacted the Toronto Police Service.
The Ontario Securities Commission is also conducting an
investigation.

"You're vulnerable," said Scarborough resident Meagan Ware, one of
the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who gave birth to her son James at
the hospital in 2010, said in an interview on June 24.

"The vulnerability that you feel when you don't really know where
your information -- my information, as well as my child's
information -- has ended up," she said.

The lawsuit names as defendants Rouge Valley, the two unnamed
former hospital employees, the unnamed RESP company which received
the personal information, and an unnamed employee of the RESP
company.

Michael Crystal, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in
the action, said the claim would be amended once the names of the
former hospital staffers and the company are released.

"One of the first things we will be doing is bringing a motion to
have the names released to us," Mr. Crystal said.  "Certainly, the
hospital knows who the employees were, and we have not been able
to get those."

Rouge Valley spokesman David Brazeau said in an email the hospital
is no longer conducting interviews on the matter.

According to the statement of claim, the defendants are liable for
"damages for breach of contract, breach of warranty, breach of
confidence, intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, and conspiracy,"
totaling C$332 million.

The claim also asks for punitive damages of C$80 million, plus
undetermined expenses relating to costs incurred to prevent
identity theft, as well as mental distress, frustration and
anxiety.

Mr. Crystal said the damages, which work out to roughly C$49,000
per patient, are justified because the private RESP companies
allegedly paid for the private information.

"What I think makes this considerably more specious is the fact
that this was then sold," Mr. Crystal said.  "It was disseminated
for commercial purposes."

Ms. Ware said she wanted to find out exactly who was responsible
for distributing her personal information.

"I don't feel like the hospital should be hiding the identity of
either one of the people.  Considering they have all our
information, it would be nice to know who they are," Ms. Ware
said.

John Broutzas, the husband of plaintiff Elia Broutzas, said he was
unhappy with how the hospital handled the situation when he first
called to complain after receiving a letter about the alleged
breach in December 2013.

"In my opinion, if no one does anything, people will keep doing it
and they'll get away with it," he said.

Mr. Broutzas said the lawsuit wasn't about the money.  "If there's
anything, that's great, we'll put it in my son's account and leave
it for him," he said.

Ontario's Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is
also investigating the breach, with commissioner Ann Cavoukian
vowing to "get to the bottom of this" amid similar reports from
patients at other Ontario hospitals.


SAROMA CORP: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amilcar Ramirez, Domingo Ramirez and Margarita Pareja,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Saroma Corp. (d/b/a Palacio Azteca), Ranferi Escamilla, Lidia
Escamilla and Juana Caballero, Case No. 1:14-cv-04564 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for the unpaid
minimum wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Saroma Corp., is a Mexican restaurant located at 1374 York
Avenue, New York, New York 10021 under the name Palacio Azteca.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
       MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
       60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020,
       New York, NY 10165
       Telephone: (212) 317-1200
       Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
       E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


SEMINOLE WIND: "Kenny" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
William Kenny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Seminole Wind Restaurant of Bainbridge, LLC, Seminole
Wind Restaurant of Thomasville, LLC, Seminole Wind Restaurant Of
Cairo, LLC, and Thomas Bryant, Case No. 7:14-cv-00097 (M.D. Ga.,
June 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Seminole Wind Restaurant of Bainbridge, LLC, is a restaurant
located at 14815 U.S. Highway 19 South, Suite 100, Thomasville,
Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Clark Davis, Esq.
      623 Beard St
      Tallahassee, Fl 32303
      Telephone: (850) 222-4770
      E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net


SESAMECOL Recalls Al Fakher Tahina Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sesameco
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Consumer
CFIA reference number:    8963

Sesameco is warning the public not to consume and retailers,
restaurants and institutions not to sell or use the product
described below due to possible Salmonella contamination.

Check to see if you have the product. If so, do not consume, sell
or use it.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick.  Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections.  Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea.  Long-term complications
may include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the company.  The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

Affected products: 18 kg. Al Fakher Tahina sold by the
manufacturer, Sesameco, situated at 4638 boulevard Thimens, St-
Laurent, Quebec


SHOWROOM CONDITION: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Rivera, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Showroom Condition Detailing, Inc. and Joseph Caiozzo,
individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-03925 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Showroom Condition Detailing, Inc., provides car washing and
detailing services, located at 3491 Clifton Boulevard, Wantagh,
New York 11 793.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cherice Patrice Vanderhall, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: cpv@employmentlawyernewyork.com


SIEMENS AG: Recalls Artis Zeego and Artis Zee Systems
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2014
Posting date:             June 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-40185

Siemens is informing all users of Artis Zee and Artis Zeego
systems that under certain circumstances, the release of radiation
can become blocked unnecessarily.  This situation comes about
after the system has booted up, and after an error with the large
display occurs that causes the system to block the release of
radiation.  After this, the system remains in a state where
radiation cannot be released, even if the error that triggered
this state was only a temporary one, and the error condition
itself goes away after a few seconds (such as a brief
communication error).

Affected products: A. Artis Zeego with Lot/Serial number 160810
and 160846; Model or catalog number: 10280959

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Siemens AG
                    Wittelsbacherplatz 2
                    Muenchen 80333
                    Germany


SIEMENS SHANGHAI: Recalls Somatom Emotion 16-Slice Configuration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 17, 2014
Posting date:             June 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-40191

Recalled Products: Somatom Emotion 16-slice Configuration

Siemens has recently detected a rubber component with unfavorable
ageing properties on the Somatom Emotion 16-slice Configuration.
The mechanical function of this rubber damper, which is situated
within the mounting assembly of the rotation motor, may
potentially degrade over time and may impact stability.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Siemens Shanghai Medical Equipment Ltd.
                    278 Zhouzhu Road,
                    Shanghai 201318
                    China


SPORTS MASKA: Recalls Reebok Goalie Throat Collars
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 19, 2014
Posting date:             June 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40145

Affected products: Reebok TCPRE Senior (SR) and Junior (JR) Goalie
Throat and Clavicle Protectors

The recall involves Reebok TCPRE Senior (SR) and Junior (JR)
goalie throat and clavicle protectors.

These models are included in this recall:

   Model/Size         UPC
   ----------         ----
   K101JR TCPRE       884899896964
   K101SR TCPRE       884899896957

The Neck Protectors are made from nylon and polyester.  The model
numbers or product codes are located (i) on the outside of the
polybag header card in which the product may be sold at retail and
(ii) on the inside label of each neck protector.  Also visible on
the outer surface of the product are the wordmark/logo "Reebok"
embroidered in white.  The BNQ certification mark/logo, the
mention "BALLISTIC NYLON BALLISTIQUE", the model identification
"TCPRE SR" or "TCPRE JR", the sizing information in lettered
reference, and metric and imperial measurements are also screen
printed in white.

The products are further identified by the following identifier
code: 99X-YYK-TCPRE-BLK, where 9 can represent any number and X
can represent any letter.  This code is located on the inside
label of each neck protector.

The throat protectors have been decertified by Bureau de
normalisation du Quebec (BNQ) for non-conformance to certification
requirements.  This could pose a risk of throat laceration should
a skate come in contact with the throat protector.

Neither Health Canada nor Sports Maska Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of this throat protector.

Approximately 8,100 units were sold in Canada and approximately
3,300 units were distributed in the United States.

The recalled units were manufactured in China and sold from April
2012 to May 2014 in Canada and the United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Sports Maska, Inc.
                    Montreal
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should stop using the recalled products immediately and
return them to the retailer for a refund or replacement or to
Sports Maska Inc. for a replacement product.


STAWNICHY'S MEAT: Recalls Meat Products Due to Undeclared Wheat
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Stawnichy's Meat Processing
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8959


STAWNICHY'S MEAT: Recalls Soups Due to Undeclared Milk, Wheat, Soy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Soy,
                          Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Stawnichy's Meat Processing
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail, Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8958

The food recall warning issued on June 12, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Stawnichy's Meat Processing is recalling soup products from the
marketplace because they contain milk, wheat and soy which are not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk, wheat, or
soy should not consume the recalled products described below.

If you have an allergy to milk, wheat or soy, do not consume the
recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

There have been no reported allergic reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.


T-BROTHERS FOOD: Recalls Korepab Potato Pizza (Crackers)
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           T-Brothers Food And Trading Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8969

Affected products: 42 g. Korepab - Potato Pizza with all codes
where milk does not appear on the label


TAMKO BUILDING: Faces "Disher" Suit Alleging Product Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Disher, Eric Kline, John O'Malley and Dimitri Mishurov, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Tamko
Building Products, Inc., and Tamko Roofing Products, Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00740-NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill., June 27, 2014), arises from
product liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John J. Driscoll, Esq.
          DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 2440
          St. Louis, IL 63102
          Telephone: (314) 932-3232
          Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
          E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com


TD BANK: Sued in Pa. Over Processing of Debts from Payday Lenders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Andrichyn and Gladstone Williams individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-03863 (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2014), arises from the
Defendant's processing of debts on its customers' bank accounts
from payday lenders it knew were making unlawful payday loans.

TD Bank is a national banking association located in Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent W. Landau, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1604 Locust St., 2nd Fl.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 985-3270
      E-mail: blandau@hausfeldllp.com


TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: Sued Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Cook, Individually and behalf of others similarly situated,
v. Telexelectric, LLLP, Telex Mobile Holdings, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:14-cv-00134 (N.D. Ga., June 24, 2014), arises from the
Defendants' conduct in carrying out, or aiding in carrying out, an
unlawful Ponzi pyramid scheme that included, fraudulent
unregistered offer and sale of securities in the form of
unregistered investment contracts constituting securities.

Telexelectric, LLLP, is a marketer of telecommunications and
advertising primarily targeting the hard-working Brazilian-
American and Dominican-American communities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Tate, Esq.
      TATE LAW GROUP, LLC
      2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600
      P. O. Box 9060
      Savannah, GA 31412
      Telephone: (912) 234-3030
      Facsimile: (912) 234-9700
      E-mail: tlgservice@tatelawgroup.com


TJX CANADA: Recalls Fahrenheit 1600W Hair Dryer
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 19, 2014
Posting date:             June 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Suspected quality concern
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40147

Affected products: Fahrenheit 1600W Hair Dryer

The recall involves the Fahrenheit 1600W hair dryer.  The recalled
hair dryer comes in a variety of colors and are identified by the
following model numbers:

Fahrenheit 1600W hair dryers subject to the recall:

   Model Number        Color
   ------------        ------
   FHT-FDWR2           White
   FHT-FDRR2           Red
   FHT-SEZ             Zebra
   FHT-SEGF            Giraffe

The hair dryer has shown some quality concerns during normal use,
posing a burn or fire hazard.

TJX Canada has received two incident reports of the hair dryer
malfunctioning.  One report claimed that the hair dryer started
smoking and the other report involved the dryer discharging
debris.  No injuries resulted from these incidents.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer injuries
related to the use of these products in Canada.

Approximately 4,821 units of the recalled product have been sold
at Winners and Marshalls locations across Canada.

The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold from July
2013 to January 2014.

Companies:

   Importer     Winners Merchants International L.P.
                Mississauga
                Ontario
                Canada
                Telephone: +1 (800) 646-9466

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the affected hair
dryer and return it to the closest Winners or Marshalls Canada
location for a refund.


UNDER THE NILE: Recalls Side-Tie Kimonos
----------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 16, 2014
Posting date:             June 16, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40017

Affected products: Side-tie kimonos

The recall involves Under the Nile side-tie kimonos, size 3 to 6
months that are made of 100% cotton and identified by UPC numbers
874259025493, 874259025516, 874259027435, 874259027459,
874259021860 and 874259021846.

The kimonos come in blush, ice blue, star print blue/coral, star
print lavender/kiwi, off white and sage/yellow animal print.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that these products do not meet the flammability requirements for
children's sleepwear under Canadian law.

Loose-fitting children's sleepwear can contact ignition sources
such as stove elements, candles, and matches more readily than
tight-fitting sleepwear, and once ignited will burn rapidly,
potentially resulting in severe burns to large areas of the
child's body.  For this reason, cotton is not permitted in loose-
fitting sleepwear.

Neither Under the Nile nor Health Canada has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 105 of size 3-6 months of the recalled products were
sold in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Egypt and sold from
June 2013 to June 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Naturetex Textiles, Sekem Company
                    Cairo
                    Egypt

   Distributor      Under the Nile
                    San Jose
                    California
                    United States

Consumers should stop using the recalled products immediately and
return them to where they were purchased for a refund.


