CAR_Public/141017.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 17, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 207

                             Headlines

A-1 LIMOUSINE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Naider" Suit
ACORD CORP: Court Approves Briefing Schedule in "Snyder" Case
AIR LINE PILOTS: 7th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit
APARTMENT INVESTMENT: March 2014 Opinion in "Ybarra" Case Vacated
APEX CLEAN: Files Motion to Dismiss Wind Farm Class Action

ARCHON CORP: Nevada Dist. Court Dismisses "Rainero" Class Suit
ARIZONA: Attorneys Seek Insurance Benefits for Gay Employees
ARUBA NETWORKS: Briefing Schedule in Mazzaferro Suit Gets Okay
AUSNET ELECTRICITY: Faces Class Suit Over Mickleham-Kilmore Fire
BP PLC: Freeh Seeks Return of Cash Paid to Alabama Shrimper

BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Sued for Chronically Understaffing Facilities
CALIFORNIA: Court Revives 8th Amendment Claims in "Gonzales" Suit
CALIFORNIA: District Court Closes "Robinson" Case v. Jail Warden
CALIFORNIA: Judge Suggests Dismissal of Saffold Case v Warden
CONVERGENCE MARKETING: Removes "Busch" Suit to N.D. Illinois

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Clarify Stay Order in "Stiller" Tossed
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Decertification Ruling in "Brady" Case Upheld
DURAND GLASS: Certification Bid in "Bobryk" FLSA Suit Ruled On
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Supreme Court to Hear 401(k) Class Action
ENIGMA SOFTWARE: Obtains Partial Summary Judgment in Sherrod Case

FIFTH GENERATION: Faces Second Class Action Over "Handmade" Label
FOREST LABORATORIES: Defendant in 221 Product Liability Actions
FOREST LABORATORIES: Trial in Miss. AWP Action Scheduled in 2015
FRANK & WOOLDRIDGE: January 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch-Related Deaths Rise to 27

HANTZ FINANCIAL: May Seek Review of Investor Suit Ruling
HARTFORD FIRE: Provide Case Stayed Pending EasySaver Suit Ruling
HERSHEY CO: Told to Mediate in Suit Alleging Discrimination
HOME DEPOT: Gilbert's Improper Sales Tax Class Action Dismissed
IMPERIAL FIRE: La. Appeals Court Reverses Judgment in Prime Case

INTEGRITY STAFFING: Justices Split on Security Screening Pay
INTERTHINX INC: Court Lifts Stay in "Shaw" Class Action
IRONSHORE SPECIALTY: Has Duty to Defend Champion, Says Court
ISIDRO BACA: Dist. Court Dismisses "Flowers" Civil Rights Case
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Unlawfully Firing Mortgage Loan Officer

LINEAR LLC: Recalls Emergency Reporting System Transmitters
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Everyday Essentials Glass Mugs
LOTTE CONFECTIONERY: Recalls Waffles Due to Undeclared Eggs
LOUIS GARNEAU: Recalls Garneau P09 Aero Helmet
MANNA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Lotte Waffles Due to Undeclared Egg

MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Bacon & Onion Dip Mix Due to Undeclared Soy
MARKPOL DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Kupiec Rice Cakes With Dark Choco
MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Junks Bid to Certify Class in "Kulig" Case
MOUNTAIN STATE UNIV: Class Action Deal Awaits Prelim. Approval
NESTLE CANADA: Recalls Stouffer's Panini Barbecue Chicken & Bacon

NFL PRODUCTIONS: "Culp" Suit to be Transferred to Minn. Court
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over InTouch System in Q50 Cars
NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debts, New York Suit Claims
NVIDIA CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action
OASIS BRANDS: Recalls Cuajada en Hoja Due to Possible Health Risk

OREGON COMPOUNDING: Recalls Unexpired Sterile Products
ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls Vitros 5600 Integrated Systems
PAYTIME HARRISBURG: "Holt" Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
PEPPO'S FOODS: Recalls Hommous Due to Listeria Monocytogenes
PINNACLE GROUP: Tenants Still Await Settlement Payouts

REYNOLDSBURG, OH: Parents of Kids With Special Needs Mull Suit
RICH PRODUCTS: Updates Recall to Include More Distribution Info
ROC OIL: Shrugs Off Class Action Rumors
SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Ketorolac Tromethamine Injection
SAMSUNG: Merchant Law Group Files Price-Fixing Class Action

SHOPPERS DRUG: Recalls "Novelty Toy" Halloween Squish Ball
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Advia Centaur, Advia Centaur CP
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls N Latex B2 Microglobulin
SONY MUSIC: Doesn't Owe Toto Digital Music Royalties, Court Rules
SOUTHERN FARM: $3.6MM Deal in Eastwood Suit Gets Final Court Nod

STEWART TITLE: Dist. Ct. Ruled on Bid to Dismiss "Knight" Suit
STRYKER INSTRUMENTS: Recalls Small and Large Aseptic Housing
TARGET CORP: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in "Small" Case
TENNESSEE: Twin Babies' Hospital Bill Illustrates TennCare Flows
TEVA CANADA: Recalls Biomedic Acetaminophen With Codeine

TEXAS BRINE: Wants Liberty Insurance to Cover Sinkhole Claims
TRANSNET: Can't Appeal Class Action Ruling in Pensioners' Suit
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Dismissed in All Non-California Cases
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: To Pay $10 Million in Settlement
TROPICAL VALLEY: Recalls Nature Dark Chocolate Cherries

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "McCandliss" Suit to N.D. Georgia
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Can't Appeal Dismissal of Labor Suit
UBS AG: Bid to Dismiss Remaining ERISA Suit Claims Wins Approval
UNITED COLORS: Recalls Boys Hooded Jackets With Waist Drawstrings
UNITED STATES: Forest Service to Look Into Discrimination Suit

WALGREEN CO: Wage and Hour Litigation Dismissed in its Entirety

* Lawsuits Over Fair Labor Standards Act Breach on the Rise


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Orange County Schools Closed Over Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plan Resolving RPM Units' Fibro Claims Filed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 125 Pending Cases at Aug. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T's Bid to Dismiss Coverage Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Additional Briefs Needed in NY Coverage Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Houston" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in "Yates" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amended Order Issued in Calif. Coverage Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Federal Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Not Bound to Arbitrate With Flintkote

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Flips Ruling in "Gottschall" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Orders Inmate to Respond to Dismissal Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Says Summary Judgment Bids "Premature"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Remands "Papp" Suit to State Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Rodrigue" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Joins 2 Negligence Suits for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Denies Bid to Quash in Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Sues Contractor Over Workers' Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Renovating Firehouse Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teens Ignoring Fibro Warnings in Clydebank
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turbine Co. Proved Fibro Removal Case Was Proper
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concerns Raised Over Fibro-Contaminated Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock, Claimants Fighting Over Fee Request

ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Islip Man Wins $7MM Award in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleveland Man Indicted for Fibro Pollution
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victims Win Damages Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cattaragus Legislature to Vote on Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attys Predict Wave of Fibro Insurance Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Old Marshfield High School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mum Was Exposed to Lightest Dusting of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Landfill Presents Risk to Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kids Kept Home Over School's Fibro Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in NY Public Library Room

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired School Cook Dies From Fibro Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Deceased Man Files Fibro Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newcastle Laborer Wins Six-Figure Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK High Court Halts Plans to Raise Legal Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fines Levied v. Mt. Maresa Townhouse Developer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Killed Former Rail Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Granted in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Closed Groton City Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Power Station Worker Dies From Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Cleanup in Ambler Nears Completion

ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court Won't Mull New Trial Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kenyan Locals Warn of Fibro Roof Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consultation Over Payout Curbs Illegal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bay Path Closed Due to Fibro Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Found During Conn. School Renovation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Councils Urge Fibro Checks on Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Responsible for Fibro Shortfall


                            *********


A-1 LIMOUSINE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Naider" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
NATAN NAIDER, Plaintiff v. A-1 LIMOUSINE, INC., Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-2212 (FLW), (D. N.J.) is a civil action that arose
out of allegations that Defendant A-1 Limousine, Inc. violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. (FLSA),
for failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees.

The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Plaintiff
has failed to sufficiently plead a valid collective action under
the FLSA because Plaintiff does not make substantial allegations
that other employees were treated similarly.

District Judge Freda L. Wolfson denied the motion.

A copy of the Court's October 8, 2014 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/9VCC4Yfrom Leagle.com.

A-1 LIMOUSINE, INC., Defendant, represented by WAYNE E. PINKSTONE
-- wpinkstone@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP.


ACORD CORP: Court Approves Briefing Schedule in "Snyder" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John L. Kane issued an order on October 2,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ACVbqnfrom
Leagle.com, granting an agreed motion to enter briefing schedule
in the case captioned DALE SNYDER, et al., individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACORD
CORPORATION, a Delaware non-profit corporation, et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-01736-JLK, (D. Col.).

The represented parties have agreed to this briefing schedule,
while expressly reserving the right to request additional time:

a. October 13, 2014 will serve as the date for filing of Second
Amended Complaint;

b. November 25, 2014 will serve as the date for the filing of
Defendants' Responsive Pleadings/Motions to Dismiss;

c. (If Motions to Dismiss were filed) January 9, 2015 will serve
as the date for filing Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motions to
Dismiss;

d. February 20, 2015 will serve as the date for filing of any
Defendants' Reply In Support of Motions to Dismiss.

The parties may seek more time for the submission of briefs after
reviewing the Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Jury
Demand or any other filings.

Moreover, the agreement is to be interpreted narrowly, and does
not prevent further conferral or motion on other issues collateral
to the briefing and the scheduling thereof, such as oral argument
or sur-reply.

Mark Horning -- mhorning@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson, LLP,
Washington, D.C., ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ACORD CORPORATION


AIR LINE PILOTS: 7th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
United pilots who claim they are being cheated out of millions of
dollars of seniority-based pay failed to nab a 7th Circuit
reversal on October 8, 2014, reports Jack Bouboushian, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

Earlier this year, 470 United Airlines pilots brought a class
action against the 51,000-member Air Line Pilots Association union
and United.

After United's $3 billion merger with Continental, the union
negotiated a deal that gave all pre-merger United pilots less than
five years of time-worked credit, no matter how long they had
actually flown.  With the pilots claiming that they were paid at
least $12 per hour too little since December 2012, millions of
dollars were at stake.

U.S. District Judge James Holderman threw out the claims in March,
however, calling them "minor disputes" subject to arbitration as
opposed to grounds for a class action.

A three-judge appellate panel showed little sympathy for the
pilots' plight at oral arguments last month and affirmed dismissal
in a pithy opinion on October 8.

"Combining work forces following an airline merger is not for the
faint-hearted," Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the court.  "The
union and United worked out a series of deals that have enabled
two groups of pilots to work as one without undue friction.
That's a significant accomplishment, not a source of legal
liability."

Noted that both the airline and the union have complied with the
new collective-bargaining agreement, the court said that the
pilots would need to prove bad faith by the union to seek
recovery.

"A union would act in bad faith if, for example, it disfavored
members who supported a losing candidate for union office" or "if
it favored members of one race over members of a different race,"
Easterbrook explained, pointing out that there were no such
allegations here.

Finding the behavior rational, the court said that discrimination
against the plaintiffs would have contravened the union's own
interests.

"Plaintiffs insist that the union discriminated in favor of pilots
from pre-merger Continental," Easterbrook wrote.  "If the union's
leadership did that systematically, it would be political suicide;
pre-merger United was the larger carrier, and its pilots would not
allow the union to subordinate their interests."

As it did at oral arguments, the circuit appeared uninterested in
delving into the complexities of union negotiations in its
judgment.

"Because the suit was dismissed on the pleadings, we cannot tell
why the union and United struck the precise bargain they did, but
allegations of the complaint, plus terms of the agreements, are
enough in themselves to defeat a claim of discrimination,"
Easterbrook wrote.  "There was need of compromise here."

The appellate case is Scott Cunningham and Andrew Holzmann,
Appellants v. Air Line Pilots Association, International,
Appellee, Case No. No.14-1453, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  The District Court case is Scott
Cunningham and Andrew Holzmann v. Air Line Pilots Association,
International, Case No. 13 C 5522, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.


APARTMENT INVESTMENT: March 2014 Opinion in "Ybarra" Case Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2012, Reyna Marie Ybarra filed a complaint against her
former employer, Apartment Investment and Management Company
(Aimco), alleging three claims: (1) a class claim under Labor Code
section 1194 for alleged failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages; (2) a claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004 (PAGA) for alleged violations of the Labor Code; and
(3) a claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200 for
the same alleged violations of the Labor Code.  Aimco twice
unsuccessfully attempted to remove the case to federal court.
Meanwhile, Ybarra voluntarily dismissed the first and third
claims, leaving only the PAGA claim.

Aimco then filed a motion to compel arbitration of Ybarra's "PAGA
claim on an individual basis, effectively terminating the
representative claim."  The trial court denied the motion, finding
that Ybarra had demonstrated a small amount of procedural
unconscionability because the arbitration agreement was presented
as a condition of employment, and had shown substantive
unconscionability because the PAGA representative action waiver
was unenforceable. Aimco then filed an appeal.

On March 13, 2014, the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Two reversed the trial court's order denying
Aimco's motion to compel arbitration.

However, on October 7, 2014, per order of the California Supreme
Court, in light of Iskanian v. CLS Transportation of Los Angeles,
LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian), the Calif. Appeals Court
vacated and reconsidered its prior opinion, and affirmed the trial
court ruling.  A copy of the Appeals Court ruling is available at
http://is.gd/AIGgpJfrom Leagle.com.

The case is REYNA MARIE YBARRA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant and
Appellant, NO. B245901.

For Plaintiff and Respondent, Lawyers for Justice, Edwin Aiwazian
-- edwin@LF.lPC.com -- Arby Aiwazian -- arby@LFJPC.com -- Jill J.
Parker -- jill@lfjpc.com -- D. Elliot Gonzalez -- elliot@lfjpc.com
; Shenkman & Hughes, Kevin Shenkman --
kshenkman@shenkmanhughes.com and:

   Peter Gezoukian, Esq.
   Gezoukian Law
   100 N Brand Blvd
   Glendale, CA 91203
   United States
   Telephone: +1 818-476-0085


APEX CLEAN: Files Motion to Dismiss Wind Farm Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Apex has
filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit against it over
its $452 million wind farm, which the plaintiffs claim is a
nuisance that devalues their homes.

Apex claims the Oklahoma Wind Action Association does not appear
to be an appropriate membership organization, according to the
Sept. 23 motion to dismiss.

"Implicit in the first element is the requirement that the
association be a membership organization that has members who
participate in and guide the organization's activities," the
motion states.  "Association standing is most appropriate when the
organization at issue is a 'traditional voluntary membership
organizations' -- such as a trade association."

Although non-profit corporations and other entities may properly
invoke association standing, such entities may do so only if they
operate as "the functional equivalent of a traditional membership
organization," the motion says.

"In determining whether an entity is the functional equivalent of
a traditional membership organization, the court should look at
whether the purported members actively participate in, control,
and fund the organization's activities," the motion states.  "If
the purported members do not play a role in selecting the
organization's leadership, guiding its activities, and financing
those activities, association standing is not appropriate."

In this case, the association has alleged only that it is suing on
behalf of its purported members and that it "represents a large
group of landowners in Canadian and Kingfisher Counties, Oklahoma,
who live and own property within the immediate vicinity, at least
within three . . . miles, of defendants' currently planned IWECS,"
the motion says.

"The complaint is silent, however, as to how many members the
association has, or whether or how those purported members
participate in and guide the association's activities," the motion
states.  "Therefore, the complaint does not plausibly suggest the
association is the functional equivalent of a traditional
membership organization."

The complaint does not identify a single association member who
will allegedly be injured by the proposed wind farm, according to
the motion.  In fact, the complaint does not even allege whether
the landowners the association purports to represent are actually
members of the association, it adds.

The complaint was filed Aug. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma by the Oklahoma Wind Action
Association, Terra Walker, Cheyenne Ward, Julie Harris, Janelle
Grellner, Elisa Kay Kochenower, Karri Parson and Cindy Shelley
after they claimed the defendants' planned wind farm projects
create a nuisance, devalue their homes and can adversely affect
their health.

The lawsuit was brought against Apex Clean Energy Inc., Apex Clean
Energy Holdings LLC, Kingfisher Wind LLC, Kingfisher Wind Land
Holdings LLC, Kingfisher Transmission LLC, Campbell Creek Wind LLC
and Campbell Creek Wind Transmission LLC.

The plaintiffs all live within three miles of the planned wind
farm and own property within the "no-build" zone of the planned
locations of the wind turbines.

The plaintiffs claim many citizens of Canadian and Kingfisher
counties did not become aware of the wind farm's development until
2012.  Citizens voiced their concerns to local municipalities
regarding adverse health and economic effects caused by IWECS to
neighboring landowners.

Within the past several years, the defendants constructed the
Canadian Hills Wind Farm between the City of Okarche, Okla. and
Calumet, Okla., in Northwestern Canadian County, according to the
suit.

The plaintiffs claim the infra and low frequency sound is caused
by both in-flow air turbulence and also as a result of the blade
passing in front of the tower at the bottom of the rotation.  The
blade/tower interaction produces a pulse of sound with a rapid
rise time and short duration that results in a dynamically
modulated tone at the blade-pass frequency in the frequency range
below 1 Hz, according to the suit.

"Additionally, noise exposure from IWECS operations, even at
relatively low levels, can cause developmental problems with the
brain's ability to understand and learn language," the complaint
states. "Environmental noise created from IWECS impairs children's
learning by changing how they process language sounds."

The plaintiffs claim the noise also deteriorates the ability -- in
both children and adults -- to properly think, remember or
concentrate during exposure.  The infrasonic noise generated by
IWECS also causes sleeping disorders, headaches, mood disorders,
tinnitus and vestibular problems, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jason B. Aamodt, Deanna L.
Hartley, Krystina E. Phillips and Dallas L.D. Strimple of Indian
and Environmental Law Group PLLC.

The defendants are represented by J. Todd Woolery --
todd.woolery@mcafeetaft.com -- Timothy J. Bornhoff, Jodi Cole --
jodi.cole@mcafeetaft.com -- and Patrick L. Stein --
patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com -- of McAfee & Taft.

The case is assigned to District Judge Tim Leonard.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma case
number: 5:14-cv-00914


ARCHON CORP: Nevada Dist. Court Dismisses "Rainero" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro dismissed without prejudice the
putative class action captioned DAVID RAINERO, Plaintiff, v.
ARCHON CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:07-CV-1553-GMN-PAL (D.
Nev.) in a Sept. 29, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/AR7jmw
from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff sought to represent a class consisting of all holders of
Archon Corp. Preferred Stock as of August 31, 2007.  The Complaint
alleges that, under the terms of the Certificate of Designation,
the redemption price on the Preferred Stock should have been
$8.49, and he and other shareholders were entitled to receive
$3.45 per share more than was paid upon the redemption.

Archon Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Brian R. Irvine,
Esq. -- birvine@gordonsilver.com , John Desmond, Esq. --
jdesmond@gordonsilver.com & Justin J. Bustos, Esq. --
jbustos@gordonsilver.com as well as Erin E. Jordan, Esq. of Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith.


ARIZONA: Attorneys Seek Insurance Benefits for Gay Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Fischer, writing for Arizona Daily Sun, reports that having
won benefits for current partners of gay state and university
employees, attorneys are back in court demanding the same for
everyone hired in the future.  And if they win, count on them to
start going after cities, counties, school districts and all
government employers in Arizona.

Tara Borelli of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund wants U.S.
District Court Judge John Sedwick to permanently void a 2009
Arizona law which says benefits like health insurance are
available only to those who are married.  Ms. Borelli, the lead
counsel on the case, said gay employees need benefits for their
partners and children just the same as those who are married.

But Assistant Attorney General Charles Grube, in his own legal
filings, effectively is urging Judge Sedwick to butt out.

"Domestic partner health coverage is not a fundamental right," he
told the judge.

He said that means state lawmakers were free to decide to pass a
law saying that benefits are limited to those who are wed.
Mr. Grube said that is a financial decision well within the powers
of legislators.

More to the point, Mr. Grube said because the state provides no
benefits for any unmarried partners, gay and straight, there is no
discrimination against anyone because of sexual orientation.

But Ms. Borelli said that ignores one key fact: Straight couples
have the option to get those benefits by marrying; a 2008 voter-
approved state constitutional amendment denies that same right to
gays, thereby making those same benefits inaccessible.  And that
remains the case in Arizona unless and until federal courts rule
gays can wed.

For her own part, Gov. Jan Brewer is defending the law as one
based not on sexual orientation but on budget considerations.  She
told Capitol Media Services the state needed the money it was
spending providing benefits to the partners of its gay workers --
benefits Judge Sedwick blocked her from cutting.

Ms. Borelli, however, said the effects are minimal, saying gays
make up just 0.2 percent of all state employees getting benefits.

Arizona first provided domestic partner benefits in 2008 when
then-Gov. Janet Napolitano ordered state personnel rules rewritten
to expand the definition of who is a "dependent" for purposes of
getting benefits.  Those rules, which did not specify the gender
of the partner, required a showing of financial interdependence
and an affidavit by the worker affirming there is a domestic
partnership.

But in 2009, after Napolitano resigned to take a post in the Obama
administration, the Republican-controlled Legislature approved,
and Brewer signed, a state law narrowing the definition -- and
specifically excluding unmarried couples.

Judge Sedwick issued a preliminary injunction blocking the change,
at least as it applies to gay employees.

The judge acknowledged the change in law, tucked into a provision
of the state budget, is not discriminatory on its face.  But he
said the denial has to be examined in light of the ban on same-sex
marriage.

"As a result, (the law) denies lesbian and gay state employees in
qualifying domestic partnership a valuable form of compensation on
the basis of sexual orientation," he wrote in 2010.

Judge Sedwick has since given the case class-action status.  That
sets the stage for the fight over whether the law should be
permanently blocked.

Grube told the judge there's no basis for such an order.  He said
any disparate impact on gays is the result not of this law but of
the other statutes and constitutional provisions which bar gays
from marrying.

On a more practical level, Brewer said there's the question of
cost.

"I think we all know that Arizona was in dire shape financially,"
she said of her 2009 decision to sign the law voiding the change
in rules.

"We had to make some tough choices," the governor continued.  "I
believe that was one area we could cut costs, just like we had to
do in behavioral health or education."

Ms. Borelli, however, gave Judge Sedwick figures -- produced by
the state -- which show the cost of benefits for the partners of
gay workers now covered is less than 0.3 percent of the total
program, with the cost of claims for children at about 0.01
percent.

Brewer also brushed aside questions of whether the state should
reconsider now that its finances are vastly improved from 2009.

"I would tell you that, almost today, no one can afford
insurance," saying that is a question that can be taken up by the
next governor and the next crop of legislators.

Finances aside, Mr. Grube said there's a rational reason for
lawmakers providing benefits to those who are married versus those
who are not.

"Under Arizona law, married persons have a legal duty to supply
support to their spouses," he told the judge.