UNITED HEALTH: Fails to Make Benefit Payments, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Louis J. Peterson, D.C., and Lutz Surgical Partners, PLLC, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United Health Group Inc., United Healthcare Services, Inc., United
Healthcare Insurance Company, and United Healthcare Service LLC,
Case No. 0:14-cv-02101 (D. Minn., June 23, 2014), seeks to redress
the Defendants' repeated violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act resulting from United's systematic failure to make
benefit payments that are due and owing under United Plans.

United Health Group Inc., is a fully integrated company that is in
the business of insuring and administering health insurance plans.

United Healthcare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance
Company, and United Healthcare Service LLC, are wholly-owned and
controlled subsidiaries of UnitedHealth Group Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Ave, S Ste 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
              ralockridge@locklaw.com
              riebekh@locklaw.com


UNO FOODS: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           UNO Foods
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8964


VENEZIA'S NY STYLE: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Cole" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Cole v. Venezia's NY Style Pizzeria, Inc., an Arizona
corporation; Venezia's New York Style Pizza-Mesa, No. 1, Inc., an
Arizona Corporation; Venezia's NY Style Pizza-Mesa, No. 2, LLC.,
an Arizona Corporation; Frank Montanile and Clara Montanile,
husband and wife, Domenick Montanile and Jamie Montanile, husband
and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv-01430 (D. Ariz., June 24, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for unlawful failure to pay overtime
wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Venezia's NY Style Pizzeria, Inc., Venezia's New York Style Pizza-
Mesa, No. 1, Inc., Venezia's NY Style Pizza-Mesa, No. 2, LLC., are
restaurants with common ownership, directors, and members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Lester Collins, Esq.
      Sean Christopher Davis, Esq.
      Trey A. R. Dayes, III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC
      3101 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 258-8900
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: johnc@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


VW CREDIT: Faces "Byrd" Suit in C.D. Cal. Over Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Byrd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VW Credit, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04852 (C.D. Cal.,
June 23, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently
and intentionally contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

VW Credit, Inc., is engaged in lease and loan financing for new
and used vehicles and was a corporation incorporated in the State
of Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino del Rio, South Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3609
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

           - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
      324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

      Assal Hashemi Assassi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: assal@kazlg.com


WAL-MART INC: Averts Equate False Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that Wal-Mart Inc. on
June 23 evaded a false advertising class action targeting
allegedly misleadingly labels on its Equate brand heart health
supplements when a California federal judge found no enforceable
standard against which to measure the product's marketing claims.

Though granting leave to amend, U.S. District Judge Cynthia
Bashant tossed plaintiff Thamar Sanstisteban Cortina's suit over
advertising statements the retailer made touting the ability of
the coenzyme Q10 supplement product Equate CoQ10 to achieve "high
absorption" and "three times better absorption" than its
competitors.

Judge Bashant bought Wal-Mart's argument that the supplement can't
be held to U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention standards regarding
dissolution rates because those standards are voluntary and the
product is not UPC-certified.  Neither could the plaintiff rely on
the absorption claims surrounding a competing product, Qunol Ultra
CoQ-10, to establish the falsity of Wal-Mart's advertising,
according to the order.

"Although plaintiff identifies the specific challenged label in
her complaint, including attaching images, and although she
alleges a monetary loss in purchasing the product, her assertion
that defendant's representations are false or misleading is not
supported by the facts in the complaint," the judge said.

Judge Bashant also found the complaint devoid of any allegations
that would establish what a reasonable consumer might expect when
presented with Wal-Mart's claims, which the judge said was a
necessary element of Cortina's fraud-based allegations.

"It is conclusory to state simply that consumers reasonably expect
a certain degree of benefit, and that Equate CoQ-10 fails to meet
these expectations without some support for that inference," the
judge said.  "Therefore these conclusions as currently formulated
fail to meet the pleading standard."

Coenzyme Q10 is a naturally occurring antioxidant compound found
throughout the body, especially in the heart, liver, kidney and
pancreas.  It depletes over time with aging, heart disease and
medications, and according to the National Institutes of Health it
is often supplemented orally for a wide range of ailments, though
its effectiveness is inconclusive at best.

Cortina alleged in her September complaint that Wal-Mart's
representations amounted to affirmative misstatements because
independent, USP-compliant laboratory testing confirmed that
Equate CoQ10 does not adequately dissolve in the stomach,
preventing the active ingredient from being absorbed.

The suit sought damages for warranty breaches as well as
violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class and California subclass.

Regarding the Arkansas claims, Judge Bashant found that because
the alleged injuries occurred in California and California's
interest in protecting customers from illegal conduct in the state
outweighs that of Arkansas, California law applied.  Those claims
therefore could not stand, according to the order.

Turning to the California claims, the judge concluded that they
failed to give Wal-Mart notice of the nature of the alleged fraud
or how it misleads given that the plaintiff cannot force Wal-Mart
to comply with the USP-sanctioned CoQ10 monograph or manufacture a
cause of action out of the claims made by a competing product.

The suit's state level warranty claims also fail, the judge said,
because they fail to elucidate minimum standards of
merchantability or fitness that Wal-Mart allegedly breached.

"Plaintiff asserts defendant's product 'does not provide the
minimum amount of CoQ10 required and fails to adequately dissolve'
and is 'defective,'" the judge said.  "To meet the pleading
standard, plaintiff must allege facts establishing a minimum
standard for supplements.  Other than voluntary USP standards, no
minimum levels are established in the complaint.  Without
specifically alleging a standard, the claims are too vague to
support either implied or express warranties."

Finally, the judge found no violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, which defines warranties as written affirmations of
fact promising that a product is defect-free or will achieve a
specified level of performance over a period of time, according to
the order.

Although Cortina alleged that advertising surrounding the
product's "clinical strength," "high absorption" and "three times
better absorption" are verifiably false and therefore create such
a warranty, the judge said that without an adequate benchmark
"these claims of relative strength and efficacy are so ambiguous
as to be meaningless.

"Unless plaintiff can establish some yardstick on which these
statements could plausibly be verifiably false, such as the
invited comparison between Equate CoQ-10 and Qunol Ultra CoQ-10,
the provisions are unenforceable under the MMWA," the judge said.

The judge gave Cortina 21 days to bring an amended complaint.

The plaintiff is represented by Jack Fitzgerald of The Law Office
of Jack Fitzgerald PC and Ronald A. Marron, Syke Resendes and
Alexis M. Wood of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC.

Wal-Mart is represented by David Allen, Kevin Rising, Sarah
Johnston and Jade Jurdi of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

The case is Cortina v. Wal-Mart Inc., case number 3:13-cv-02054,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


WYCEN FOODS: Recalls Lot 100 Pudding Due to Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Wycen Foods (Canada) Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8916


ZOLL MEDICAL: Faces "Laster" Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Laster, individually and on behalf of All Others similarly
situated v. Zoll Medical Corporation, a Massachusetts
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04482 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, and
damages for Defendant's failure to provide proper wage statements
or wage.

Zoll Medical Corportion develops and markets medical devices and
software solutions that help advance emergency care and save
lives, while increasing clinical and operational efficiencies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Alison Gayle Lobban, Esq.
       Brent Edward Pelton, Esq.
       Taylor Bell Graham, Esq.
       PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
       111 Broadway, Suite 1503
       New York, NY 10000
       Telephone: (212) 385-9700
       Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
       E-mail: lobban@peltonlaw.com
               pelton@peltonlaw.com
               graham@peltonlaw.com


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Shows Bankr. Does Not Trump Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, Lawyers and Settlements reported that with the
extended incubation period of asbestosis, together with the
prevalence of asbestos as a major component of the industrial and
manufacturing industry before society finally identified its
carcinogenic properties, many an asbestosis lawsuit has been filed
in spite of a defendant declaring bankruptcy under the weight of
litigation.

But all is not lost, as the inner workings of one asbestosis
compensation file reveals (In re: Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC, Case No 3:10-bk-31607, in the US Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of North Carolina). In fact, in spite of the
bankruptcy filing of the defendant, the parent company of the
bankrupt enterprise is reported to have provided funding above and
beyond its legal liability, or so it claims in its own
interpretation of the matter, in order to settle most of the
asbestosis compensation claims without going to trial.

According to court records, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (GST)
had already paid out in excess of $1.8 billion to settle various
lawsuits, judgments and legal expenses when it withered under the
crush of claims and filed for bankruptcy in 2010. Prior to
invoking Chapter 11 protection, GST had manufactured gasket-
sealing products, which it claimed contained asbestos fibers that
were nonfriable and encapsulated within its products.

However, that didn't stop some 900,000 claims of asbestosis
disease over the course of 35 years - and those are just the
claims that were resolved, according to court records. In 2010,
GST threw up its hands in bankruptcy.

But all is not lost for claimants suffering from disease with an
asbestosis lawyer in tow. In May, GST filed an amended
reorganization plan in North Carolina federal court that included
a $245 million fund provided by GST parent company EnPro
Industries Inc. and another subsidiary. The fund is designed,
according to EnPro, to settle all current and future asbestosis
disease claims against GST.

The fund breaks down this way: $215 million in cash will come from
the reorganized GST, with $30 million coming from Coltec
Industries, a sister subsidiary of EnPro. As part of the plan, the
company must substantiate its claim that $245 million is
sufficient to answer the call for all current and future
asbestosis compensation claims.

"GST's amended plan of reorganization provides fair compensation
to claimants and permanent resolution to all asbestos claims
against GST," said EnPro President and CEO Steve Macadam in a
statement. "By providing funding greater than GST's legal
liability, the plan will facilitate the resolution of the vast
majority of claims by settlement rather than litigation, saving
litigation costs and ensuring that claimants are paid in full."

Macadam stated further that the plan is based on the Bankruptcy
Code and precedent in non-asbestos-related bankruptcy cases.

It will remain to be seen if the company can satisfy plaintiff and
judicial communities that $245 million is, indeed, sufficient. At
the end of the day however, any plaintiff dealing with alleged
asbestosis exposure and suffering from asbestosis lung disease can
take heart in knowing that just because a company goes bankrupt,
doesn't always mean that hope is lost.

Sometimes legal liability trumps bankruptcy - especially if the
bankrupt entity is affiliated with a larger organization with deep
pockets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal-Mogul Trust Wins $9.3MM Fibro Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reported that the asbestos
trust created by auto parts maker Federal-Mogul Corp.'s
reorganization won a $9.3 million wrongful death verdict against
defunct spray insulation manufacturer and Federal-Mogul subsidiary
T&N Ltd., bringing the trust closer to tapping a wealth of
prebankruptcy insurance.

Following a two-week trial, a Massachusetts federal jury found T&N
liable for the 2010 mesothelioma death of John T. Lydon Jr., a
pipefitters' union manager who allegedly breathed its Limpet-brand
asbestos insulation during the construction of Boston's Prudential
Tower skyscraper in the early 1960s.

Lydon's injury claims are assigned to the trust that was set up
through Federal-Mogul's Chapter 11 plan to compensate asbestos
victims after thousands of personal injury suits forced the
company and its subsidiaries into bankruptcy in 2001. The jury
awarded $3.1 million in compensatory damages and a $6.2 million
punitive award.

By itself, the verdict does little to help the trust. But by
establishing a liability claim against T&N, it erodes the $517
million self-insured retention layer of an insurance policy the
company bought from Curzon Insurance Co. in 1996.

Once the retained limit is exhausted, the policy provides nearly
$300 million more in additional coverage, with any recovery
potentially furnishing the trust with fresh insurance proceeds to
pay claimants, according to court records.

The case stems from a suit Lydon and his wife launched in May 2010
against 90 defendants that allegedly had a hand in his asbestos
exposure. T&N was not originally named, but the trust decided to
pursue the case in their stead.

Friday's verdict was made possible because the week before, U.S.
District Judge F. Dennis Saylor rejected T&N's attempt to declare
punitive damages off-limits. As the company argued, punitive
damages aren't allowed when an award would not deter future
conduct, and that as a nonoperating entity, there was no conduct
to deter.

"There would be no deterrent effect of any kind if punitive
damages were awarded in favor of anyone, much less the trust,
which is the real party in interest in this case," the company
said.

T&N also argued that it should be allowed to tell the jury about
the "identity, purpose and operation" of the trust in order to
make clear that any recovery would not go to the Lydon family
itself.