"A married person who fails to provide a spouse with necessary
medical attendance actually commits a crime," Mr. Grube continued.
"There is no such criminal statute for unmarried persons."

But Ms. Borelli noted it is the state itself that prohibits gays
from marrying in the first place and being subject to laws
governing marriage.  Beyond that, she said this is not a matter of
criminal law.

"Plaintiffs rely on family coverage as an important part of their
compensation for the same reason as their heterosexual colleagues:
to provide shelter and protection to their families from the
potential extreme stress of untreated illnesses and attendant
financial burdens," she wrote.

And that, she said, goes to the other part of her discrimination
argument.  She said the gay workers are doing the same job as
their heterosexual counterparts.

Brewer had one more reason to justify the Arizona law.

"The federal government also does not provide insurance to
domestic partners," she said.

Ms. Borelli said that's true.  But she also said it's unnecessary
since the federal government recognizes the marriages performed in
states where that is legal, allowing gay employees to get benefits
for their partners.  It is only in states like Arizona, she said,
where that is an issue.


ARUBA NETWORKS: Briefing Schedule in Mazzaferro Suit Gets Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
In PAUL MAZZAFERRO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARUBA NETWORKS, INC., DOMINIC
P. ORR, MICHAEL M. GALVIN, and KEERTI MELKOTE, Defendants, CASE
NO. 13-CV-02342-VC, (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Vince Chhabria
signed on October 8, 2014, a stipulation and order regarding the
briefing schedule for the defendants' motion to dismiss the lead
plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of
the Federal Securities Laws and granting the Lead Plaintiff 21
days to file an amended complaint.

The court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/EELz9sfrom Leagle.com, provides that:

(1) Defendants must file their motion to dismiss no later than
    October 27, 2014;

(2) Lead Plaintiff must file its opposition to Defendants' motion
    to dismiss no later than November 26, 2014;

(3) Defendants must file their reply memorandum in support of
    their motion to dismiss no later than December 17, 2014; and

(4) The hearing date for the Defendants' motion to dismiss will be
    set for January 22, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., or the soonest date
    thereafter on which the Court is available to hear the motion.

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff:

   Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
   Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
   GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
   595 Market Street, Suite 2300
   San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
   Telephone: 415-777-2230
   Toll Free: 800-486-9021
   Facsimile: 415-777-5189


AUSNET ELECTRICITY: Faces Class Suit Over Mickleham-Kilmore Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Grimaux, writing for Northern StarWeekly, reports that a
class action has been lodged in the Supreme Court for victims of
February's devastating Mickleham-Kilmore fires.

On behalf of about 300 property owners, Maddens Lawyers issued
claims last week against AusNet Electricity Services (formerly
known as SP AusNet) that could involve AU$50 million in property
losses and damage.

Maddens' class action principal Brendan Pendergast said the
Mickleham fire started when a clearly visible tree in the road
reserve along Mickleham Road near Donnybrook Road at Craigieburn
fell on high-voltage electrical conductors.  This sparked a fire
that burnt out about 22,900 hectares of agricultural and bush
land, destroying more than 20 homes and more than 2000 kilometers
of fencing, and killing hundreds of cattle, more than 14,000 sheep
and unknown numbers of native fauna.

"Electricity supply and distribution was privatized in 1994,"
Mr. Pendergast said.

"We pay top dollar for access to electricity and, in return, these
companies must adequately maintain power infrastructure to ensure
public safety."

He said the focus of the Supreme Court writs was on residents of
Mickleham, Donnybrook, Darraweit Guim, Chintin and Kilmore
regions, to ensure they were duly compensated for losses which, he
said, could have been prevented.

"Quite simply, the residents of this area have suffered losses
that are not their fault.

"They are losses that would not have occurred had AusNet
Electricity Services Pty Ltd followed their own bushfire
mitigation procedures.

"There's no reason these residents should just accept that this
fire occurred and accept the damage it did while incurring the
substantial expense associated with re-establishing their
properties."

Maddens already has more than 150 registered claimants for the
Mickleham- Kilmore fires.

Mr. Pendergast is urging other residents and business owners,
wildlife organisations and conservation groups affected by the
fires to contact the company toll-free on 1800 139 290 or register
online at maddenslawyers.com.au


BP PLC: Freeh Seeks Return of Cash Paid to Alabama Shrimper
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a special master overseeing potential fraud in the BP PLC
claims process has asked a federal judge to order the return of
nearly $240,000 paid to an Alabama boat captain he accused of
reporting fake losses in shrimping revenue caused by the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill.

Former FBI director Louis Freeh alleged that Jason Zirlott and his
Capt Jay LLC claimed losses from commercial shrimping even though
80 percent of their revenue in 2009 came from marine cleanup work,
according to a motion filed on Oct. 7.

The motion was the third clawback request filed by Mr. Freeh, who
was appointed to look into potential fraud after BP started
criticizing the way in which claims had been paid on its $9.2
billion settlement for economic losses tied to the 2010 spill.

"Here, the record unquestionably reveals that Zirlott and Capt Jay
knowingly presented false information . . . and concealed other
information to obtain $282,742.13," Judge Freeh wrote.

BP was quick to praise Judge Freeh's motion.

"The motion filed by Judge Freeh makes clear that claimants should
return settlement funds to which they are not legally entitled and
that the court has the power to and should enforce the return of
such payments as a matter of fairness and equity," BP spokesman
Geoff Morrell wrote in an emailed statement.

Judge Freeh claims Zirlott's former attorney returned $43,223 of
the original $282,742 in claims payments after resigning as his
counsel on Oct. 3.  The motion didn't name the attorney, but claim
documents attached to the motion were signed by Steve Olen of
Cunningham Bounds in Mobile.  Mr. Olen, who serves on the
executive committee of the Alabama Association for Justice, did
not return a call for comment.

On July 16, Freeh successfully obtained an order against another
shrimper and his attorneys at New Orleans-based AndryLerner after
concluding they made fraudulent oil spill claims.  The order
demands the return of $357,000 in claim funds and attorney fees.
Firm principals Glen Lerner and Jonathan Andry, as well as a third
attorney, Lionel "Tiger" Sutton, who referred the client to
AndryLerner, have appealed that order.

Citing that claim, Freeh last year recommended sanctions against
Messrs. Andry, Mr. Lerner and Sutton, who worked at the claims
office, plus Mr. Sutton's wife, Christine Reitano, who also worked
there.   ll four have denied fraud allegations.

Judge Freeh also is seeking the return of $50,000 paid to a second
AndryLerner client based on allegedly fraudulently claims for lost
blue crab revenue.

BP, meanwhile, continues to challenge the settlement. On Sept. 24,
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of the Eastern District of
Louisiana denied BP's motion for reimbursement of payments it made
on claims based on an accounting method that was later overturned
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

BP has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse two subsequent
Fifth Circuit decisions that rejected its appeals on other aspects
of the settlement's interpretation and has sought to remove the
claims administrator.


BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Sued for Chronically Understaffing Facilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
California's largest provider of nursing homes "chronically
understaffed" its facilities, according to a class action that
demands an investigation into "actual or suspected abuse or
neglect" at dozens of the institutions.

Lead plaintiff Raymond Foreman on October 8, 2014, sued Shlomo
Rechnitz, 43, his management companies and the nursing homes, in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles.

Rechnitz, a businessman and philanthropist, owns Brius Healthcare
Services, the largest provider of nursing homes in California.
Rechnitz and his brother Steve Rechnitz in 2012 received the UCLA
ICON Award for Visionary Leadership in Business and Philanthropy.
Larry King interviewed Rechnitz the same year.

"I'm honored to be joined by one of the world's greatest young
philanthropists and businessmen," King said in an introduction to
a televised special.

In his lawsuit, Foreman seeks an order that forces Rechnitz and
Brius to report "incidents of actual or suspected abuse or
neglect" at the homes in the past three years.  Foreman also wants
a judge to order Rechnitz and Brius to survey residents every
quarter to make sure they are not being mistreated.

According to the complaint, Rechnitz and Brius have admitted
residents to 57 nursing homes, while failing to disclose that the
homes are understaffed.  Rechnitz and his companies Brius
Management and Brius LLC "have a history of failing to comply with
laws and regulations" of the federal Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, and the California Department of Health Care
Services, according to the 90-page lawsuit.

The Department of Health Care Services in 2013 withheld Medi-Cal
payments after several of Rechnitz's nursing homes failed to
provide "audit materials" to authorities, according to the
complaint.  And the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has
hit Rechnitz with multiple enforcement actions for violating
industry regulations, the lawsuit states.

The denial of Medi-Cal payments and enforcement actions threaten
standards of care at all 57 of Rechnitz's nursing homes, the
complaint says, citing declarations of state authorities.

"Before, during, and after the admissions processes," elderly
residents were led to believe that the homes are properly staffed
and maintained, Foreman claims.  But he says that the nursing
homes never disclosed that they "did not devote sufficient
financial resources to protect the health and safety of residents
and ensure resident rights were not violated, and instead diverted
those resources to create ill-begotten profits for defendants."

Foreman says the California's Health and Safety Code requires that
nursing homes provide a minimum of three staff members for every
two residents.  The department may require nursing homes to
provide more workers, depending on residents' needs.

Foreman claims that Rechnitz's nursing homes were required to do
more than the minimum and failed to adequately staff the homes.

"Plaintiff and class members did rely on the fact that defendants'
facilities were licensed, in regulatory compliance, and adequately
funded in being placed as residents at the defendants' facilities.
Plaintiff and class members would not have agreed to become
residents at defendants' facilities if the true facts had been
known," the lawsuit states.

In 2012, the FBI, the IRS, the California Department of Justice
and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services investigated
one of the named nursing homes, South Pasadena Rehabilitation
Center, after more than 65 complaints from residents, the South
Pasadena Police Department said at the time.

South Pasadena police said they had responded to several incidents
of drug and alcohol-related offenses.  Officers found out that the
hospital was admitting registered sex offenders in violation of
state law; the facility later moved those patients to other
hospitals, police said.

Police said they had conducted several investigations of burglary,
grand theft, and physical and sexual assault at the hospital.

Foreman seeks class certification and damages for consumer law
violations, unlawful business practices, fraud and violation of
residents' rights.

After Courthouse News posted this story on October 9, 2014, Brius
Healthcare's public relations representative issued this statement
via e-mail: "This lawsuit is filled with baseless and untrue
allegations.  It is notable that it makes no allegations of harm
to or abuse of any of our patients.  It is also telling, we
believe, that its filing came after we refused to enter into a
lucrative consulting contract with the plaintiff's attorney. . . .

"The allegations in the lawsuit focus on staffing levels at our
facilities.  The fact is staffing levels at all of our facilities
meet and even exceed the staffing levels required by the State of
California.  Ironically, this fact substantiated by the staffing
levels alleged in the plaintiff's own complaint.

Brius facilities are operated at the highest standards and, in
fact, have been appointed as one of the only state-certified
temporary managers to take control of troubled nursing facilities.

"This lawsuit is a case in point of how anyone can say anything in
a lawsuit regardless of whether it's true.  We look forward to
proving the allegations in this lawsuit to be utterly false."