"Plaintiffs' counsel would have the court allow the jury to
believe that whatever award they might give would compensate the
Lydons . . . and 'punish and deter' the defendants -- which simply
are not doing business any more," the company said. "The most
charitable description of that is fiction, and the court should
permit the defendants to explain to the jury what the trust is,
how it works, and what it does."

The trust countered that the motion was a transparent attempt to
obfuscate the company's willful decision to sell carcinogenic
products and that courts have been sanctioning awards of punitive
damages against nonoperating asbestos purveyors for years.

Further, the trust said, if the company can enter "an advisory
opinion on the admissibility of the trusts' involvement in this
claim," it should at least be allowed to show that the goal of the
litigation is to boost recoveries for thousands of other
claimants.

The judge denied T&N's motion in its entirety without a written
order, allowing the jury to find that T&N was grossly negligent in
marketing Limpet.

Counsel for T&N and the trust were not immediately available for
comment.

The plaintiff is represented by John D. Hurst and John E. Herrick
of Motley Rice LLC and Andrea Marino Landry of Thornton & Naumes
LLP.

T&N is represented by Edward W. Murphy of Morrison Mahoney LLP.

The case is Katherine Lydon et al. v. T&N Ltd. et al., case number
1:12-cv-10013, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs Object to Garlock's Claims Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reported that asbestos
victims suing bankrupt Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC objected
to the company's proposal to set a date by which all settled
claims must be filed for review, saying that the plan is unfair to
the claimants.

In a March motion, GST asked the court to establish August 1 as
the bar date by which all creditors asserting a settled GST
asbestos claim must file proofs of claim in the chapter 11 cases,
after which they will be reviewed for their allowability. The
official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants said that
although they are not opposed in principle to a bar date, GST's
plan gives the company too much power.

"The submission of those claims will allow all parties in interest
to see the number and amount of the claims allegedly settled and
enable the debtors to formulate their claim objections and report
their intentions to the court and the estate parties," the
committee said.

That would allow a clearer assessment of the scope of the
disputes, what sort of litigation process would be needed to
resolve them, and whether it would be best to initiate litigation
during the cases or instead after confirmation of a reorganization
plan.

"That is an assessment that should be made carefully before the
court actually permits the onset of allowance proceedings and the
diversion of effort and resources they would entail," the
committee said.

According to the committee, the court should maintain control over
the timing of any allowance proceedings so as to prevent
unnecessary delays in the adjudication of plan confirmation
issues.

GST said a bar date for settled claims is necessary to begin the
allowance process. But the committee contends that an early
resolution of disputed settled claims is not necessary for moving
the confirmation process forward in the cases. Rather, it argued
there is a real risk that uncontrolled allowance proceedings would
impede the "fundamental bankruptcy goal" of speedy and efficient
reorganization.

The committee also said that some of the defined terms in GST's
proposal create uncertainty and should be modified, and that
additional terms should be defined. Specifically, it said the
definition for a "GST asbestos claim" is vague and overbroad --
encompassing worker's compensation claims and claims that are not
even related to asbestos and Garlock's asbestos-containing
products.

"Moreover, because the definition of GST asbestos claim
encompasses claims against nondebtor entities that are not
derivative of claims against Garlock and do not affect Garlock's
estate, it is improper as beyond the scope of the bankruptcy
jurisdiction set out by Congress," the committee said.

The committee said it isn't even necessary to define "GST asbestos
claim" for the purposes of setting a settled GST asbestos claims
bar date. It said a clear definition of "settled GST asbestos
claim" will be sufficient.

The objection said that GST's proposal doesn't give settled claim
holders a reasonable time to file proofs of claim.

In its bar date motion, GST said a time period of approximately 60
days after service of the bar date package would be an appropriate
deadline. But the committee said that because some plaintiffs law
firms represent many settled GST asbestos claims, a response
period of at least 90 days would be fairer and more appropriate.

Garlock faced 35 years of litigation from attorneys seeking to
represent people who said they ended up with mesothelioma after
working with Garlock's products, which contained asbestos. Garlock
filed for bankruptcy in 2010, when its insurance had been
exhausted and it could no longer afford to settle the suits.

Garlock is represented by Garland S. Cassada, D. Blaine Sanders,
Jonathan C. Krisko and Richard C. Worf Jr.of Robinson Bradshaw &
Hinson PA.

The committee of claimants is represented by Trevor W. Swett III,
Jeffrey A. Liesemer, Elihu Inselbuch and Andrew J. Sackett of
Caplin & Drysdale Chtd. and Travis W. Moon of Moon Wright &
Houston PLLC.

The case is In re: Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, case number
3:10-bk-31607, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend itself against
numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago. Currently there are a few thousand
claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with
hundreds of other companies. In some cases, the claims involve
products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most
of the costs. However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify
asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by
our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor
repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which
occurred on January 31, 2007. We are also responsible for half of
the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against
the former Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC's) divested
measurement and flow control business. But in all cases, for those
claimants who do show that they worked with our products or
products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we
nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature
of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. We
defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been
dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment
to claimants.

We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary. Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share
agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future
defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We
believe that this arrangement will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial
condition or results of operations."

Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Rockwell Automation) is a provider of
industrial automation power, control and information solutions
that help manufacturers achieve a competitive advantage for their
businesses. The Company operates in two segments: Architecture &
Software and controls Products & Solutions. In the United States,
Canada and certain other countries, the Company sells primarily
through the independent distributors in conjunction with its
direct sales force. In the remaining countries, the Company sells
through a combination of its direct sales force.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Unit Increases Net Fibro Reserves by $19MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s subsidiary increased its net
asbestos reserves by $19 million in the first quarter of 2014,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The estimation of loss reserves relating to asbestos and
environmental claims on insurance policies written many years ago
is subject to greater uncertainty than other types of claims due
to inconsistent court decisions as well as judicial
interpretations and legislative actions that in some cases have
tended to broaden coverage beyond the original intent of such
policies and in others have expanded theories of liability.

AIG Property Casualty's reserves relating to asbestos and
environmental claims reflect comprehensive ground-up and top-down
analyses performed periodically. In the first quarter of 2014, AIG
Property Casualty increased its gross asbestos reserves by $9
million and the net asbestos reserves by $19 million primarily to
reflect anticipated uncollectible reinsurance (affecting net
reserves only), and accretion of discount. There was no additional
incurred loss for environmental claims this quarter.

In addition to the U.S. asbestos and environmental reserve amounts
shown in the tables below, AIG Property Casualty also has asbestos
reserves relating to foreign risks written by non-U.S. entities of
$134 million gross and $107 million net as of March 31, 2014. The
asbestos reserves relating to non-U.S. risks written by non-U.S.
entities were $134 million gross and $108 million net as of
December 31, 2013.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance
company. The Company provides a range of property casualty
insurance, life insurance, retirement products, mortgage insurance
and other financial services to customers in more than 130
countries. It diverse offerings include products and services that
help businesses and individuals protect their assets, manage risks
and provide for retirement security. It earns revenues primarily
from insurance premiums, policy fees from universal life insurance
and investment products, and income from investments. Its segments
include AIG Property Casualty and AIG Life and Retirement. During
the year ended December 31, 2012, the Chartis segment was renamed
AIG Property Casualty and the SunAmerica segment was renamed AIG
Life and Retirement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,310 Outstanding Fibro Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 2,130 asbestos-related cases outstanding
against Standard Motor Products, Inc., according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.


The Company states: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense thereof.  At March 31, 2014, approximately 2,310 cases
were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities.  Since inception in September 2001 through March 31,
2014, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $15.2
million.  We acquired limited insurance coverage up to a fixed
amount for defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims and have exhausted all insurance coverage.

In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by
an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits
are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions.
As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial
consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related
liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability.  The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs
in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available
from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent
claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future;
(3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an
analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average
settlement values.

The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31,
2013.  The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $24.4 million to
$37.4 million for the period through 2058. The change from the
prior year study was a $2.7 million decrease for the low end of
the range and a $4.1 million decrease for the high end of the
range.  The decrease in the estimated undiscounted liability from
the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range
reflects our actual experience over the prior twelve months.
Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all
other available information considered by us, we have concluded
that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more
likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos
liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded
liability to determine if an adjustment is required.  Based upon
the results of the August 31, 2013 actuarial study, no adjustment
to the asbestos liability was recorded in our consolidated
financial statements as the difference between our recorded
liability and the liability in the actuarial report at the low end
of the range was not material.  Legal costs, which are expensed as
incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued
operations in the accompanying statement of operations, are
estimated, according to the updated study, to range from $27.4
million to $48.1 million for the period through 2058.

We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third
quarter of each year for the foreseeable future.  Given the
uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the
future and other factors outside our control, we can give no
assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will
continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential
liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be
necessary.  At the present time, however, we do not believe that
any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial
position."

Standard Motor Products, Inc. (Standard Motor Products) is an
independent manufacturer and distributor of replacement parts for
motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with a
focus on the original equipment service market. The Company
operates in two segments: Engine Management Segment and
Temperature Control Segment. The Engine Management Segment
manufactures ignition and emission parts, ignition wires, battery
cables and fuel system parts. The Temperature Control Segment
manufactures and remanufactures air conditioning compressors, air
conditioning and heating parts, engine cooling system parts, power
window accessories, and windshield washer system parts. In January
2014, the Company acquired the assets of Pensacola Fuel Injection,
a privately-held company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits
alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are subject to lawsuits initiated by a
significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a
result of exposure to asbestos. In the early 2000's we were named
in nearly 20,000 complaints, most of which were filed in
Mississippi state court and the vast majority of which made no
allegations of exposure to asbestos from our product categories.
Most of these claims have been dismissed and our current docket of
active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide. A
small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of our subsidiaries. The
substantial majority of the remaining claims are related to
alleged exposure to asbestos in our automotive products. Only a
small percentage of the claimants allege that they were automobile
mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in
other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient
information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim
against us. We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it
is unlikely that mechanics were exposed to asbestos by our former
products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased
risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these
products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100 defendants
from a variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either
do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages. As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users
continue to go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may
experience an increased number of these claims. We vigorously
defend ourselves against these claims as part of our ordinary
course of business. In future periods, we could be subject to cash
costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved
unfavorably to us. As of March 31, 2014, with respect to claims
that have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, we
have regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly, we
presently believe that these asbestos-related claims will not have
a material adverse impact on our future consolidated financial
position, results of operations or liquidity."

Tenneco Inc. (Tenneco) is a producer of emission control and ride
control products and systems for light, commercial and specialty
vehicle applications. The Company serves both original equipment
vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) and the repair and replacement
markets, or aftermarket, worldwide. The vehicle parts industry is
generally separated into two categories: original equipment (OE)
in which parts are sold directly for use by OEMs and commercial
vehicle engine manufacturers; and aftermarket in which replacement
parts are sold in varying quantities to wholesalers, retailers and
installers. In the OE category, parts suppliers are generally
divided into tiers Tier 1 suppliers that provide their products
directly to OEMs, and Tier 2 or Tier 3 suppliers that sell their
products principally to other suppliers for combination into the
other suppliers' own product offerings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Continues to Defend PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself against
numerous asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply
Company, which distributes industrial supplies, currently is named
as a defendant in approximately 6,900 asbestos-related claims in
state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Texas
and Illinois. Because a very small percentage of products
manufactured by third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past
may have contained asbestos and many of the pending claims are
part of mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a
hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to
determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or
plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing
products supplied by Fairmont. In addition, while Fairmont may be
entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain jurisdictions
from manufacturers of identified products, the availability of
such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time, and in
recent years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in
these actions have sought protection from these claims under
bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect
to these asbestos cases. Based on over 15 years of experience with
this litigation, we have established an accrual to cover our
estimated liability for these cases. This accrual is immaterial to
the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and was included
in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not
been material."