Here are the defendants: Shlomo Rechnitz; Brius Management Co.
Inc.; Brius LLC; Sol Healthcare LLC; B-Spring Valley LLC; CNRC
LLC; Point Loma Rehabilitation Center LLC; Centinela Skilled
Nursing & Wellness Centre - West LLC; Centinela Skilled Nursing &
Wellness Centre - East LLC; Highland Park Skilled Nursing &
Wellness Centre LLC; Laibco LLC; South Pasadena Rehabilitation
Center LLC; Lighthouse Healthcare Center LLC; Vernon Healthcare
LLC; Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre LLC; Verdugo Valley
Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre LLC; Maywood Skilled Nursing &
Wellness Centre LLC; Wish-I-Ah Healthcare & Wellness Centre LLC;
Fresno Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre LLC; Oakhurst Healthcare
& Wellness Centre LLC; Eureka Rehabilitation & Wellness Center
LLC; Granada Rehabilitation & Wellness Center LP; Pacific
Rehabilitation & Wellness Center LP; Seaview Rehabilitation &
Wellness Center LP; Fortuna Rehabilitation & Wellness Center LP;
Granite Hills Healthcare & Wellness Centre LLC; Clairemont
Healthcare & Wellness Centre LLC; Solnus One LLC; Solnus Two LLC;
Solnus Three LLC; Solnus Four LLC; Solnus Five LLC; Solnus Five
LLC; Solnus Six LLC; Solnus Seven LLC; Solnus Eight LLC; Lawndale
Healthcare & Wellness Centre LLC; The Healthcare Center of Downey
LLC; San Marino Gardens Wellness Center LP; Notellage Corporation;
Four Seasons Healthcare & Wellness Center LP; Alhambra Healthcare
& Wellness Centre LP; Mesa Verde Convalescent Hospital Inc.;
Fullerton Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP; Hawthorne Healthcare &
Wellness Centre LLC; York Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP; Novato
Healthcare Center LLC; Oxnard Manor LP; Pomona Healthcare &
Wellness Center LLC; Pine Grove Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP;
San Gabriel Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP; and San Rafael
Healthcare Wellness Centre LP.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Garcia, Esq.
          GARCIA, ARTIGLIERE & MEDBY
          One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
          Long Beach, CA 90831
          Telephone: (562) 216-5270
          Facsimile: (562) 216-5271
          E-mail: sgarcia@lawgarcia.com


CALIFORNIA: Court Revives 8th Amendment Claims in "Gonzales" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The court dismissed a few weeks ago the action captioned RICKY
GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et
al., Defendants, NO. C 10-1317 SI (PR), (N.D. Cal.) because the
claims asserted in the amended complaint were covered in a pending
class action in which plaintiff was a member of the plaintiff-
class. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of his
Eighth Amendment claims.

District Judge Susan Illston granted the motion for
reconsideration and vacated the dismissal of the Eighth Amendment
claims. The court did not vacate the dismissal of plaintiff's due
process claims.

Judge Illston directed the clerk of Court to reopen the action.

A copy of the Court's September 30, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/JaNpUDfrom Leagle.com.

Ricky Gonzales, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CALIFORNIA: District Court Closes "Robinson" Case v. Jail Warden
----------------------------------------------------------------
In PRENTISS ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. RICK HILL, Warden,
Respondent, NO. 2:13-CV-02100 DAD P, (E.D. Cal.), the Petitioner,
a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, together
with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application revealed that
petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly,
Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd granted the petitioner's
application to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Petitioner's claim that his rights under the Due Process
Clause were violated by the Board's decision denying him parole is
dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal
habeas corpus relief, ruled Magistrate Judge.

The Petitioner's claim that his rights under the Ex Post Facto
Clause were violated by the Board's decision to defer his next
parole suitability hearing is dismissed without prejudice to
petitioner obtaining any relief that may be available to him as a
member of the plaintiff class in Gilman v. Fisher, Case No. 2:05-
0830 LKK CKD P (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge added.

The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability under
28 U.S.C. 2253(c).

The action is closed.

A copy of Judge Drozd's October 6, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/d3zs6Efrom Leagle.com.

Prentiss Robinson, Petitioner, Pro Se.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Suggests Dismissal of Saffold Case v Warden
-------------------------------------------------------------
In TONY EUGENE SAFFOLD, Petitioner, v. RICK HILL, Warden,
Respondent, NO. 2:13-CV-00833 JAM DAD P, (E.D. Cal.), the
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
2254.

Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd, in an order and findings and
recommendations entered October 6, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/VrkCTGfrom Leagle.com, recommends
dismissal of the petition without prejudice to the Petitioner
pursuing his Ex Post Facto claims as a member of the plaintiff
class in Gilman v. Fisher, Case No. 2:05-0830 LKK CKD P (E.D.
Cal.).

Tony Eugene Saffold, Petitioner, Pro Se.


CONVERGENCE MARKETING: Removes "Busch" Suit to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Michelle Busch, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Convergence
Marketing, Inc., Case No. 2014CH01587, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07929 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Thomas Graham, Esq.
          Timothy Robert Herman, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 985-5945
          Facsimile: (312) 985-5954
          E-mail: dgraham@clarkhill.com
                  therman@clarkhill.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Clarify Stay Order in "Stiller" Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in ERIC STILLER and JOSEPH MORO, on behalf of
themselves individually and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:09-CV-2473-GPC-BGS, (S.D. Cal.)
filed an amended class action complaint on October 2, 2009.  On
November 4, 2009, the Defendant removed this case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California. On
December 13, 2010, the Court granted certification of a California
Rule 23 class and conditional certification of a nationwide FLSA
collective action. On October 11, 2012, this case was transferred
to the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel. On April 15, 2014, the Court
decertified the class and collective actions.  On April 29, 2014,
the Plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the
Decertification Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
The parties filed a joint motion to stay the case pending the
resolution of Plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal.  The
Court granted the motion to stay on May 12, 2014.  To date, the
Ninth Circuit has not ruled on Plaintiffs' petition.  On July 10,
2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify the Stay Order. The
parties dispute the type of tolling that Plaintiffs seek in the
motion to clarify.

District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, in order entered October 1,
2014, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Clarify.  A copy of the
the Order is available at http://is.gd/9TEi2Hfrom Leagle.com.

Costco, doing business as Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Daniel P. Hart -- dhart@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw, LLP, David D Kadue -- dkadue@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw,
Dennis A. Clifford -- dclifford@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw,
LLP, Rachael Urquhart -- rurquhart@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw,
LLP, Rocio Herrera -- rherrera@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Theresa Yelton McDaniel -- tmcdaniel@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP & Thomas J. Wybenga -- twybenga@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Decertification Ruling in "Brady" Case Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BRADY; SARAH CAVANAGH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DELOITTE &
TOUCHE, a limited liability partnership, Defendant-Appellee, NO.
12-16384 is a putative class action on behalf of unlicensed
accountants against Deloitte & Touche LLP, alleging various wage
and hour violations under California law. The district court
originally certified the class, but, in light of the Court's
opinion in Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 642 F.3d 820
(9th Cir. 2011), granted Deloitte's subsequent motion to
decertify.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the
decertification ruling in a memorandum dated October 9, 2014, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/EzDr5ifrom Leagle.com.


DURAND GLASS: Certification Bid in "Bobryk" FLSA Suit Ruled On
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the complaint CINDY BOBRYK, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DURAND GLASS
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant, CIVIL NO. 12-5360(NLH)(JS)
(D. N.J.), plaintiffs allege that defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and
the New Jersey Payment Law (NJ Wage) by failing to pay named
plaintiffs and those similarly situated overtime compensation, as
well as for certain hours worked.

In a Sept. 29, 2014, Opinion available at http://is.gd/MIH6mxfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge Noel L. Hillman:

   -- granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification for
      a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
      Act; and

   -- denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification pursuant to Rule 23 regarding their New Jersey
      law wage claims.

Plaintiffs are current or former employees of defendant Durand
Glass Manufacturing Company.  Durand is a producer of commercial
glassware and ceramics located in Millville, New Jersey.

THOMAS J. BARTON, Esq. -- Thomas.Barton@dbr.com , DANIEL H. AIKEN,
Esq. -- Daniel.Aiken@dbr.com -- of DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP,
in PRINCETON, NJ, serve as attorneys for the Defendants.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Supreme Court to Hear 401(k) Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Nicklaus, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
Americans have been plowing their retirement savings into 401(k)
plans for more than 30 years, but for a long time nobody
questioned what the plans cost.  Then along came Jerome
Schlichter, a St. Louis attorney with a history of representing
injured workers in lawsuits against railroads and other employers.
After studying how the 401(k) industry worked, he filed class-
action suits against a dozen of America's biggest companies
starting in 2006.

He targeted excessive fees or obvious conflicts of interest, like
firms that hired their own asset-management subsidiaries to invest
the money.  A string of multimillion-dollar settlements with the
likes of Caterpillar and International Paper grabbed the attention
of employers everywhere.

Now, one of Mr. Schlichter's 401(k) suits is headed for the
Supreme Court.  The court agreed on Oct. 2 to hear a case against
Edison International, a California utility whose workers have
accumulated $3.8 billion for retirement.

At that size, their plan could have bought low-cost institutional
shares of mutual funds, but it bought high-cost retail shares
instead.  Edison got a kickback, called revenue sharing, from the
high-cost funds and used it to reduce 401(k) administrative costs
by $8 million.

The plan specifies that Edison was supposed to cover
administrative costs, but they were effectively being paid by
employees.  Two lower courts agreed that workers were overcharged
on three of the funds and awarded damages of $370,732.

Three other high-cost funds had been in the plan for more than six
years, and the courts ruled that it was too late to sue over them.
Mr. Schlichter argues that the statute of limitations shouldn't
apply because employers have a continuing fiduciary duty to
employees.  They're supposed to regularly re-evaluate the funds
and decide if they're proper.

It's an important question.  If the statute of limitations
applies, Mr. Schlichter says, "you're granting permanent immunity
to a plan sponsor who has knowledge that a fund is unsuitable."

The Justice Department agrees.  It filed a brief saying that the
lower court ruling "undermines the security and integrity" of
401(k) accounts that now hold $4.3 trillion.

A favorable Supreme Court ruling would mean a bigger refund to
Edison workers and retirees.  It also would strengthen
Mr. Schlichter's hand in a half-dozen other pending lawsuits,
including one against Lockheed Martin.

An investment-industry trade publication labeled Mr. Schlichter
"public enemy No. 1 for 401(k) profiteers," and it's a label he
wears proudly.  "The 401(k) plan had been off in a dark closet,"
he says.  "There's now much more scrutiny of practices that can
have a significant effect on retirement balances."

Mike Alfred, chief executive of 401(k) comparison site
Brightscope, says the lawsuits have helped the 60 million people
who save for retirement in a 401(k).  "I have to applaud
Schlichter," he says.  "He's helped shed a lot of light on some
401(k) practices."

New Labor Department disclosure rules have also exposed 401(k)
expenses, and competition among financial providers has helped
make lower-cost plans available to small employers.  "What you
have on net is a better retirement segment today than you had a
decade ago," Mr. Alfred said.

His adversaries may not want to admit it, but Mr. Schlichter has
played a big role in helping the 401(k) live up to its potential.

The Supreme Court will hear the Edison case in February.   By
June, the end of the court's term, we should know whether
Mr. Schlichter has won another victory for workers who were ripped
off by their own employer.


ENIGMA SOFTWARE: Obtains Partial Summary Judgment in Sherrod Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole A. Sherrod, Plaintiff, v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC,
Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-36, (S.D. Ohio) is before the Court on
the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

In an opinion and order dated September 29, 2014, District Judge
James L. Graham granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
request. Judge Graham said the Plaintiff may proceed with its
breach of contract claim against the Defendant. The Court ordered
the Plaintiff to file a motion to certify the proposed class
within 30 days. The Court also granted the Defendant's Motion for
Leave to File a Sur-Reply.  A copy of Judge Graham's ruling is
available at http://is.gd/28sNmDfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff filed this class-action Complaint in early 2013.

Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark
Alan VanderLaan -- mark.vanderlaan@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore &
Shohl, Andrew C Glass -- andrew.glass@klgates.com -- K&L Gates
LLP, R Bruce Allensworth -- bruce.allensworth@klgates.com -- K&L
Gates & Roger L Smerage -- Roger.Smerage@klgates.com -- K&L Gates
LLP.


FIFTH GENERATION: Faces Second Class Action Over "Handmade" Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
another legal shot has been taken at Tito's Handmade Vodka, as a
second proposed class action alleges its manufacturer falsely
advertise it as made in "an old-fashioned pot" when it actually is
mass produced by machines.

Florida plaintiffs Shalinus Pye and Raisha Licht take to task
Fifth Generation Inc., which they claim engages in deceptive and
unfair trade practices by portraying the beverage as a lovingly
crafted throwback that produces a higher quality drink than the
products of large commercial distilleries.

In fact, the plaintiffs allege in Pye v. Fifth Generation, filed
on Sept 25 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, "there is simply nothing 'handmade' about the vodka,
under any definition of the term" because the vodka is made from
commercially manufactured "neutral grain spirit, distilled in
large industrial stills and produced in mass quantities.

These allegations mirror those made across the country in Hofmann
v. Fifth Dimension, filed on Sept. 15 in San Diego Superior Court.
Both actions point to the attestation on bottle labels that the
vodka is "Crafted in an Old Fashioned Pot Still by America's
Original Microdistillery" as flagrant misrepresentations that
violate state and federal statutes.

Tito's vodka actually is produced in massive buildings containing
10 floor-to-ceiling stills, where 500 cases per hour are bottled
using technologically advanced automated machinery, the complaint
contends.  Published reports say Tito's produced 850,000 cases in
2013 and earned about $85 million in revenue.

Both suits allege plaintiffs suffered an "injury in fact" because
they bought Tito's vodka as a result of the false claims, and paid
a premium for what they believed to be genuinely handmade.

The Florida action alleges Fifth Generation, and co-defendants
Mockingbird Distillery Corp. and Fifth Generation founder
Bert Butler Beveridge, violated state consumer protection, unfair
trade and false advertising statutes.  It also alleges the
defendants engaged in unjust enrichment, negligence and breaches
of warranty.

The plaintiffs ask for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well
as restitution, disgorgement and damages.

Pye and Licht are represented by Phillip Howard of Howard &
Associates.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Defendant in 221 Product Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 30, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in approximately 221 product liability actions.

Forest Lab's disclosure was made as part of ACTAVIS plc's Form 8-K
Report with the SEC.  Forest Lab's filing says 13 actions involve
allegations that Celexa or Lexapro caused or contributed to
individuals committing or attempting suicide, or caused a violent
event. The Multi-District Litigation that was established for the
federal suicidality-related litigation in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri has concluded and the
remaining cases have been remanded to the federal district courts
in which they were filed originally. Nine trials have been
scheduled in these actions in 2014 and 2015.

Approximately 194 actions involve allegations that Celexa or
Lexapro caused various birth defects. The majority of these
actions have been consolidated in Cole County Circuit Court in
Missouri. One action is set for trial in Cole County in April
2015. Fifteen actions were recently remanded to New Jersey state
courts from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(nine actions are now pending in Atlantic County, New Jersey and
six actions are now pending in Hudson County, New Jersey).
Approximately five actions remain pending in New Jersey federal
court. One action is pending in Orange County, California and is
set for trial in March 2015.

Approximately twelve actions involve allegations that Benicar, a
treatment for hypertension that the Company co-promoted with
Daiichi Sankyo between 2002 and 2008, caused certain
gastrointestinal injuries. Under Forest Co-Promotion Agreement,
Daiichi Sankyo is defending Forest in these lawsuits.

Each product liability action seeks compensatory and punitive
damages. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
against these actions. For claims filed before April 1, 2014, the
Company generally maintains $140 million of product liability
coverage (annually, per "occurrence" on a claims-made basis, and
in the aggregate). For these claims, the Company's self-insured
retention is $10 million per claim and $50 million in the
aggregate. Claims filed after April 1, 2014 will be reported to
the policy for the previous year. However, for these claims
Forest's self-insured retention is $20 million per claim and $60
million in the aggregate. Moreover, the Company is self-insuring a
layer of coverage $10 million in excess of $55 million.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Trial in Miss. AWP Action Scheduled in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 30, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in four state court actions that allege that the
plaintiffs (all governmental entities) were overcharged for their
share of Medicaid drug reimbursement costs as a result of
reporting by manufacturers of "average wholesale prices" (AWP)
that did not correspond to actual provider costs of prescription
drugs. These actions are pending in Illinois (commenced February
7, 2005), Mississippi (commenced October 20, 2005), Utah
(commenced May 2008), and Wisconsin (a qui tam AWP action
commenced by the former Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin
on February 20, 2012 that the State declined to join). Discovery
is ongoing in these actions.

On November 15, 2013, the plaintiff in the Mississippi action
moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. On March 26,
2014, the Mississippi state court granted plaintiff's motion in
part, but denied plaintiff's request to add generic drug products
to its claims. Forest has filed a motion to dismiss certain of the
claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint.

On May 21, 2014, the plaintiff in the Mississippi action filed a
separate complaint asserting claims against Forest with respect to
the pricing of its generic drugs, and Forest has filed a motion to
dismiss certain of these claims. A trial in the Mississippi action
is scheduled in August 2015.

A motion to dismiss the Utah action was granted, but the Utah
Supreme Court, while upholding the lower court's ruling regarding
a statute of limitations issue, reversed that ruling and allowed
the plaintiff to replead. The plaintiff filed another Amended
Complaint, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. This
motion to dismiss was denied in part, and discovery is proceeding.

On February 17, 2014, the Wisconsin state court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint. On April 14, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for leave
to file a Third Amended Complaint, and on May 16, 2014, plaintiff
filed an appeal of the court's February 17, 2014 ruling. On June
12, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion to file a Third
Amended Complaint and dismissed the case without prejudice. The
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these
actions.

At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe
losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of
operations or financial position taken as a whole.

Forest Lab's disclosure was made as part of ACTAVIS plc's Form 8-K
Report with the SEC.


FRANK & WOOLDRIDGE: January 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court authorized this communication in the case of
Gresham-Preston, et al. v. Wooldridge, et al., United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus), Case
No. 2:13cv107.  This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

If, on or after February 6, 2012, you received a letter from
Gregory D. Wooldridge and Frank & Wooldridge Co., LPA seeking to
collect on a consumer debt, or you were sued on a consumer debt by
Gregory D. Wooldridge and Frank & Wooldridge Co., LPA and were
served with a complaint, you could receive money from a proposed
class action settlement.  If you believe that you are a class
member, you will need to provide class counsel with your name and
address.

If you are a class member and you do not want to be legally bound
by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by December 30, 2014.
Contact class counsel for further information about excluding
yourself.  If you stay in the settlement class, you still may
object to the settlement.

To be valid, any objection must (1) be written (2) specify Case
No. 2:13cv107 (3) state the reasons for the objection (4) include
your printed name and address (5) be signed by you, and (6) be
mailed with a postmark no later than December 30, 2014; to the
Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, 85 Marconi Blvd., Columbus, Ohio 43215 with a
copy sent to class counsel.  The Court will hold a fairness
hearing in Courtroom 109, on January 29, 2015, at 10:30 am to
consider whether to approve the settlement.

If you have any questions or need additional information about
this case, you should contact the attorneys who represent the
class by writing, calling, faxing or e-mailing:

     Kendra Carpenter, Esq.
     FREYTAG CARPENTER LLC
     P.O. Box 14293
     Columbus, OH 43214
     Tel: (614) 310-4135
     Fax: (614) 310-4135
     E-mail: kcarpenter@freytagcarpenter.com

          - or -

     Daniel Freytag, Esq.
     FREYTAG CARPENTER LLC
     1320 Dublin Road., Ste 100
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Tel: (614) 264-6260
     E-mail: dfreytag@freytagcarpenter.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch-Related Deaths Rise to 27
---------------------------------------------------------
WFMJ reports that the number of fatalities linked to accidents
caused by defective General Motors ignition switches have more
than doubled from the number claimed by the automaker less than a
month ago.

The latest report shows that an administrator has now granted
eligibility for 27 claims from people who say the defective part
was responsible for the death of a loved one.

Before the automaker began soliciting claims from people who
believe that the switch was responsible for accidents, General
Motors claimed that the faulty switches were linked to thirteen
deaths.

In addition to the 27 fatalities, four other claims from accidents
resulting in quadriplegia, paraplegia, double amputation,
permanent brain damage or pervasive burns have been granted.

The program is also granting 21 claims for injuries requiring
hospitalization.

A total of 1371 claims have been submitted so far.  One hundred
seventy eight of those claims involve death.  The remaining claims
are being processed over the next few weeks.  All claims must be
submitted by December 31.

The GM Ignition Compensation Claims Resolution Facility was
established to compensate automobile accident victims killed or
physically injured as a result of defective GM ignition switches.

Those eligible to file a claim must meet the following criteria:

Applicants must have been a driver, passenger, pedestrian or an
occupant of another vehicle involved in an accident resulting in
physical injury or death allegedly as a result of an Ignition
Switch Defect involving one of the following categories of
vehicles:

Production Part Vehicles

(Ignition Switch Recall Repair was not Performed Prior to the
Accident)

   * Chevrolet Cobalt (Model Years 2005-2007)

   * Chevrolet HHR (Model Years 2006-2007)

   * Daewoo G2X (Model Year 2007)

   * Opel/Vauxhall GT (Model Year 2007)

   * Pontiac G4 (Model Years 2005-2006)

   * Pontiac G5 (Model Year 2007)

   * Pontiac Pursuit (Model Years 2005-2006)

   * Pontiac Solstice (Model Years 2006-2007)

   * Saturn Ion (Model Years 2003-2007)

   * Saturn Sky (Model Year 2007)

Service Part Vehicles

(Ignition Switch was Replaced by a Dealer or Independent Service
Center with an Ignition Switch bearing Part Number 10392423 and
the accident occurred after such replacement of the Ignition
Switch and prior to the Ignition Switch Recall Repair (as defined
in the Protocol))

   * Chevrolet Cobalt (Model Years 2008-2010)

   * Chevrolet HHR (Model Years 2008-2011)

   * Daewoo G2X (Model Years 2008-2009)

   * Opel/Vauxhall GT (Model Years 2008-2010)

   * Pontiac G5 (Model Years 2008-2010)

   * Pontiac Solstice (Model Years 2008-2010)

   * Saturn Sky (Model Years 2008-2010)

GM has recalled 2.6-million vehicles as a result of the defective
switch.

More information on the compensation program may be found at
http://www.gmignitioncompensation.com/index


HANTZ FINANCIAL: May Seek Review of Investor Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that
Southfield-based Hantz Financial Services Inc. and some of its
executives could come back under the shadow of a class-action
lawsuit now that the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned a past
ruling in the company's favor.

A three-judge panel late last month unanimously reversed Oakland
County Circuit Judge Leo Bowman, who in early 2013 denied the
request to certify a class of investors who purchased promissory
notes from Medical Capital Holdings Inc. through Hantz.

Attorneys for Hantz could decide within four weeks whether to
request a review from the Michigan Supreme Court.

Mr. Bowman had found that a 2012 lawsuit by investor-plaintiff
Anne Hanton could proceed only as an individual claim, in large
part because her attorneys had tried and failed before to get
class certification in a 2010 suit with another Michigan client.

But the appellate judges found the first case failed to become a
class action for procedural reasons, and Ms. Hanton should not be
restricted by another case in which she wasn't directly involved.

"(T)he fact that the (Oakland) court did not rule on the merits of
the class certification in the (2010) case is significant," the
ruling states.