CONSOL Energy Inc. (CONSOL Energy) is a producer of coal and
natural gas for global energy and raw material markets, which
include the electric power generation industry and the steelmaking
industry. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company
produced 62.6 million tons of high-British thermal unit (Btu)
bituminous coal from 12 mining complexes in the United States. In
addition, it provides energy services, including river and dock
services, terminal services, industrial supply services, coal
waste disposal services and land resource management services. The
Company operates in two segments: Coal and Gas. In December 2013,
the Company announced that it has completed the sale of
Consolidation Coal Company (CCC) subsidiary, which includes all
five of its longwall coal mines in West Virginia, to a subsidiary
of Murray Energy Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Had 311 Pending Fibro Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, LLC, had 311 asbestos-related cases, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

Midwest Generation entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC, or Exelon
Generation, on February 20, 2003, to resolve a dispute regarding
interpretation of Midwest Generation's reimbursement obligation
for asbestos claims under the environmental indemnities set forth
in the March 1999 asset sale agreement. Under this supplemental
agreement, Midwest Generation agreed to reimburse Commonwealth
Edison and Exelon Generation for 50% of specific asbestos claims
pending as of February 2003 and related expenses less recovery of
insurance costs and agreed to a sharing arrangement for
liabilities and expenses associated with future asbestos-related
claims as specified in the agreement. The obligations under this
agreement are not subject to a maximum liability. The supplemental
agreement had an initial five-year term with an automatic renewal
provision for subsequent one-year terms (subject to the right of
either party to terminate). There were approximately 311 cases for
which Midwest Generation was potentially liable that had not been
settled and dismissed at March 31, 2014. Midwest Generation had
$53 million recorded in LSTC at March 31, 2014, related to this
contractual indemnity.

Midwest Generation, LLC sells wholesale electricity to markets in
the Midwest. The independent power producer has a generating
capacity of almost 5,480 MW, primarily from its six coal-fired
power plants in Illinois (5,172 MW); it also oversees the
operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site generating plants which
have 305 MW of capacity. Affiliate Edison Mission Marketing and
Trading acts as a conduit for Midwest Generation's wholesale
energy activities. Midwest Generation is a subsidiary of Edison
International unit Edison Mission Midwest Holdings Co. In 2010
regional transmission organization PJM Interconnection accounted
for 79% of the company's revenues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Had 550 Pending Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation is involved in 550 asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the company has
been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the litigation,
including settlement costs, have not been significant. As of March
31, 2014, there were about 550 lawsuits. Management believes that
the company has substantial indemnification protection and
insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy
limits, with respect to asbestos claims. The company has valid
defenses to these claims and intends to continue to defend them
vigorously. Additionally, based on its historical experience in
asbestos cases and an analysis of the current cases, the company
believes that it has adequate amounts accrued for potential
settlements and judgments in asbestos-related litigation. At March
31, 2014, the company had recorded litigation liabilities of
approximately $27 million, a significant portion of which relates
to asbestos. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially,
it is possible that the company could incur significant costs
resolving these cases. After consulting with legal counsel and
after considering established liabilities, it is our judgment that
the resolution of pending litigation and proceedings is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the company's
consolidated financial condition or liquidity. In any given period
or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings or matters
could have a material effect on the results of operations.

MeadWestvaco Corporation (MWV) is a global packaging company
providing solutions to the healthcare, beauty and personal care,
food, beverage, home and garden, tobacco, and agricultural
industries. The company also produces specialty chemicals for the
automotive, energy, and infrastructure industries and maximizes
the value of its land holdings through forestry operations,
property development and land sales. MWV's reporting segments are
Food & Beverage; Home, Health & Beauty; Industrial; Specialty
Chemicals, and Community Development and Land Management. On May
1, 2012, the Company completed the spin-off of its Consumer &
Office Products business and subsequent merger of that business
with ACCO Brands Corporation. On November 30, 2012, MWV acquired
Ruby Macons Limited (Ruby Macons). On December 11, 2012, MWV
acquired the remaining 50% interest in Resitec Industria Quimica,
Ltda. In December 2013, Meadwestvaco Corp completed the sale of
U.S. forestlands to Plum Creek Timber Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Office Depot Unit Has Responsibility Over Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc.'s subsidiary retains responsibility for
lawsuits alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the
operation of the paper and forest products assets of OfficeMax,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2014.

OfficeMax is named a defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims,
and proceedings arising out of the operation of certain paper and
forest products assets prior to those assets being sold in 2004,
for which OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility. Also, as part
of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility for all
pending or threatened proceedings and future proceedings alleging
asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of the
paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the sale.
The Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained
proceedings are material to the Company's business.

Office Depot, Inc. (Office Depot) is a global supplier of office
products and services. The Company operates in three business
segments: North American Retail Division, North American Business
Solutions Division and International Division. The Company's North
American Retail Division sells a range of merchandise through its
chain of office supply stores throughout the United States. Its
North American Business Solutions Division sells nationally
branded and its own brand office supplies, technology products,
furniture and services. The Company operates a network of
distribution centers (DCs), crossdock, and combination facilities
across the United States. The Company operates wholly owned
entities, majority owned entities or participates in other
ventures covering 41 countries and has alliances in an additional
19 countries. In November 2013, Office Depot, Inc., merged with
OfficeMax Incorporated. The combined company will use the name
Office Depot, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Recon Ruling in "Lipson" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos case captioned JOANNE K. LIPSON, Plaintiff, v. ON
MARINE SERVICES CO. LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. C13-1747 (W.D.
Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued a May 19,
2014 order denying the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of
the court's prior ruling excluding expert testimony based on an
industry study by C. Washbourne titled "Silicosis and Abestos
Hazards Associated with the Manufacture and Use of Profax," after
determining that the Plaintiff has not established that the prior
ruling was "manifest error."  A full-text copy of Judge Robart's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/1a5IUufrom Leagle.com.

Joanne K Lipson, individually and on behalf of the Estate of James
B. Turner, Plaintiff, represented by Brian F Ladenburg, BERGMAN
DRAPER & FROCKT, Glenn S Draper, BERGMAN DRAPER & FROCKT, Matthew
Phineas Bergman, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Randall Iola,
STANLEY IOLA, LLP, Thomas H Hart, III, LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS H
HART, III, William A Galerston, STANLEY IOLA, LLP, Chandler H Udo,
BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Jackson Schmidt, PEPPLE CANTU
SCHMIDT PLLC & Jeffrey M Odom, PEPPLE CANTU SCHMIDT PLLC.

ON Marine Services Company, LLC, Ferro Engineering Division, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Oglebay Norton Company, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Rodney L Umberger, Jr, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS,
Katherine M. Steele, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS & Zackary A Paal,
WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Air Act Suit v. Colorado Agencies Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, in an order dated May 21, 2014, dismissed
without prejudice the case captioned SAMUEL MASIAS, Plaintiff, v.
COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES (CSU), JERRY A. FORTE, CEO of Colorado
Springs Utilities, MERV BENNETT, Chairman of the Board, CSU,
ANDRES PICO, Vice-Chairman of the Board, CSU, COLORADO DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, and GARRY KAUFMAN, Deputy
Director, Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-01403-PAB (D. Colo.), for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.  The Plaintiff in the case alleged that a
fire broke out at the Martin Drake power plant, which fire
resulted to the release of "toxic fumes that included asbestos
fibers into nearby neighborhoods."  A full-text copy of Judge
Brimmer's Decision is available at http://is.gd/lnFYn5from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Proceed with Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip P. Simon of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, issued an
opinion and order dated May 1, 2014, granting an inmate leave to
proceed against the superintendent, assistant superintendent,
complex director and case worker at the Indiana State Prison in
their individual capacities for monetary damages for housing him
under substandard conditions of confinement in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.  The inmate alleges, among other things, that he
was exposed to excessive amounts of "black mold, mildew, and
asbestos," which caused him breathing difficulties.

The case is MICHAEL MAXIE, Plaintiff, v. MARK LEVENHAGEN, et al.,
Defendants, CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-1280 PS (N.D. Ind.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Simon's Decision is available at http://is.gd/PnauoH
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Denies Bid to Remand "McMann" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an order dated
May 6, 2014, denying a motion to remand filed in the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit styled DALE McMANN and JANICE
MCMANN, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORP., et al., Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-00281-RSM (W.D. Wash.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/y6LxMG
from Leagle.com.

Dale McMann and Janice McMann, Plaintiffs, represented by Barrett
B Naman, Esq., and Christopher B Norris, Esq., at THE NEMEROFF LAW
FIRM; and:

         Benjamin Robert Couture, Esq.
         Brian Weinstein, Esq.
         WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC
         1001 Fourth Ave, Suite 4400
         Seattle, Washington 98154

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, Esq., and Brian D Zeringer, Esq., at SEDGWICK LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Marks,
Esq., and Eliot M Harris, Esq., at SEDGWICK LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw, Esq., at K&L
GATES LLPC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S
Marks, Esq., and Eliot M Harris, Esq., at SEDGWICK LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
Ronald C Gardner, Esq. -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- at GARDNER
TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, represented by Christine E Dinsdale,
Esq. -- dinsdale@sohalang.com -- and Michael Ryan O'Clair, Esq. --
oclair@sohalang.com -- at SOHA & LANG PS.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
Esq. -- jhorne@gth-law.com -- and Michael Edward Ricketts, Esq. --
mricketts@gth-law.com -- at GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J Craig,
Esq., and Mark B Tuvim, Esq., at GORDON & REES.

Jerguson Gage & Valve Co., Defendant, represented by Barry Neal
Mesher, Esq., at SEDGWICK LLP.

John Crane Inc, Defendant, represented by Thomas Allan Heller,
Esq. -- tomh@hellerwiegenstein.com -- and Brian C Schiewe, Esq. --
brians@hellerwiegenstein.com -- at HELLER WIEGENSTEIN PLLC.

M Slayen and Associates Inc, Defendant, represented by Ronald C
Gardner, Esq., at GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Saberhagen Holdings Inc, Defendant, represented by Timothy Kost
Thorson, Esq. -- thorson@carneylaw.com -- at CARNEY BADLEY
SPELLMAN.

SB Decking Inc, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly,
Esq. -- mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- at RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut, Esq. --
aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Jason H Daywitt, Esq. --
jdaywitt@rizzopc.com -- and John Michael Mattingly, Esq., at RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. Court Dismisses Suit v. Soft Drinks Companies
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael F. Urbanski of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, issued a May
2, 2014, memorandum opinion dismissing without prejudice the
lawsuit styled VICKIE G. MILLS, Plaintiff, v. PEPSI, et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:14-CV-00203 (W.D. Va.), for failure
to state a claim.  In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleges that she
"[b]ecame sick from bug killer asbestos" in soft drinks
manufactured by defendants..."  A full-text copy of Judge
Urbanski's Decision is available at http://is.gd/mIejr0from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Refuses to Remand "Osterhout" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mae D'Agostino of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York refused to remand the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit captioned ROBERT OSTERHOUT and
PEARL OSTERHOUT, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
as successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; CAMERON
INTERNATIONAL; CARRIER CORPORATION, individually and as successor-
in-interest to Bryant Heating and Cooling Systems, Inc.; CBS
CORPORATION, formerly known as Viacom, Inc., successor by merger
to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, formerly known as
Westinghouse Electric Corporation; CRANE CO.; CRANE PUMPS &
SYSTEMS, INC.; FMC CORP., on behalf of its former Peerless Pump
and Northern business; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; G.H. MINER CO., INC.; GOULDS PUMPS, INC.;
HOMELITE CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC.; IMO INDUSTRIES INC.; INGERSOLL-
RAND COMPANY; JOHN CRANE, INC.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; RUGGLES-
KLINGLEMAN MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.; STIHL
INCORPORATED; SYRACUSE SUPPLY CO.; TATE ANDALE, INC.; THE NASH
ENGINEERING COMPANY; TODD SHIPYARDS CORP.; TRANE US, INC.,
individually and as successor in interest to American Standard,
Inc.; TROY BELTING AND SUPPLY CO.; WARREN PUMPS LLC; WEIR VALVES &
CONTROLS USA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to
Attwood & Morrill Co., Inc., Defendants, NO. 5:14-CV-208
(MAD/DEP)(N.D.N.Y.), after determining that the removing
defendants have satisfied their burden for removal jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of Judge D'Agostino's May 30, 2014, memorandum-
decision and order is available at http://is.gd/5jXA6Jfrom
Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

         Jerome H. Block, Esq.
         Keith W. Binder, Esq.
         LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
         800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
         New York, New York 10022
         Telephone: 212.605.6200

Kenneth A. Krajewski, Esq. -- kkrajewski@brownkelly.com -- at
BROWN & KELLY, LLP, in Buffalo, New York, Attorneys for Defendant-
Cross-Defendant Air & Liquid Systems Corporation.

Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Claimant, and Cross-Defendant,
Cameron International:

        Steven E. Garry, Esq.
        COSTELLO SHEA & GAFFNEY, LLP
        44 Wall St New York, NY 10005
        Tel: 646-736-5783

Julie R. Evans, Esq., and Erik C. Dimarco, Esq., at WILSON ELSER
MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, in New York, New York, Attorneys
for Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Cross Defendants Carrier
Corporation, G.H. Miner Co., Inc., Homelite Consumer Products,
Inc., and Todd Shipyards Corp.

Michael A. Tanenbaum, Esq., Dennis V. Vega, Esq., Matthew Straus,
Esq., at SEDGWICK, LLP, in Newark, New Jersey, Attorneys for
Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Cross-Claimants CBS Corporation,
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, and General Electric Company.

Angela Digiglio, Esq., Eric R.I. Cottle, Esq., and Nicole M.
Kozin, Esq., at K & L GATES LLP, in New York, New York, Attorneys
for Defendants-Cross-Claimaints-Cross-Defendants Crane Co., Crane
Pumps & Systems, Inc., and Ruggles-Klingeman Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.

Christopher P. Hannan, Esq., KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINNELLI HANNA
& REBER, LLP, in New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant-
Cross-Claimaint-Cross-Defendant FMC Corp.

Susan E. Van Gelder, Esq. Lisa Marie Robinson, Esq. Andrew J.
Scholz, Esq., at GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP, in Buffalo, New York,
Attorneys for Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Cross-Claimants Goulds
Pumps, Inc. and, Stihl Incorporated.

Amy Zumsteg, Esq., at LEADER & BERKON, LLP, in New York, New York,
Attorneys for Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Cross-Claimants Imo
Industries Inc. and, Warren Pumps LLC.

James S. Nowak, Esq. -- jsnowak@kslnlaw.com -- at KENNEY SHELTON
LIPTAK NOWAK, LLP, in Buffalo, New York, Attorneys for Defendants-
Cross-Defendants-Cross Claimants Ingersoll-Rand Company and Trane
US, Inc.

William A. Cooney, Esq., at BARRY, MCTIERNAN & MOORE, in New York,
New York, Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Cross Claimant
John Crane, Inc.

Jason Riemer, Esq., at HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, in
New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Defendant
Johnson Controls, Inc.

David P. Schaffer, Esq., at MALABY & BRADLEY, LLC, in New York,
New York, Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Cross-Claimant
Sears, Roebuck & Co.

David E. Richman, Esq., at RIVKIN RADLER LLP, in Uniondale, New
York, Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Defendant Syracuse Supply Co.

Eric M. Gernant, Esq., at MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, PC, in Syracuse, New
York, Attorneys for Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Cross-Claimants
Tate Andale, Inc., The Nash Engineering Company, and Weir Valves &
Controls USA, Inc.

Frank A. Cecere, Esq. -- frank.cecere@admlaw.com -- at AHMUTY,
DEMERS & MCMANUS, in Albertson, New York, Attorneys for Defendant-
Cross-Claimant-Cross-Defendant Troy Belting and Supply Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insured Awarded $650,000 in Breach of Duty Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dana L. Christensen of the United States District Court for
the District of Montana, Butte Division, issued an order on
May 23, 2014, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff in an
insurance coverage suit after determining that the insurer
breached its duty to defend.  In the case, Pacific Hide & Fur
Depot leased a property that was part of what later became known
as the CMC Bozeman Asbestos Site.  Pacific purchased numerous
liability policies from Great American.  In 2003, Pacific was
identified as a potential liable party and that an investigated
revealed that asbestos was present at the Site at levels that
posed an imminent threat.  Accordingly, Judge Christensen ruled
that Pacific Hide is entitled to entry of judgment in the amount
of the consent judgment it paid to the City of Bozeman, $650,000,
plus its attorney's fees incurred during the Montana's
Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act
proceedings, as well as post-judgment interest of 10% per annum
pursuant to Montana Code Annotated Section 25-9-205 and Section
27-1-211.  Pacific is also entitled to attorney's fees for the
breach of contract and declaratory judgment action.

The case is PACIFIC HIDE & FUR DEPOT, a Montana corporation, n/k/a
Pacific Steel & Recyling, Plaintiff, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and RESOLUTE MANAGEMENT INC., and
NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants, NO. CV 12-36-BU-DLC (D.
Mont.).  A full-text copy of Judge Christensen's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/sm4qkifrom Leagle.com.

Pacific Hide & Fur Depot, Plaintiff, represented by Kyle A. Gray,
Esq. -- kgray@hollandhart.com -- and Michelle Millhollin Sullivan,
Esq. -- mmsullivan@hollandhart.com -- at HOLLAND & HART.

Great American Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Michael P. Hooks, Esq. --
mhooks@forsberg-umlauf.com -- at FORSBERG & UMLAUF, PS; and Robert
M. Carlson, Esq., at CORETTE BLACK CARLSON & MICKELSON.

Resolute Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Mark A. Rabinowitz, Esq., and Daniel R. Johnson,
Esq., at COZEN O'CONNOR; and:

         Allan H. Baris, Esq.
         MOORE, O'CONNELL & REFLING, PC.
         601 Haggerty Ln. Suite 10
         Bozeman, Montana 59715
         Phone: (888) 927-5620

National Indemnity Company, a Nebraska Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Allan H. Baris, Esq., at MOORE, O'CONNELL &
REFLING, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Award to Sears, et al., Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania on May 27, 2014, affirmed a
trial court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Sears,
Roebuck and Co., Inc., American Biltrite, Inc., and Certainteed
Corporation, in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
captioned SARA PAINTER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE
ESTATE OF HOWARD PAINTER, DECEASED, Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK
AND CO., INC., AMERICAN BILTRITE, INC., AND CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION, Appellees, NO. 655 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/rI31Pyfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Patrico" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a
May 27, 2014, memorandum and order denying the motion to remand
filed in the asbestos-related wrongful death action styled JOHN
PATRICO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 4:14CV00338 AGF (E.D. Mo.), after determining that
defendant Mallinckrodt US Holdings, LLC, timely removed the
action.  A full-text copy of Judge Fleissig's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/YbYzBVfrom Leagle.com.

John Patrico, Deceased, and Joseph Patrico, Deceased, Plaintiffs,
represented by Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., Ted Nicholas Gianaris,
Esq., and Trent B. Miracle, Esq., at SIMMONS, BROWDER, GIANARIS,
ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC,

Allied Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas J.
Kernell, Esq., at KERNELL LAW FIRM, PC.

Cooper Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Amy K. Shasserre, Esq., and Michael R. Dauphin, Esq., at FOLEY
AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Carl J. Geraci, Esq., at HEPLER BROOM.

Mallinckrodt US LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Ryan T. Brown, Esq., at GORDON AND REES, LLP; and William C.
Mills, IV, Esq. -- wmills@wglaw.com -- at WEBER GALLAGHER.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq., at JOLEY AND
NUSSBAUMER, P.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Pettinelli" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury and wrongful death action styled
MICHAEL PETTINELLI and DAVID PETTINELLI, as Co-Administrators for
the Estate of ROMEO A. PETTINELLI, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. A. C.
and S. INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 118400/98, MOTION SEQ.
NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.), defendants the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
and Goodyear Canada Inc. move for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint and all cross-claims asserted against them on the ground
that the plaintiffs have not shown that plaintiffs' decedent Romeo
Pettinelli was exposed to asbestos fibers released from a Goodyear
product.  In a decision and order dated May 8, 2014, Judge Sherry
Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the
motion in their entirety.  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/6KW2Pffrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Or. Ct. Upholds $800,000 Award in Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Oregon, in an opinion dated May 21, 2014,
affirmed a trial court's order denying defendant Ebasco Services,
Inc.'s motion to set aside a judgment awarding plaintiff General
Electric Company $800,000 in monetary damages and $25,165 in
attorney fees.  The Plaintiff sued certain insurers for coverage
of the settlement it paid to an asbestos-related personal injury
action brought by a former employee.  The case is PORTLAND GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v. EBASCO SERVICES, INC., fka Esicorp, Inc.; et al, Defendants,
and LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant and EECI,
INC., a Nevada corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York Corporation; et al., Third-Party
Defendants, NO. A143752 (Or. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/h1tOwRfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Inmate's Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona issued a May 15, 2014, order dismissing for
failure to state a claim the civil rights lawsuit styled Steven
Wade Ray, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County Durango Jail, et al.,
Defendants, NO. CV 14-0979-PHX-DGC (SPL)(D. Ariz.).  In the
lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleges, among other things, the presence
of asbestos in the walls and ceiling at the Maricopa County
Durango Jail.  A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/wujxeIfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Edison Dropped as Defendant in Fibro Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to his death, James M. Reera filed an asbestos suit against
a number of defendants, including Boston Edison Company.  Reera's
son and executor of his estate, David M. Reera now continues the
lawsuit.  The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and
for Entry of Final Judgment, to which the Plaintiff objects.  In a
decision dated May 23, 2014, the Superior Court of Rhode Island,
PROVIDENCE, SC, granted the Defendant's motion on the grounds that
there are no issues of material fact because, as a matter of law,
the Plaintiff is unable to establish the causation element of his
prima facie case against Defendant.

The case is DAVID M. REERA, EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES M.
REERA v. A.O. SMITH CORP., et al., C.A. NO. PC 12-0379 (R.I.
Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/nQzkb1from Leagle.com.

Vincent L. Greene, Esq., W. Mark Lanier, Esq., for Plaintiff.
James P. Marusak, Esq., for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms $990,000 Judgment in PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, on May 19, 2014, issued an
opinion affirming the judgment entered by a trial court awarding a
mesothelioma plaintiff $844,800 in damages and his wife $150,000
for loss of consortium.  The Superior Court concluded that none of
the issues raised by either party merit relief on appeal.  The
case is RICHARD ROST & JOYCE ROST, Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Appellant, and RICHARD ROST & JOYCE ROST, Appellants, v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee, NOS. 404 EDA 2012, 642 EDA 2012 (Pa.
Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/6NSyoRfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Scott" Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard A. Scott, executor of the estate of Albert L. Scott,
deceased, and Laverne Scott, in her own right appeal from the
trial court Order granting summary judgment in favor of Duquesne
Light Company.  Albert L. Scott, decedent, worked as an employee
for Duquesne Light from 1941-43 and 1945-85 in various capacities
and locations around Pittsburgh.  The Decedent was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on September 17, 2007, and died on March 26, 2008.

In a memorandum dated May 12, 2014, the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania reversed and remanded the lawsuit after concluding
that the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act is inapplicable in
the case and the Scotts may file a common law tort claim against
Duquesne Light.  Thus, the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of Duquesne Light, the Superior Court said.

The case is HOWARD A. SCOTT, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ALBERT L.
SCOTT, DECEASED AND LAVERNE SCOTT, IN HER OWN RIGHT, Appellant, v.
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, Appellee, NO. 2139 WDA 2009 (Pa. Super.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/499Cukfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Shewmake" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams for the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, in an order
dated May 30, 2014, denied a bid to remand the asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuit styled HELEN PEARL SHEWMAKE, individually
and as special administrator for the Estate of ELIC DAVID SHEWMAKE
Plaintiff, v. AERCO INT'L INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-
CV-01223-SCW-PMF (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of the magistrate
judge's decision is available at http://is.gd/H9zEQcfrom
Leagle.com.

Helen Pearl Shewmake, Individually and as Special Administrator
for the Estate of Elic David Shewmake, Plaintiff and Counter
Defendant, represented by Allyson Michelle Romani, Esq., at
Shrader & Associates LLP.

A.O. Smith Corporation, Defendant, represented by Curtis R. Picou,
Esq., at Crivello Carlson Picou & Andrekanic LLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor-by-merger to
Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.
& Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al.

Ajax Magnethermic Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al.

All Acquisitions, LLC, formerly known as All Acquisitions Corp.,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al..

API Heat Transfer, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Stephanie F. Jones, Esq., at Gordon & Rees LLP.

Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Carla C. Storm, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP &Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Dayna L. Johnson, Greensfelder, Hemker et al.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et
al..

AWC 1997 Corporation, formerly known as Alpha Wire Corporation,
Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy-
Edwardsville.

Baltimore Aircoil Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Beazer East, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Bechtel Construction Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et
al..

Bechtel Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Bird Incorporated, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita
M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al..

Bonney Forge Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen Ann
Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., as successor-by-merger Borg Warner
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented byDonald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith,
Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary
Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Brand Insulations, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Esq., Kenneth M.
Nussbaumer, Esq., and Mary D. Rychnovsky, Esq., at Williams Venker
& Sanders LLC.
Buffalo Air Handling, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et
al.

Buffalo Air Handling, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl,
Royster et al.

Burnham, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw
& Culbertson.

BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Carboline Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Carlisle Industrial Brake and Friction, Inc, Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.
Carrier Corporation, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented
by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and
Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom
LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented byCorp, Defendant,
represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Michael
R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert S. Sanderson, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix
Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson
et al.

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD.-Chicago & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr.,
Johnson & Bell.

Clark Equipment Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..
Cleaver-Brooks, f/k/a Cleaver-Brooks, a division of Aqua-Chem,
Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Meredith S
Hudgens, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.

Clow Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and
Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom
LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Columbia Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Compudyne Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et
al.

Conwed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Copes-Vulcan, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented
by Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson - Chicago.

Crane Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith, Jr., HeplerBroom LLC.
Cummins, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.

Curtiss Wright Corporation, Defendant, represented by Reed W.
Sugg, Sandberg, Phoenix et al. - St. Louis & Steven Thomas Walsh,
Sandberg, Phoenix et al. - St. Louis.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan
L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. &William B. Starnes, II, Reed,
Armstrong et al.

Dewitt Products Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Edward E. Johnston, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W.
Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Dezurik, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.

Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Brown & James.

Dravo Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.

Eaton Aeroquip, LLC, successoe-by-merger to Eaton Aeroquip, Inc.,
f/k/a Aeroquip Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C.
& Derek Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C.
& Derek Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C.

Ferro Engineering, a division of Oglebay Norton Company, Cross
Defendant, represented by A. J. Bronsky, Brown & James.

Flowserve Corporation, as successor-in-interest to Durametallic
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.

Flowserve U.S., Inc, as successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Co.,
and Edward Valve Co., and Nordstrom Valve, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.

Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes,
II, Reed, Armstrong et al.

Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton,
Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong
et al.

Fluor Daniel Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L.
Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed,
Armstrong et al.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L.
Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed,
Armstrong et al.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by David W. Ybarra, Greensfelder, Hemker et
al.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal,
McCambridge et al.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et
al.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP,Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al.

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Goodrich Corporation, formerly known as The B.F. Goodrich Company,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Greene Tweed & Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et
al.

Grimes Aerospace Corporation, formerly known as Surface Combustion
Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented
by Derek Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. & William S. Thomas,
Pitzer Snodgrass PC.

Henkel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP,Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Stephanie F. Jones, Esq., at Gordon & Rees LLP.

Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Homasote Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP,Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Jeffrey T. Bash,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Kathleen Ann Hardee,
Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Honeywell, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S.
Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J.
Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Howden North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J.
Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Hyster Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C. & Derek Ruzicka,
Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C.

Illinois Tool Works, Inc., individually and as successor-in-
interest to Devcon Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC
& Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.

Industrial Holdings Corporation, formerly known as Carborundum
Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter
Defendant, represented byMichael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC
& Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Invensys Systems, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin
Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et
al.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP - Chicago, IL
& Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP - Chicago, IL.

J.A. Sexauer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith,
Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary
Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns
L.L.C.

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin
Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et
al.

Johnston Boiler Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP
&Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Joy Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et
al..

KCG, Inc., successor by merger to KC Wall Products, Inc., and Ruco
Drywall Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Page,
Gunty & McCarthy-Edwardsville.

Kvaerner U.S., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee,
Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Lattner Boiler Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., Defendant, Cross
Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC &Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Lennox Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Lindberg, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Ryan T. Barke, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC -
Swansea.

McMaster-Carr Supply Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Michael Patrick McGinley, Lashly & Baer PC.
Metallo Gasket Co., Defendant, represented by Karen E Bettcher,
Wilson, Elser et al.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Milwaukee Valve Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael
R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Mueller Steam Specialty Company, a division of Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty
& McCarthy-Edwardsville.

MW Custom Papers, LLC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Navistar International, formerly known as International Harvester
Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Dennis J.
Dobbels, Polsinelli PC & Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC.
Oakfabco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Tracy J. Cowan,
Hawkins, Parnell et al..

Parker Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Pecora Corporation, Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty
& McCarthy-Edwardsville.

Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..
Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Research-Cottrell, Inc., now known as AWT Air Company, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy-
Edwardsville.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Tracy J. Cowan, Hawkins, Parnell et al. & Earl B.
Thames, Jr., Hawkins, Parnell et al. - St. Louis.

RIC-WIL, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Riley Stoker Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., formerly known as Squared Sepco
Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented byDennis
J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC
& Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Seco Warwick Corporation, as successor-in-interest to Sunbeam
Furnaces, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented byKeith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Simpson Timber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael W.
Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel W.
McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson - Chicago.

SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Marley
Cooling Tower, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Stewart Warner Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew
Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Superior Boiler Works, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael
R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

The Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T.
Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

The Fairbanks Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

The Sherwin Williams Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John
A. Bruegger, Hawkins, Parnell et al..

Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., individually and for its
subsidiary Loftus Furnace Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Celia K. Douglas, Dentons US LLP - St.
Louis, Michael D. Hultquist, Dentons US LLP - Chicago & Roger K.
Heidenreich, Dentons US LLP - St. Louis.

Thermwell Products Co., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Nicholas B Bunnell, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Trane US, Inc., formerly known as American Standard, Inc.,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant,
represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L.
Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP
& Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
& Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Universal Refractories, Inc., Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter
Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC
& Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Watson McDaniel Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by John P. Cunningham, Brown & James PC &Tucker
Blaser, Brown & James PC.

Weil McLain, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., formerly known as Atwood &
Morrill, Defendant, and Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP.

Whiting Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
and Counter Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

XEF, Inc., formerly known as Electric Furnace Co., Defendant and
Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs
LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch,
Herzog, Crebs et al..

Young Group, LTD, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et
al..

Zy-Tech Global Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lise A. Newton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Doctor Affidavit in PI Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado issued an order on May 12, 2014, in the
lawsuit styled JAMES TEMPLETON, DAVID COWDEN, ROBERT GALLOB, FRANK
POWELL, DAVID ALLEN, ROBERT C. ROWE, SHANNON SMITH, Plaintiffs, v.
PETER ANDERSON, BRIAN BRADEN, JEFF SMITH, JAMES CHANEY, DOCTOR
TIMOTHY CREANY, JAN SYLVIA, STEVEN GALLEGOS, LANCE JOHNSON, CARL
WOJCIECHOWSKI, CHERI DRENNON, STEPHEN ENGLE, THOMAS MARTIN,
UNKNOWN JANE/JON DOES 1-10, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-
01276-RBJ-BNB (D. Colo.), denying the motion in limine to "bar"
the October 23, 2012 affidavit of Dr. Timothy Creany, a physician
employed by the Colorado Department of Corrections, on grounds
that it violates the plaintiffs' HIPPA rights.  Judge Jackson said
the Plaintiffs have put their physical condition in issue in this
case, specifically, the consequences of their exposure to
asbestos, and the affidavit addresses that issue.  There is no
basis to "bar" the affidavit, Judge Jackson ruled.  A full-text
copy of Judge Jackson's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/v4vgFVfrom Leagle.com.

James Templeton, David Allen, David Cowden, Robert Gallob,
Plaintiffs, Pro Se.  Peter Anderson, Jeff Smith, James Chaney,
Timothy Creany, Doctor, Jan Sylvia, Steven Gallegos, Cheri
Drennon, Stephen Engle, and Thomas Martin, Defendant, represented
by Christopher Wayne Alber, Colorado Attorney General's Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Convictions in Clean Air Act Suit Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------
Certified Environmental Services, Inc.; Nicole Copeland, former
CES Technical Services Manager; and Elisa Dunn, former CES air
monitor and field supervisor, appeal from their convictions of
conspiracy, aiding and abetting violations of the Clean Air Act,
mail fraud, and making false statements to federal officials.
Seeking a new trial, these defendants contend that the district
court improperly excluded evidence that they acted under a good-
faith belief that they were complying with state law and that, in
any event, their convictions and sentences were irreparably
tainted by prosecutorial misconduct.  The Government cross-appeals
the sentences given to CES, Copeland, and Dunn, and appeals from
the sentences given to Sandy Allen, a CES air monitor, and Frank
Onoff, a supervisor at a contractor that performed improper
asbestos abatement work.  The Government argues that the district
court erred in determining restitution, erred in calculating loss,
misapplied the advisory sentencing guidelines, and imposed
sentences that were substantively unreasonable.

Certain technical state and federal regulations governing the
removal of asbestos underlie the charges in the case.  Asbestos is
severely toxic, and "medical science has not established any
minimum level of exposure to asbestos fibers which is considered
to be safe."  Its complete removal is required by both federal and
state regulations.

In an opinion dated May 28, 2014, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the convictions of CES,
Copeland, and Dunn, and remanded for a new trial.  The Second
Circuit also vacated the sentences of Allen and Onoff and remanded
for resentencing.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v.
CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., NICOLE COPELAND, ELISA
DUNN, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, BARBARA DUCHENE,
THOMAS JULIANO, Defendants, SANDY ALLEN, FRANK ONOFF, Defendants-
Appellees, DOCKET NOS. 11-4872(LEAD), 11-4875(CON), 11-4877(CON),
11-4974(CON), 11-4976(CON), 11-4968(XAP), 11-4969(XAP), 11-
4972(XAP)(2d Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/z3BEmyfrom Leagle.com.

GABRIEL M. NUGENT (Daniel J. French, on the brief) Hiscock &
Barclay, LLP, Syracuse, NY, for Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
Certified Environmental Services, Inc.

Brian J. Fischer, Esq. -- bfischer@jenner.com -- Matthew D.
Cipolla, Esq. -- mcipolla@jenner.com -- Carl N. Wedoff, Esq. --
cwedoff@jenner.com -- at Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY; and
Donald T. Kinsella, Esq., at Stockli, Greene, Slevin & Peters LLP,
Albany, New York, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant-Cross-
Appellee Nicole Copeland.

Dennis B. Schlenker, Esq., Albany, NY, for Defendant-Appellant-
Cross-Appellee Elisa Dunn.

Craig A. Benedict, Assistant United States Attorney (Rajit S.
Dosanjh, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for
Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern
District of New York, Syracuse, NY, for Appellee-Cross-Appellant
the United States of America.

James R. McGraw, Esq., Syracuse, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Sandy
Allen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retrial Bid in Improper Fibro Removal Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2010, Defendants Michael Pinski, Duane O'Malley, and
James Mikrut were charged by indictment with: (1) failing to
notify the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency at least ten working days
prior to the removal of regulated asbestos-containing material;
(2) knowingly allowing asbestos to be stripped, removed and
otherwise handled and disturbed when there was not at least one
on-site representative present who was trained in the provisions
of the Environmental Protection Agency asbestos regulations and
the means of complying with them; (3) knowingly failing to
adequately wet regulated asbestos-containing material while it was
being stripped from a facility component; (4) knowingly failing to
mark vehicles used to transport asbestos-containing waste material
during the loading and unloading of waste with the proper signage;
and (5) knowingly failing to deposit all asbestos-containing waste
material as soon as is practical at a waste disposal site operated
in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency regulations.
In addition, Defendants Mikrut and Pinski were charged with making
false statements regarding the insulation or asbestos removal.

On August 19, 2011, Defendant Pinski entered into a plea agreement
with the Government.  On August 24, 2011, Defendant Mikrut entered
into a plea agreement with the Government.  A jury trial was held
with the last remaining defendant, Defendant O'Malley, between
September 21, 2011 and September 26, 2011, with the jury reaching
a verdict of guilty on Counts 1-5.  Defendant O'Malley filed a
Motion for New Trial.  The United States District Court for the
Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division, has reviewed the
Defendant's filings and the Government's Response.  Following the
review, the District Court, through Judge Michael P. McCuskey,
denied the motion.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DUANE
O'MALLEY, Defendant, CASE NO. 10-CR-20042 (C.D. Ill.).  A full-
text copy of Judge McCuskey's opinion dated May 28, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Nl7wh3from Leagle.com.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Eugene L Miller, US ATTY, Gail Linn
Noll, US ATTY & James Jinhan Cha, US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling in "Ward" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 2012, Patricia Ward filed a complaint against
multiple corporate defendants alleging she suffered from
mesothelioma as a result of work-related exposure to asbestos-
containing products they manufactured or distributed.  Ward had
worked in a laundry where pads "associated with the ironing boards
and presses were made from asbestos."  Among the named defendants
was Goss-Jewett Co. of Northern California.

The trial court denied the Defendant's motion for relief from
default and default judgment, rejecting the Defendant's claim that
its failure to file a responsive pleading was due to surprise and
excusable neglect.  The Defendant appeals upon contentions that
the default judgment is void for failure to provide sufficient
notice of the Plaintiff's statement of damages and a request for
entry of judgment.  The Defendant also contends the court abused
its discretion in denying relief.  As a final claim, the Defendant
asserts that the judgment, if upheld, must be modified to conform
to the amount of damages specified in the statement of damages.