"Prior class actions which were uncertified for a reason that was
not substantive should not preclude subsequent actions."

Past attorneys handling the case have said the Hanton lawsuit
could cover about 300 investors and several million dollars of
possible damages as a class action, while as an individual claim
it was worth less than $250,000.

Medical Capital, an Anaheim, Calif.-based medical receivables
financing company, went into receivership after raising about $2.2
billion from among 20,000 investors through nine private placement
offerings of promissory notes between 2001 and 2009.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission halted those sales
after gaining a court injunction in a civil action against Medical
Capital alleging securities fraud. The Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority also sanctioned more than 10 brokerage firms
and several individuals for selling Medical Capital notes without
a reasonable investigation -- but Hantz Financial wasn't one of
them.

David Shea, a Southfield attorney and general counsel for Hantz
Financial, said the company intends to ask the Supreme Court to
hear the investor case soon.

"We think this is a case of first impression (that could make a
legal precedent) in Michigan, and the debate is whether attorneys
who represent plaintiffs in class actions can get a do-over on
whether they lose out and get a dismissal and just hold back a
plaintiff and file over and over (until they get a favorable
result), or not," he said.

He also reiterated that the Hanton lawsuit is "purely a plaintiff
attorney-driven action" and Hantz Financial has never been
implicated in any government action against Medical Capital.  A
separate Hantz customer previously brought a complaint before an
arbitration panel at FINRA, regarding Medical Capital, he said,
but the company defended itself and won.

Shea has also said Hantz completed due diligence and that the
notes were still performing at the time it sold them.  Hantz
stopped selling them in 2008 after learning one of the previous
Med Cap sales had defaulted.

"There's still a stay on the Oakland County case because of the
appeal, but courts at this point generally hold a scheduling
conference, and we'll determine how we proceed from here," said
Thomas McGraw -- tmcgraw@mcgrawmorris.com -- partner at Troy-based
McGraw Morris PC and co-counsel for Hanton in the case.

"We're going now for a ruling that it can be certified.  They
(Hantz) may want to try and argue all kinds of things relative to
the merits of the (lawsuit) claims, but that doesn't get decided
at the class certification stage."


HARTFORD FIRE: Provide Case Stayed Pending EasySaver Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant granted a motion to stay the case
captioned PROVIDE COMMERCE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut
corporation, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-516 BAS (WVG),
(S.D. Cal.).

Provide had sued Defendant Sentry, along with other insurers, for
defense coverage in underlying class action lawsuits.  The present
suit seeks a declaratory judgment that Sentry has a duty to defend
In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation, which among other causes of
action, was initiated in state court on February 1, 2012 and then
subsequently removed.  Thereafter, Sentry filed a counterclaim
against Provide and the other defendant-insurers.

On May 9, 2014, Provide moved to stay the matter until the
underlying dispute was resolved. On May 14, 2014, the previous
court transferred the matter to the Calif. Southern District
Court. Sentry opposed the motion to stay.

A copy of Judge Bashant's October 7, 2014 Order granting Provide's
motion to stay is available at http://is.gd/z2R68Tfrom
Leagle.com.

Brit UW Limited, Counter Defendant, represented by Jim S Byun --
jim.byun@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP, Joseph R. McFaul,
Sedgwick LLP & Sean Robert Simpson -- sean.simpson@sedgwicklaw.com
-- Sedgwick, LLP.


HERSHEY CO: Told to Mediate in Suit Alleging Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hershey Co. must try to settle the discrimination claim of a
black employee it fired, reports Cameron Langford at Courthouse
News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

The largest manufacturer of chocolate in North America, Hershey
employs sales representatives who build and stock displays in
stores within assigned territories.

Yolanda Turner, an African-American, worked as a sales rep in
Houston for more than 8 years until she was fired in late 2011 and
replaced by a white woman.

Turner's African-American boss, Russell Williams, claimed he fired
her for entering false data into her "Retail Execution System," or
REX, a handheld device employees use to record how much time they
spend in particular stores.

Turner sued the Pennsylvania-based chocolatier in November 2012,
claiming Williams had "specifically directed his black African-
American sales staff to do exactly what he calls falsifying time
in the REX," and that he "was not shy about telling and warning
black workers that they were being targeted for termination
because they are black."

Williams is not a defendant; the only defendant is Hershey's
itself.

Turner testified in a deposition that she had several
conversations with Williams in which he said he had too many
blacks on his team and needed to get rid of them.  To support
this, Turner submitted testimony from Christina Tyson, an African-
American whom Williams also allegedly fired for fudging her REX
data.

In a deposition, Tyson said Williams advised her: "If you're
spending seven hours in one Wal-Mart, while you're in that Wal-
Mart, you need to clock in to the rest of your stores that you
were supposed to be in that day.

"That way that your cycle analytics stay on track and that as a
team we don't get dinged for not having the correct model time or
that you're deviating from your route."

In defense, Hershey claimed it also fired Ryan Parsons, a white
sales agent, for falsifying data, so Turner could not prove her
firing was race-related.  But Parsons said in a declaration that
he was not actually fired. He said he was given a choice to resign
with a favorable reference, be fired, or stay with Hershey and be
put on an improvement plan.  He decided to resign, according to
his declaration.

Hershey also claimed that because Williams is African-American he
would not have fired Turner because of her race.

But U.S. District Judge Sim Lake refused to dismiss the case in an
Oct. 3 order.

"The fact that Williams belongs to the same protected class as the
plaintiff does not necessarily mean that he did not discharge
plaintiff for discriminatory reasons," the 21-page ruling states.

Lake ordered the parties to mediation.

Hershey is represented by:

          Amanda J. Lavis, Esq.
          RHOADS AND SINON LLP
          One South Market Square, 12th Floor
          P.O. Box 1146
          Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146
          Telephone: (717) 237-6797
          Facsimile: (717) 238-8623
          E-mail: alavis@rhoads-sinon.com

The case is Yolanda F. Turner v. The Hershey Company d/b/a Hershey
Foods Corporation, Case No. H-12-3365, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.


HOME DEPOT: Gilbert's Improper Sales Tax Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge William M. Skretny dismissed the case
captioned BRENDAN GILBERT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., THE
HOME DEPOT SPECIAL SERVICES, INC., and HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC.,
Defendants, NO. 13-CV-853S, (W.D. N.Y.).

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff alleged that Home
Depot improperly collect state and local sales taxes on a Damage
Protection plan that is offered to New York customers who enter
into a Home Depot Tool Rental Agreement.  Home Depot sought
dismissal of the action for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies and failure to state a claim for relief.

Judge Skretny granted the motion in a decision and order dated
September 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/WCvoSUfrom Leagle.com.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Vivian M. Quinn
-- vquinn@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP.


IMPERIAL FIRE: La. Appeals Court Reverses Judgment in Prime Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment in favor of
Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, in a case involving
the taxicab insurance market in Louisiana, and particularly, New
Orleans.

The underlying matter centers primarily around a class action
lawsuit filed on December 9, 2002, in the 19th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge. At the time that suit
was filed, only two companies sold taxicab insurance for the New
Orleans market: Prime and Imperial.  The premise of the underlying
suit was that Prime was liable to its policyholders because it
sold non-compliant insurance policies to taxicab owners and
drivers. The lawsuit alleged that Louisiana law, as found in La.
R.S. 45:200.4 and 32:866(A), required that cab policies pay full
coverage with zero deductible. However, the Prime policies
contained a $500 self-insured retention (S.I.R.) provision,
thereby violating the law.

Imperial had argued that Prime has absolutely no direct evidence
to demonstrate that Imperial was involved in the underlying suit.
It contends that the depositions of the parties involved do not
link Imperial to the underlying suit in any way. Thus, Imperial
argued that the trial court correctly granted its motion for
summary judgment and dismissed it from the instant lawsuit.

The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, on October 1,
2014, found that Imperial's involvement, or lack thereof, in the
underlying class action suit is a question of fact. It agreed that
Prime's evidence is far from overwhelming, however, it views this
as a case to be determined by a trier of fact that is capable of
determining the credibility of the witnesses.

For this reasons, the Louisiana Appeals Court reversed the summary
judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter for further
proceedings consistent with its opinion.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/bHZb73from
Leagle.com.

The case is PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, v. IMPERIAL FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, GREGORY POROBIL, GREGORY M. POROBIL, APLC, GENE
ALLEMAN AND N.O. ELITE LEASING, L.L.C., NO. 2014-CA-0323.

Brent M. Maggio -- BrentMaggio@allengooch.com -- Emile Joseph, Jr.
-- EmileJoseph@allengooch.com -- Scott F. Davis --
ScottDavis@allengooch.com -- ALLEN & GOOCH, 3900 North Causeway
Boulevard, Suite 1450, Metairie, LA 70002, COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.


INTEGRITY STAFFING: Justices Split on Security Screening Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 8 appeared uncertain whether workers at
an Amazon warehouse in Nevada should be paid for the time it takes
for them to go through anti-theft security screenings at the end
of the workday.

During the hour-long argument in Integrity Staffing Solutions v.
Busk, some justices seemed persuaded that the screenings were akin
to checking out after a shift, which is not compensable under
federal labor laws.  But others appeared dubious that a lengthy
screening process that benefits the employer should be off the
clock.

"If the court buys the analogy with checking out, the employer
wins," said Morrison & Foerster appellate co-chair Joseph Palmore
-- jpalmore@mofo.com -- who attended the argument.

The debate before the court touched on the nature and ending point
of work, and what tasks are integral, indispensable or beneficial
to the employer.  Hypotheticals flew back and forth, ranging from
casino workers counting their cash to pharmaceutical factory
workers being checked for drugs.  But the most intriguing example
came from Justice Elena Kagan, who said she was describing "real
life circumstances," not a hypothetical.

"There was a judge ages ago in the Southern District of New York
who . . . had his clerks come early in order to cut his grapefruit
and otherwise make breakfast for him," she said.  "Would that be
compensable?"

Assistant to the Solicitor General Curtis Gannon said yes, because
those duties are not "preliminary or postliminary," one test among
several for deciding whether employees must be paid for their time
spent doing tasks that seem tangential to their work but are
required by the boss.

The grapefruit-eating judge was mentioned eight more times during
the argument, but without shedding any more light on his or her
identity.  New York legal experts asked afterward said they did
not know or would not say which judge, living or dead, was on
Justice Kagan's mind.

Justice Kagan declined to comment, but the 1998 book Closed
Chambers by Edward Lazarus states that clerks for Southern
District Judge Edward Weinfeld "knew they had to be in the office
at 7:00 a.m. to cut the judge's morning grapefruit."  After that,
he added, the clerks "learned a lifetime's worth of civil
procedure and good lawyering."  Judge Weinfeld died in 1988 at the
age of 86.

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing his 75th case
before the justices, asserted on behalf of the employer that "the
exit screenings are a logical part of the egress process" that
does not require payment to workers.  Amazon contracts with
Integrity Staffing for its warehouse workers, and the security
screenings take place after they check out.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the process can take 25
minutes, according to the plaintiffs, 20 of which are the result
of insufficient staffing for the security checks.

Mr. Clement replied that "the pure length of time" of a task does
not make it compensable or indispensable, adding that the
plaintiffs' assertion about the long wait is "just an allegation."
But several justices sounded skeptical of Mr. Clement.

Justice Kagan said the security checks are in fact integral to the
tasks assigned to the workers, because Amazon "has a system of
inventory control that betters everybody else in the business."

The federal government, which is the target of numerous lawsuits
from government workers seeking compensation for similar tasks,
sided with Integrity Staffing.  Justice Stephen Breyer, noting
that "I pay a lot of attention to the Labor Department," seemed
inclined to vote for the employer, too, though he still seemed
perplexed about why security screenings are in a different
category from other similar tasks.