In an opinion dated May 6, 2014, the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Three, affirmed the judgment
and order denying relief but modified the judgment to reduce the
damages award to the amounts specified in the statement of
damages.

The case is JOHN T. WARD et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
GOSS-JEWETT CO. OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Appellant,
NO. A139306 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/hAdacVfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Adler" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the personal injury action styled JOHN W. ADLER and ELAINE
ADLER, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190392/12, MOTION SEQ. 031 (N.Y. Sup.), defendant Gardner Denver,
Inc., moves for an order dismissing the complaint and all cross-
claims asserted against it on the ground that there is no evidence
to show that plaintiff John Adler was exposed to asbestos from a
Gardner Denver product.  In a decision and order dated June 4,
2014, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York
County, denied Gardner Denver's motion after finding that there is
a triable issue of fact whether Mr. Adler was exposed to asbestos
from Gardner Denver air compressors.  A full-text copy of Judge
Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/17w8QFfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Auth. Defense Costs in Insurance Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eileen Bransten of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted the motion filed by Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff The
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's for attorney's fees
based on a court declaration that Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant
American Home Assurance Company is obliged to pay defense costs in
full for asbestos personal injury lawsuits falling under Port
Authority's insurance policy.

The case is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE
PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, ALCOA, INC., MARIO &
DIBONO PLASTERING CO., INC., TISHMAN REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC., TISHMAN LIQUIDATING CORPORATION, TEECO PROPERTIES L.P., TMLC
CORP., f/k/a TISHMAN MANAGEMENT & LEASING CORP., TISHMAN SPEYER
PROPERTIES L.P., TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES, INC., TISHMAN
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, EQUITY HOLDINGS I CORP.,
f/k/a TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, f/k/a TISHMAN
REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., f/k/a TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION &
RESEARCH CO., INC., TISHMAN REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., TTV
REALTY HOLDINGS, INC., f/k/a TISHMAN REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC., f/k/a TIONA REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., TISHMAN
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF MANHATTAN, f/k/a TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION
& RESEARCH CORPORATION, AND TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 651096/2012, MOTION SEQ. NO. 007 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Bransten's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/F8rGU9from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmates Allowed to Amend Civil Rights Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona dismissed for failure to state claims three
civil rights suit filed by plaintiffs who were confined in the
Maricopa County Durango Jail.  In the complaints, the plaintiffs
allege, among other things, the presence of asbestos in the jail's
ceilings.

The first case is Jose Manuel Arias, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M.
Arpaio, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-0852-PHX-DGC (MEA)(D.
Ariz.).  A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's order dated June 10,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/fEVu4Nfrom Leagle.com.

The second case is Pedro Guillot, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio,
et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-0456-PHX-RCB (DKD)(D. Ariz.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Campbell's order dated June 16, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/MUwOqgfrom Leagle.com.

The third case is Clarence Tull, Plaintiff, v. Joseph Arpaio, et
al., Defendants, NO. CV 13-2594-PHX-DGC (BSB)(D. Ariz.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Campbell's order dated June 10, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/9xztLJfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand South Carolina Take-Home Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, in an order
dated June 13, 2014, granted the motion filed by Plaintiff Michael
W. Bradley to remand his take-home asbestos exposure case
captioned Michael W. Bradley, Plaintiff, v. Richland County
Landfill, Inc.; Waste Management of South Carolina, Inc.; and
Waste Management, Inc., Defendants, C/A NO. 3:14-CV-00779-JFA
(D.S.C.), after determining that the Defendants were not entitled
to remove the action.  A full-text copy of Judge Anderson's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/47x5iNfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Gypsum, Quigley Can Pursue Claims v. G-I
--------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the rising number of asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits filed in the 1980s, a group of producers of asbestos and
asbestos-containing products joined together and formed the Center
for Claims Resolution to administer asbestos personal injury
claims on behalf of the Members.  The Members negotiated and
signed the Producer Agreement Concerning Center for Claims
Resolution, which established and set forth the mechanics of the
Center and the obligations of the Members.  Appellants United
States Gypsum Company and Quigley Company, Inc., and the
predecessor-in-interest of Appellee G-I Holdings, Inc., were among
the roughly twenty asbestos producers who signed the Producer
Agreement, thereby becoming Members of the Center.

After G-I failed to pay its contractually-calculated share due to
pay out personal injury settlements and cover Center expenses,
U.S. Gypsum and Quigley were obligated to pay additional sums to
cover G-I's payment obligations.  G-I filed for bankruptcy and the
Center, U.S. Gypsum, and Quigley each filed a proof of claim in
the Bankruptcy Court seeking to recover for G-I's nonpayment under
the Producer Agreement.  The Center eventually settled its claim
with G-I.

Although arising in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding, the
case concerns claims for breach of contract under Delaware law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit are asked to
decide whether, under the Producer Agreement, U.S. Gypsum and
Quigley may maintain a breach of contract action against G-I.

The Circuit Court, in an opinion dated June 17, 2014, held that
the Producer Agreement permits the Former Members to pursue a
breach of contract action against G-I for its failure to pay
contractually-obligated sums due to the Center, in light of the
Former Members' payment of G-I's share.  The Circuit Court
therefore vacate the District Court's order affirming the
Bankruptcy Court's grant of summary judgment in G-I's favor.

The case IN RE: G-I HOLDINGS, INC., formerly known as GAF
Corporation, Debtor: UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, Appellant No.
13-3335, and QUIGLEY COMPANY, INC., Appellant No. 13-3336 (3d.
Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/X34X1Bfrom Leagle.com.

Appellant United States Gypsum Co. is represented by:

         Rachel S. Bloomekatz, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         325 John H. McConnell Boulevard, Suite 600
         P.O. Box 165017
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Email: rbloomekatz@jonesday.com

            -- and --

         Brad B. Erens, Esq.
         Brian J. Murray, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Email: bberens@jonesday.com
                bjmurray@jonesday.com

Counsel for Appellant Quigley Co. Inc.:

         John P. DiIorio, Esq.
         SHAPIRO CROLAND
         411 Hackensack Avenue
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Email: jdiiorio@shapiro-croland.com

            -- and --

         Stephen D. Hoffman, I, Esq.
         WILK AUSLANDER
         1515 Broadway, 43rd Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Email: shoffman@wilkauslander.com

Counsel for Appellees:

         Mark E. Hall, Esq.
         Dennis J. O'Grady, Esq.
         RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI
         One Speedwell Avenue
         Headquarters Plaza
         Morristown, NJ 07962-0000
         Email: mhall@riker.com
                dogrady@riker.com

            -- and --

         Andrew J. Rossman, Esq.
         Scott C. Shelley, Esq.
         Jacob J. Waldman, Esq.
         QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN
         51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10010
         Email: andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com
                scottshelley@quinnemanuel.com
                jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing Set for Bids to Access Garlock Files
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell of the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division, issued an order on June 11, 2014, scheduling a hearing
on July 15, 2014, in Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC's Chapter
11 case to consider the approval of various pending motions in
connection with the requests for access to sealed documents
relating to asbestos claims and claimants in Garlock's bankruptcy
case.

The case is IN RE: GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, DOCKET NO.
3:13-CV-00464-MOC (W.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of the magistrate
judge's decision is available at http://is.gd/js9PzKfrom
Leagle.com.

Mt. McKinley Insurance Company, Appellant, represented by Fred L.
Alvarez, Esq. -- falvarez@wwmlawyers.com -- at Walker Wilcox
Matousek, LLP; and J. Samuel Gorham, III, Esq., at Gorham & Crone,
PLLC.

Everest Reinsurance Company, Appellant, represented by Fred L.
Alvarez, Esq., at Walker Wilcox Matousek, LLP; and J. Samuel
Gorham, III, Esq., at Gorham & Crone, PLLC.

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Appellee, represented by Albert
Franklin Durham, Esq. -- adurham@rcdlaw.net -- John R. Miller,
Jr., Esq. -- jmiller@rcdlaw.net -- Michelle Elizabeth Earp, Esq.,
Ross Robert Fulton, Esq. -- rfulton@rcdlaw.net -- Shelley Koon
Abel, Esq. -- sabel@rcdlaw.net -- and William Samuel Smoak, Jr.,
Esq., at at Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A.; and Garland Stuart
Cassada, Esq. -- gcassada@rbh.com -- Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq. --
jkrisko@rbh.com -- Louis Adams Bledsoe, III, Esq. --
lbledsoe@rbh.com -- and Richard Charles Worf, Jr., Esq. --
rworf@rbh.com -- at Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A.,

Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
Appellee, represented by Andrew Thomas Houston, Esq. --
ahouston@mwhattorneys.com -- Richard Steele Wright, Esq. --
rwright@mwhattorneys.com -- and Travis Waterbury Moon, Esq. --
tmoon@mwhattorneys.com -- at Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC; and
Trevor W. Swett, III, Esq. -- tswett@capdale.com -- at Caplin &
Drysdale, Chartered.

Coltec Industries, Inc., Intervenor, represented by E. Taylor
Stukes, Esq. -- taylorstukes@mvalaw.com -- and Mark Andrew Nebrig,
Esq. -- marknebrig@mvalaw.com -- at Moore & Van Allen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankr. Court Junks Tax Claim v. Predecessor
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cecelia G. Morris of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York issued a memorandum decision dated
June 13, 2014, sustaining the objection of Metex Mfg. Corporation
to the Illinois Department of Revenue's administrative claim for
unpaid taxes, after finding that the tax claim was discharged in
1998 by confirmation of the plan of reorganization in the prior
bankruptcy case of Kentile Floors, Inc., Metex's predecessor.
Until the mid-1980s, Kentile used asbestos in certain of its
tiles.  Even to the extent the claims were not discharged, they
are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Judge Morris
said.

The case is In re: Metex Mfg. Corporation, Chapter 11 Debtor,
CASE NO. 12-14554 (CGM)(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Morris' Decision is available at http://is.gd/WK9tkqfrom
Leagle.com.

Paul E. Breene, Esq. -- pbreene@reedsmith.com -- and Paul M.
Singer, Esq. -- psinger@reedsmith.com -- at REED SMITH LLP,
Attorneys for the Debtor, New York, NY, and Pittsburgh, PA.

Office Of The Illinois Attorney General James D. Newbold,
Assistant Attorney General, Counsel for the Illinois Department of
Revenue, Chicago, IL.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leave to Appeal Ruling in "Suttner" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, denied the motion filed by A.W. Chesterton Company,
for reargument of or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the
Court of Appeals from the order of the Supreme Court entered
March 21, 2014.

The case is IN RE: EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to JOANN H. SUTTNER, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GERALD W.
SUTTNER, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.W. CHESTERTON
COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, and CRANE CO., Defendant-Appellant,
MOTION NO. 206-14, DOCKET NO. CA 13-01373 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision dated June 13, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/lc81Z9from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tishman Dropped as Defendant in "Houston" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action styled THOMAS HOUSTON and
ELLEN HOUSTON, Plaintiffs, v. BEAZER EAST, Inc., individually and
as successor-in interest to THIEM CORP. and UNIVERSAL
REFRACTORIES, et. al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190119/12, MOTION
SEQ. 008 (N.Y. Sup.), defendant Tishman Liquidating Corporation,
Inc., moves for an order dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint and
all cross-claims asserted against it.  In opposition, the
Plaintiffs contend that Tishman is liable for their injuries
pursuant to New York's Labor Law and the common law inasmuch as it
negligently caused asbestos-laden dust to be released into
plaintiff Thomas Houston's vicinity.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
in a decision and order dated June 2, 2014, granted Tishman's
motion, concluding that the requirements of Labor Law Section
200's notice prong was not satisfied by the Plaintiffs and that
the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Tishman is
responsible for Mr. Houston's injuries under a common law
negligence theory for creating and/or exacerbating an unsafe
condition.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ErdNRgfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Order Dismissing Fibro Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and
remanded the order of a district court dismissing Dennis and Tho
Hellervik's complaint for asbestos-related injuries and from the
lower court's denial of leave to amend their complaint.  The Ninth
Circuit ruled that because the district court did not give a
legitimate reason for withholding leave to amend, it abused its
discretion.