Mark Thierman, a solo practitioner in Reno, Nev., argued in favor
of Jesse Busk, a warehouse worker who brought the challenge.  He
ran into trouble asserting that the screening was a "principal
activity" that should be compensated under labor law.

"But no one's principal activity is going through security
screening," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said.

Mr. Thierman replied, "No one hired the clerk of this court to
wear morning jackets, yet it is a requirement of the job."  As
such, the time is compensable, he said.

Also attending the argument was Proskauer Rose partner
Edward Brill, who filed a brief in the case on behalf of the
Retail Litigation Center, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other
business associations.  Mr. Brill did not predict the outcome, but
he said the case could affect businesses significantly.

"A decision that requires employers to pay employees for time
spent in routine post-shift security screening would open the
floodgates to a wave of new litigation against employers,"
Mr. Brill said.  "Employee theft is a serious problem, amounting
to an estimated $16 billion annually in the retail industry
alone."


INTERTHINX INC: Court Lifts Stay in "Shaw" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The parties in CELESTE SHAW; and JUDITH VERHEECKE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
INTERTHINX, INC., a California Corporation; VERISK ANALYTICS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and JEFFREY MOYER, an individual,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-01229-REB-BNB, (D. Col.) were
required to file a joint status to advise the court about the
progress of their settlement. The parties have complied with that
directive and have shown that they have made substantial progress
toward finalizing the settlement.  However, they also recently
filed their Joint Motion To Modify Scheduling Order To Extend
Amendment of Pleadings Deadline and To Amend the First Amended
Complaint, by which they seek to amend the pleadings to add
parties and claims to this action which currently are part of two
other, but related, class action lawsuits, all of which are part
of the parties' proposed settlement.  Their request to continue to
stay is inconsistent with the request for affirmative relief from
the court.  Although the stay may be continued in all other
respects, it must be lifted in order to allow the court to
consider the parties' motion. Moreover, given the history of the
case, the court finds it prudent to extend the length of the
request stay beyond the date requested by the parties.

Accordingly, District Judge Robert E. Blackburn ordered that the
stay previously entered by the Court order dated February 24,
2014, is lifted to the extent necessary to facilitate
consideration of the Joint Motion To Modify Scheduling Order To
Extend Amendment of Pleadings Deadline and To Amend the First
Amended Complaint.  In all other respects, the case continues to
be stayed pending further order of the court.  By January 31,
2015, the parties must file a joint status report apprising the
court of the progress and status of the case.

A copy of the Court's October 2, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/BIAxTefrom Leagle.com.

Jeffry Moyer, an individual, Defendant, represented by Nicholas
Anthony Murray -- Nicholas.Murray@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis, P.C., Angela Quiles Nevarez --
Angela.Nevarez@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., Leila
Nourani -- Leila.Nourani@jacksonlewis.com --Jackson Lewis, LLP,
Nicky Jatana -- JatanaN@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLP &
Peter Francis Munger -- peter.munger@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis, P.C..


IRONSHORE SPECIALTY: Has Duty to Defend Champion, Says Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Gloria M. Navarro granted a motion for
partial summary judgment filed by American Guarantee and Liability
Insurance Company in the lawsuit entitled ASSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY and
NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. IRONSHORE
SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-02191-GMN-CWH, (D. Nev.).

This case arose from a dispute over insurance coverage for various
underlying suits in Nevada state court. The action at issue,
Garcia v. Centex Homes, involves a class action suit between
owners of individual residences and the developers, contractors,
and sellers of the individual residences, Centex Homes. In their
complaint (the Garcia Complaint), the Owners allege "damages
stemming from, among other items, defectively built roofs, leaking
windows, dirt coming through windows, drywall cracking, stucco
cracking, stucco staining, water and insect intrusion through
foundation slabs, and other poor workmanship." In response to the
Garcia Complaint, Centex Homes filed a Third Party Complaint,
which alleged that subcontractors were responsible and liable for
the claims asserted against it and named Champion Masonry as a
Third Party Defendant. Ironshore, an insurance company, issued a
commercial general liability policy, No. 011040905001, to Champion
for the policy period of May 31, 2009 to May 31, 2010. The
Ironshore Policy provides "that a defense is owed in any suit in
which allegations were made of damages because of 'property
damage' potentially caused by an 'occurrence,' occurring during
the policy period and not otherwise excluded."

In her September 30, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/uEb1sufrom Leagle.com, Judge Navarro concluded that
the Garcia Complaint alleged property damage potentially caused by
an occurrence that took place within the policy period that could
have led to possible or arguable coverage under the Ironshore
Policy. Accordingly, the Court declared that Ironshore had a duty
to defend Champion in the underlying action.

Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
William C. Morison -- william.morison@mhdplaw.com -- Morison &
Derewetzky, LLP.


ISIDRO BACA: Dist. Court Dismisses "Flowers" Civil Rights Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN FLOWERS, Plaintiff, v. ISIDRO BACA et al., Defendants, NO.
3:14-CV-366-RCJ-WGC, (D. Nev.) is a prisoner civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. In this complaint,
Mr. Flowers sued multiple defendants for events that took place
while he was incarcerated at the Northern Nevada Correctional
Center. The Plaintiff alleges three counts: (i) that a forced
psychotropic "daily cocktail of drugs" rendered him wholly and
legally incompetent and prevented him from filing coherent letters
to the courts and his lawyers about his criminal case and
exculpatory evidence, (ii) that psychiatrists physically forced
him to take Zyprexa at three times the maximum recommended dosage
in order to treat his schizophrenia and bi-polar conditions, and
(iii) that Defendants failed to notify Plaintiff of the class
action lawsuit against Eli Lilly regarding Zyprexa.  He seeks
monetary damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.

District Judge Robert C. Jones screened the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. Section 1915A, and held that the Plaintiff's Application to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis is granted. The Motion to Depart from
the Section 1983 Civil Rights Court-Approved Form and to Submit an
Expanded Written Complaint is also granted. The Court denied the
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and the Motion for
Appointment of Counsel.  The Motion to Extend Plaintiff's Copy
Work Account is denied as moot.

"[T]he Complaint is dismissed, and the Clerk shall enter judgment
and close the case," Judge Jones concluded in his order dated
September 29, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/eJiIVufrom Leagle.com.

John Flowers, Plaintiff, is represented by Northern Nevada
Correctional Center.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Unlawfully Firing Mortgage Loan Officer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mirta Richardson v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., a Foreign for Profit
Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-62331-JAL (S.D. Fla., October 10,
2014) is brought for unpaid overtime and unlawful retaliatory
termination pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Richardson was employed by the Defendant from October 2011
until December 2013 as a mortgage loan officer.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a New York for profit corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil D. Kodsi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF NEIL D. KODSI
          Two South University Drive, Suite 330
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (786) 464-0841
          Facsimile: 954-760-4305
          E-mail: nkodsi@ndkodsilaw.com


LINEAR LLC: Recalls Emergency Reporting System Transmitters
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 1, 2014
Posting date:             October 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Suspected quality concern
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41609

Affected products: Linear Personal Emergency Reporting System
(PERS) Transmitters

The recalled Linear PERS transmitters are components of Linear
PERS or personal emergency solutions products and allow users to
push a button on the transmitter to summon assistance.  The
transmitter may be worn as a pendant on a lanyard around the
user's neck, on a band around the user's wrist or as a belt clip.

The recall includes these transmitters which have batteries that
are sealed into the products:

   Model Number            Description
   ------------            -----------
   DXS-62A        Black wristband and a gray pendant
   DXS-62A-1      Ivory plastic belt clip pendant
   DXS-64         Gray plastic pendant with a green circle in the
                  Centre

The date code, model number, the name "Linear LLC" and other
information are found on the back of the transmitter.  The
manufactured date range of the recalled products is from June 2008
through April 2011 written as a date code.  For example, the date
code MD1107 represents YYMM format or a manufacture date of July
2011.

The batteries used in the DXS-62A, DXS-62A1 and DXS-64
transmitters can fail to emit a low battery warning leading the
user to believe the transmitter is functioning and not generate a
warning.

Linear has received one report of a transmitter that failed to
operate in the United States and none in Canada.  No injuries have
been reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these transmitters.

Approximately 6,124 affected products were distributed in Canada.
The number sold to consumers is unknown.

The recalled transmitters were manufactured in China and sold from
June 2008 through April 2011.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Linear LLC
                    Carlsbad
                    California
                    United States

Consumers should immediately contact Linear to receive a new
replacement transmitter at no cost.


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Everyday Essentials Glass Mugs
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 30, 2014
Posting date:             September 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Laceration Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41625

Affected products: Loblaw Everyday EssentialsTM Glass Mugs

The recall involves Everyday Essentials brand glass mugs.  The
label on the mug included the UPC and the phrase Dishwasher and
Microwave Safe.

The affected mugs may crack or break when filled with hot liquid,
posing a laceration hazard due to the glass breakage or a burn
injury if the liquid content is hot.

Loblaw has received one report on the glass cracking which
resulted in a burn injury.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these mugs.

Approximately 9,200 units of the glass mugs were sold at Loblaw
banner stores across Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
Aug. 7, 2014 to Sept. 18, 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Loblaws Companies Ltd.
                   Brampton
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mugs and
return them to any Loblaw banner store for a full refund (a
receipt is not required).


LOTTE CONFECTIONERY: Recalls Waffles Due to Undeclared Eggs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lotte Confectionery Co., Ltd. (manufacturer), 21-5ka, Yangpyung-
dong, Youngdeunpo-gu, Seoul, Korea, is recalling its 1.41 ounce
(40g) and 5.64 ounce (160g) packages of Lotte Waffles because they
contain undeclared egg ingredients.  People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to eggs run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

(Product Barcode: 1.41 ounce - 8 801062 518111 / 5.64 ounce -
8 801062 518135)

The recalled Lotte Waffles were distributed to California, Nevada,
Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, New
Jersey, Maryland, and Canada retail stores.

The product comes in 1.41 ounce and 5.64 ounce paper packaging,
with a white ingredient sticker label and an expiration date from
July 2014 to Sep. 2015 (the expiration date is printed as Year.
Month., and Day).

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the egg-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of eggs by the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency.

Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by an
error in the company's product sticker making process.

The distribution of the product has been suspended until FDA and
the company is certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased 1.41 ounce and 5.64 ounce packages of
"Lotte Waffle" are urged to return them to the place of purchase
for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact Lotte
International America Corp. (Importer), 1805 Industrial St. Los
Angeles, CA 90021, at 1-213-688-8806 Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM
PST.


LOUIS GARNEAU: Recalls Garneau P09 Aero Helmet
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 30, 2014
Posting date:             September 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41605

Affected products: Garneau P09 Aero cycling helmets

The recall involves Garneau P09 Aero cycling helmets with style
number 1405362.  The products have a sticker inside showing the
manufacture date of JAN 2014.

The helmets are available in these colors with the color code in
brackets:

white-blue (7E5)
black-red (6Y8)
white-silver (6Y9)
Hazard identified

Internal tests performed by Louis Garneau have shown that the
helmet's microplastic shell failed the manufacturer's impact test.
In the event of accident, the helmet could fail to prevent
injuries, posing a hazard to consumers.

Neither Health Canada nor Louis Garneau has received any reports
of incidents or injuries related to this product.

Approximately 283 recalled helmets were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
Jan. to Sept. 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Zhuhai Safety Helmets Manufature
                    China

   Distributor      Louis Garneau Sports Inc.
                    Saint-Augustin de Desmaures
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled helmets and
return them to the retailer for replacement or refund.