The case is DENNIS HELLERVIK and THO HELLERVIK, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. 3M COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-
56373 (9th Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/WEBcrqfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Stay "Morvant" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Before the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana is a motion filed by defendants, Century Indemnity
Company, Continental Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company,
Insurance Company of North America, Maryland Casualty Company, and
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, to stay the proceeding in
the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned MARY
MORVANT v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL. SECTION I, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-226 (E.D. La.), pursuant to the Colorado River
abstention doctrine or, in the alternative, to continue deadlines.

In an order dated June 17, 2014, District Judge Lance M. Africk
denied the motion after determining that the Colorado River
abstention doctrine does not apply because the state and federal
cases are not parallel.  Furthermore, even if the cases were
parallel, only the amount of progress in the state court
proceeding weighs in favor of abstention, while the remaining
factors are neutral or weigh against abstention, Judge Africk
said.  This case does not present an exceptional circumstance
which would warrant abstention, he added.

A full-text copy of Judge Africk's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/m0Xmpqfrom Leagle.com.

Mary Morvant, Plaintiff, represented by Harold J. Flanagan, Esq. -
- hflanagan@flanaganpartners.com -- Anders F. Holmgren, Esq. --
aholmgren@flanaganpartners.com -- Charles-Theodore N. Zerner, Esq.
-- czerner@flanaganpartners.com -- and Sean Patrick Brady, Esq. --
sbrady@flanaganpartners.com -- at Flanagan Partners, LLP; and:

         Amanda Jones Ballay, Esq.
         Frank J. Swarr, Esq.
         Mickey P. Landry, Esq.
         Philip C Hoffman, Esq.
         LANDRY, SWARR & CANNELLA, LLC
         1010 Common St #2050
         New Orleans, LA 70112
         Tel: 866-275-8706

Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by David P.
Salley, Esq., and Erika Lynn Mullenbach, Esq., at Salley, Hite,
Mercer & Resor LLC.

Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Porter Hall, Esq. -- stephen.hall@phelps.com -- and Jonathan B.
Womack, Esq. -- jonathan.womack@phelps.com -- at Phelps Dunbar,
LLP.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, represented by
Simeon B. Reimonenq, Jr., Esq. -- sreimonenq@lawla.com -- and
Katherine Osborne Hannan, Esq. -- khannan@lawla.com -- at
Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Paula
Marcello Wellons, Esq., and Desiree Weilbaecher Adams, Esq. --
dadams@twpdlaw.com -- at Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Century Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by James M.
Garner, Esq. -- jgarner@shergarner.com -- Martha Y. Curtis, Esq. -
- mcurtis@shergarner.com -- and Paul R. Trapani, III, Esq. --
ttrapani@shergarner.com -- at Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein
& Hilbert, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dist. Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Ricks" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, granted the motions
to dismiss filed by eight defendants in the asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuit styled JOHN SAM RICKS, JR. and BRENDA
RICKS, Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AURORA PUMP
COMPANY; et al., Defendants, NO. 4:14-CV-37-BO (E.D.N.C.), after
ruling that the plaintiffs, despite being adequately notified and
given the opportunity to respond, have elected not to respond to
any of the motions to dismiss.  A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's
June 9, 2014, Order is available at http://is.gd/nPkxa6from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alabama Dist. Court Dismisses Inmate's Fibro Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in
the civil rights case captioned CLARENCE J. RUTLAND, Plaintiff, v.
IKE HARRIS, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-470-WKW (M.D. Ala.).  On
June 9, 2014, Plaintiff Clarence Rutland filed a document
"[p]ursuant to Rule 60(b)," which the court construes as
containing objections to the Recommendation.  The United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern
Division, has conducted an independent and de novo review of those
portions of the Recommendation to which objections have been made.

The District Court acknowledged that Mr. Rutland's objections
purport to introduce "newly discovered" allegations that he has
suffered asbestos-related injuries while an inmate at Kilby
Correctional Facility.  But the claim is not presently before the
court.  The District Court held that if Mr. Rutland wishes to
raise a new claim against an appropriate defendant, he must do so
by filing a new civil action.

Upon review of the Magistrate's Recommendation and Mr. Rutland's
objections, the District Court ordered that Mr. Rutland's
objections are overruled; the Recommendation is adopted; Defendant
Ike Harris's motion to dismiss is granted; and Mr. Rutland's
claims against Defendant Ike Harris are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2014, order
penned by Chief District Judge W. Keith Watkins is available at
http://is.gd/ayGxvFfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Trust Dropped as Defendant in "Bell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California issued an order dated June 23,
2014, approving the stipulation agreed by and between counsel for
Plaintiffs Donald and Sumiko Bell and counsel for Defendant
Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, as successor to Felt
Products Manufacturing Company, that the Complaint of Plaintiffs
Donald Bell and Sumiko Bell, bearing the Civil Action No. 12-CV-
00131-CRB (JSC) may be and is hereby dismissed without prejudice
as to this Defendant only.  The parties agreed to each bear their
own costs.

The case is DONALD AND SUMIKO BELL; Plaintiffs, v. ARVIN MERITOR,
INC., et al. Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-00131-CRB (JSC)(N.D.
Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Order is available at
http://is.gd/hVhvKYfrom Leagle.com.

Stephen M. Fishback, Esq., and Seth A. Curtis, Esq., at Keller,
Fishback & Jackson LLP, in Agoura Hills, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs.

Erin S. McGahay, Esq. -- EMcGahey@sinunubruni.com -- at Sinunu
Bruni LLP, in San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant
Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust as successor to Felt
Products Manufacturing Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Reverses Ruling in "Graver" PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos mesothelioma case captioned DAVID AND FRANCES
GRAVER, H/W, Appellees, v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, NOS. 470
EDA 2012, 641 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super.), the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania issued an opinion dated June 26, 2014, holding that
the statue of repose for improvements to real property set forth
in 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. Section 5536 bars asbestos personal injury
claims against entities engaged in performing or furnishing the
design, planning, supervision or observation of construction, or
construction of any improvement to real property.  The Superior
Court, accordingly, reversed the judgment of the lower court.  A
full-text copy of the Superior Court's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/UQY9a8from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Defendants Granted Summary Judgment in PI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Susan Haas, individually and as executrix of Carl
Brasmer, and individual heirs of the estate of Carl Brasmer
initiated a products liability and wrongful death action against,
inter alia, Defendants Boeing Company, Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, and General Electric Company.  The claims in Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Complaint arise out of the alleged injuries, and
ensuing death, suffered by Decedent Carl Brasmer, which the
Plaintiffs contend resulted from Brasmer's exposure to the
Defendants' asbestos-containing products.  The Defendants, except
for 3M, each filed motions for summary judgment.

In an opinion dated June 19, 2014, Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
Defendants' motions, holding that Boeing has shown its entitlement
to the government contractor defense, and the Plaintiffs have
failed to identify any material facts precluding summary judgment
on their claims against GE and Goodyear.

The case is SUSAN HAAS, Individually and as Executrix of Carl
Brasmer, and Individual Heirs of the Estate of CARL BRASMER,
Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
12-2944 (FLW)(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of Judge Wolfson's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/bHgqU3from Leagle.com.

Carl Brasmer, Plaintiff, represented by:

         Michael Emmett McMahon, Esq.
         COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH PC
         127 Maple Avenue
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Tel: 732-747-9003
         Fax: 732-747-9004

3M Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Carolyn Lee McCormack, Esq. --
cmccormack@lavin-law.com -- at Lavin O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio.

BOEING COMPANY, Individually and as successor to McDonnell Douglas
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter Claimant,
represented by Marc Scott Gaffrey, Esq. --
mgaffrey@hoaglandlongo.com -- at Hoagland, Longo, Oropollo &
Moran.

CBS Corporation, Individually and as successor to Viacom, Inc. and
successor to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by Christopher J. Keale, Esq., at Sedgwick LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Christopher J. Keale, Esq., and David Schuyler
Blow, Esq., at Sedgwick LLP.

Goodrich Corporation, Individually and as successor to the B.F.
Goodrich Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Dawn Dezii, Esq. --
ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- at Margolis Edelstein.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by David J. Novack, Esq. --
dnovack@buddlarner.com -- and Terence W. Camp, Esq. --
tcamp@buddlarner.com -- at Budd, Larner, P.C.

Honeywell International, Inc., Individually and as successor to
the Bendix Corporation, Cross Defendant and Counter Defendant,
represented by Ethan D. Stein, Esq., at Gibbons, PC.

Northrop-Gruman Corporation, individually and as successor to
Gruman Aerospace Corporation f/k/a Gruman Aircraft Engineering
Group, Cross Defendant and Counter Defendant, represented by Kevin
W. Rethore, Esq. -- kevin.rethore@dlapiper.com -- and Adam A.
Desipio, Esq. -- adam.desipio@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Dismissing Suit v. Law Firm Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Hall, the personal representative of the estate of Adolphus
Hall, Sr., and Anaya McKinnon, the personal representative of the
estate of Wanzy Lee Bowman, appeal from the Jefferson Circuit
Court's order dismissing their complaint filed against
Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., a law firm.  The plaintiffs
filed the complaint against ELG requesting a declaratory judgment
and alleging one count of unjust enrichment and one count of
breach of contract.  In the 1990s, ELG agreed to represent
hundreds of clients who had been exposed to asbestos, including
Adolphus Hall and Bowman.  The Supreme Court of Alabama issued an
opinion dated June 20, 2014, reversing the Circuit Court's order
and remanding the case.

The case is Mary Hall, personal representative of the Estate of
Adolphus Hall, Sr., and Anaya McKinnon, personal representative of
the Estate of Wanzy Lee Bowman, v. Environmental Litigation Group,
P.C., NO. 1130301 (Ala.).  A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/3xloQKfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton May Rebut Class Suit Presumption
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case styled HALLIBURTON CO., ET
AL., PETITIONERS, v. ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC., FKA ARCHDIOCESE OF
MILWAUKEE SUPPORTING FUND, INC., NO. 13-317 (U.S.), issued an
opinion on June 23, 2014, ruled that, "Investors can recover
damages in a private securities fraud action only if they prove
that they relied on the defendant's misrepresentation in deciding
to buy or sell a company's stock. In Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485
U.S. 224 (1988), we held that investors could satisfy this
reliance requirement by invoking a presumption that the price of
stock traded in an efficient market reflects all public, material
information -- including material misstatements. In such a case,
we concluded, anyone who buys or sells the stock at the market
price may be considered to have relied on those misstatements."

The Supreme Court added that, "We also held, however, that a
defendant could rebut this presumption in a number of ways,
including by showing that the alleged misrepresentation did not
actually affect the stock's price -- that is, that the
misrepresentation had no "price impact." The questions presented
are whether we should overrule or modify Basic's presumption of
reliance and, if not, whether defendants should nonetheless be
afforded an opportunity in securities class action cases to rebut
the presumption at the class certification stage, by showing a
lack of price impact."

Respondent Erica P. John Fund, Inc., is the lead plaintiff in a
putative class action against Halliburton and one of its
executives alleging violations of section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. Section 78j(b),
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR Section
240.10b-5 (2013).  According to EPJ Fund, between June 3, 1999,
and December 7, 2001, Halliburton made a series of
misrepresentations regarding its potential liability in asbestos
litigation, its expected revenue from certain construction
contracts, and the anticipated benefits of its merger with another
company -- all in an attempt to inflate the price of its stock.
Halliburton subsequently made a number of corrective disclosures,
which, EPJ Fund contends, caused the company's stock price to drop
and investors to lose money.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Decision, penned by Chief
Justice Roberts, is available at http://is.gd/BfSvpefrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Re-Open Discovery in PI Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin issued a decision and order dated
June 25, 2014, denied CBS Corporation's motion to re-open
discovery in the case styled In re Asbestos Products Liability
Litigation (NO. VI) MDL 875 relating to MARGARET L. WONDRASH, as
Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael Morris, Plaintiff,
v. CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 94-C-216 (E.D. Wis.).  A
full-text copy of the Judge Randa's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/57kDzCfrom Leagle.com

Judge Randa said CBS's repeated attempts to re-open discovery must
stop.  Judge Randa pointed out that with minor exceptions,
discovery was governed by the MDL court's scheduling orders.

Margaret L Wondrash, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P Cascino,
Esq., and Robert G McCoy, Esq., at Cascino Vaughan Law Offices
Ltd.

CBS Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Ivan A Gustafson,
Esq., and William D. Harvard, Esq., at Evert Weathersby Houff; and
Roshan N Rajkumar, Esq., at Bowman and Brooke LLP.


                             *********

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  * * *