MANNA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Lotte Waffles Due to Undeclared Egg
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Manna International Trading Ltd., Seoul
                          Trading Corporation (BC), Korea Food
                          Trading Ltd., Pan Asia Food Co. Ltd.,
                          T-Brothers Food And Trading Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New
                          Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec,
                          Saskatchewan, Possibly National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9299

Industry is recalling waffles from the marketplace because they
contain egg which is not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to egg should not consume the recalled products described.

These products have been sold in British Columbia and Alberta and
may have sold in other provinces and territories.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

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

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(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.

Affected products: Lotte Waffle with all products where egg is not
declared on the label


MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Bacon & Onion Dip Mix Due to Undeclared Soy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Soy
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Maple Leaf Spices
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9273

Affected products: 30 g. Maple Leaf Spices Bacon & Onion Dip Mix
with all codes where soy is not declared on the label


MARKPOL DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Kupiec Rice Cakes With Dark Choco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Markpol Distributors Inc. of Wood Dale, Illinois is recalling
Kupiec Rice Cakes with Dark Chocolate because it may contain
undeclared milk.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

Kupiec Rice Cakes with Dark Chocolate was shipped and distributed
to retail stores in Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut
between Aug. 29, 2014 and Sept. 30, 2014.

Kupiec Rice Cakes with Dark Chocolate has UPC 5 906747 171742,
packaged in white foil with a photo image of the rice cake on the
front of the packaging, and the net weight is 3.1 oz.  The
production date located on the back of the package is 29.05.2014
with expiration date of 29.05.2015.  Lot numbers: 149/MA/3 and
149/JP/3.  Customers who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
milk should not consume this product and return recalled product
to the retail store and ask for a refund.

There has been one illness reported.

Markpol Distributors Inc. initiated the voluntary recall after the
mislabeling issue was discovered through the reported consumer
illness on Oct. 1, 2014 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 847-801-5050
from 9am-5pm (CST) Monday - Friday or email
info@markpoldistributors.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Junks Bid to Certify Class in "Kulig" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge P. Kevin Castel denied a motion to certify a class
in the case captioned CAROL KULIG, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.
formerly MCM CAPITAL GROUP, INC., and AMANDA PEREZ, Defendants,
NO. 13 CIV. 4715 (PKC), (S.D. N.Y.).

The Court concluded that Ms. Kulig failed to demonstrate that her
counsel would serve as an adequate class counsel in this case.

"Ms. Kulig has several options available to her. She may proceed
with existing counsel and her individual claim. Alternatively, she
may engage new counsel and that new counsel may request leave to
renew the motion for class certification and seek appointment as
class counsel.  If she elects to engage new counsel, the request
for leave to renew the motion and seek appointment must be made
within 21 days of this Memorandum and Order. If no such
application is made, then her existing counsel within 30 days must
file an amended complaint, eliminating the class action
allegations. Accordingly, defendants' cross-motion to partially
strike plaintiff's class allegations is granted in part and denied
in part," Judge Castel wrote in his September 29, 2014 memorandum
and order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/tepKEC
from Leagle.com.

Amanda Perez, Defendant, represented by Charles P. Greenman --
charles.greenman@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP,
Karen F. Lederer -- karen.lederer@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman
Sanders LLP, Kevin Patrick Wallace --
kevin.wallace@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP &
Timothy James St. George -- tim.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com --
Troutman Sanders LLP (VA).


MOUNTAIN STATE UNIV: Class Action Deal Awaits Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Jenkins, writing for MetroNews, reports that a court hearing
was scheduled on Oct. 6 in Beckley where a proposed settlement
involving former students at Mountain State University was set to
be presented for preliminary approval.

The proposal was first announced by plaintiffs' attorneys and the
University of Charleston in August.

More than 400 individual suits were filed along with at least two
class action suits in state court and two in federal court after
the school lost its accreditation in 2012.  The largest group was
about 600 nursing students who suffered the most harm when their
program was stripped of accreditation a year before the entire
school was discredited.

"The students were seeking damages from the closure of MSU and
loss of accreditation," plaintiffs' attorney Anthony Majestro said
when the proposed settlement was announced Aug. 13.  "That took
the form of delayed educational opportunities, delayed entry into
the workforce, student loans, expenses, it runs the whole gamut."

The plaintiffs will ask the three-judge mass litigation panel to
approve the details of the settlement that include setting up a
pool of money former MSU students would share through a formula
based on where the students were in their education careers at
Mountain State.  The money would come from three different sources
including MSU's insurance company, the U.S. Department of
Education and the liquidation of property in Beckley and
Martinsburg.

The University of Charleston took over the defunct MSU and UC is
part of the settlement.  The university will offer tuition
assistance to those former Mountain State students who wish to
attend UC.

The Oct. 6 hearing was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. in the ceremonial
courtroom at the Raleigh County Courthouse.  The judges were also
set to hear any objections to the proposed settlement.


NESTLE CANADA: Recalls Stouffer's Panini Barbecue Chicken & Bacon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Nestle Canada Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9307

Nestle Canada Inc. is recalling Stouffer's Bistro Panini Barbecue
Chicken & Bacon from the marketplace because it contains mustard
which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to
mustard should not consume the recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(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 product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: 170 g. Stouffer's Bistro Panini Barbecue
Chicken & Bacon with all codes where mustard is not declared on
the label


NFL PRODUCTIONS: "Culp" Suit to be Transferred to Minn. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Noel L. Hilman for the District of New Jersey
granted a motion seeking transfer of the class action complaint
CURLEY CULP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NFL PRODUCTIONS LLC, a/b/a NFL
FILMS, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 13-7815, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

Plaintiffs are retired National Football League players who filed
the class action complaint in a New Jersey District Court alleging
that they, and others similarly situated, should be compensated
each time the defendants show their images in NFL films.

A copy of Judge Hilman's Sept. 29, 2014 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/kWIsxMfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for defendants NFL Productions LLC d/b/a NFL Films and
the National Football League are STEPHEN M. ORLOFSKY, Esq. --
Orlofsky@BlankRome.com , and JONATHAN M. KORN, Esq. --
Korn@BlankRome.com -- of BLANK, ROME, LLP, in PRINCETON, NJ,.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over InTouch System in Q50 Cars
----------------------------------------------------------
L. Zingerman, D.D.S., P.C., d/b/a Niles Family Dental,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Nissan North America, Inc., a California corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-07835 (N.D. Ill., October 7, 2014) stems from the
Defendant's alleged failure to deliver what was promised.

Through advertisements and other means, Nissan represented that
its 2014 Infiniti Q50 automobiles possessed an InTouch telematics
system through which certain mobile phone apps would be
accessible, including Pandora, Facebook, iHeartRadio, and Online
Google Search; e-mails could be accessed and read aloud; and a
calendar could be accessed.

Contrary to these representations, until late-September 2014, at
the earliest (if at all), purchasers and lessees of Q50s were
unable to access the Advertised Apps/Functions through InTouch,
the Plaintiff alleges.  And, even though the Defendant has
recently claimed to be releasing products to make the system
operate as represented, the effort has been less than effective,
the Plaintiff adds.

L. Zingerman, D.D.S., P.C., is an Illinois corporation
headquartered in the state of Illinois.  The Company purchased a
model year 2014 Q50 on October 30, 2013, and continues to own its
Q50.  Prior to purchasing its Q50, Plaintiff, through its
President, Mr. Zingerman, was aware of the InTouch System and it
was a material part of its purchase and the consideration paid for
the Q50.

Nissan North America, Inc., is a California corporation
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.  The Company is the North
American subsidiary of Nissan Motor Co.  The Company designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, leased, and sold, through its
authorized dealers and distributors, the Q50 in the United States
to the Plaintiff and the other Class members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Sharon Harris, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Jeffrey Blake, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  s.harris@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com
                  j.blake@barnowlaw.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debts, New York Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keren Solomons, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05965
(E.D.N.Y., October 12, 2014) seeks redress for the alleged illegal
practices of Northland concerning the collection of debts, in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Edina, Minnesota-based Northland Group Inc. regularly engages, for
profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NVIDIA CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that NVIDIA Corp. beat a securities fraud class action
after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that
the plaintiffs did not adequately plead that the company acted, at
a minimum, with deliberate recklessness to mislead investors about
defects in its semiconductor chips.

U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell of Los Angeles, sitting
by designation, said it could have been inferred that NVIDIA acted
with "scienter" to delay disclosure of the defects until it could
prepare replacement chips.  But "a more compelling inference is
that NVIDIA did not disclose because it was investigating the
extent of the problem, whether it was responsible for it and, if
so, whether it would exhaust the reserve" set aside to cover
inevitable product defects.

After NVIDIA disclosed the defects in its graphic processing units
and its media and communications processors in spring 2008, it
took a $150 million to $200 million charge to cover the costs of
the defects.  NVIDIA's share price dropped by 31 percent and its
market capitalization by $3 billion.

The purchasers of NVIDIA's stock between Nov. 8, 2007, and July 2,
2008, alleged the company knew of the defects in November 2007 and
failed to disclose them in its Securities and Exchange Commission
filings.

The court said the plaintiffs' allegations did not create a
"strong inference of scienter" that NVIDIA acted with deliberate
recklessness or to intentionally mislead investors when considered
on an individual basis or collectively.

In an apparent case of first impression, the court ruled that
failing to disclose possible trends that could harm a company's
net sales or revenue can't constitute a material omission
actionable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or Securities Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.

Item 303 of Regulations S-K requires companies to "describe any
known trends or uncertainties that have had or that the registrant
reasonably expects will have a material favorable or unfavorable
impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing
operations."  While the plaintiffs argued Item 303 created a duty
to disclose on the part of NVIDIA, the court held that it did not
for purposes of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.


OASIS BRANDS: Recalls Cuajada en Hoja Due to Possible Health Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oasis Brands, Inc of Miami, FL is recalling Cuajada en Hoja 12oz
with Best By 10/01/14-10/08/14 and 10/18/14, because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.  Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Cuajada en Hoja 12oz was distributed in South Florida through
retail stores.

Product comes in plastic bags, name Cuajada en Hoja 12oz, Brand
Lacteos Sta. Martha, Fresh Curd, Best by 10-01-14-10/08/14 and
10/18/14.

"No illnesses have been reported to date."

The recall is the result of sampling by FDA.  The company ceased
production and distribution of the product as FDA and the company
continue their investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Lacteos Sta. Martha Cuajada en Hoja
12oz are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at
305.599.0225.


OREGON COMPOUNDING: Recalls Unexpired Sterile Products
------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Compounding Centers, Inc., dba Creative Compounds, is
voluntarily recalling certain unexpired human and veterinary
sterile products to the consumer level due to lack of sterility
assurance.

The company has not received any reports of product contamination
or adverse events to date, but is issuing this voluntary recall
out of an abundance of caution following a recent inspection which
identified an issue with sterility assurance.  If there is
microbial contamination in products intended to be sterile,
patients are at risk of serious infections which may be life
threatening.

"We are fully cooperating with health officials," said Denise
Burnham, R.Ph., owner and pharmacist.  "We deeply regret the
impact this voluntary recall has on our customers, but patient
safety is our highest priority."

All recalled products have a label that includes the Creative
Compounds name as well as a lot number.  The recalled products
were made from July 1, 2014 through Sept. 22, 2014, and
distributed to health care facilities, physicians, and patients in
two states, Oregon and Washington.

The recall does not pertain to any non-sterile compounded
medications prepared by the pharmacy.

All unexpired lots of the following sterile compounded products
are subject to the recall:

                          Human Products
     Medication                          Lot Number   Discard Date
     ----------                          ----------   ------------
ALPROSTADIL 10 MCG/ML INJECTABLE          20140913@10   10/28/2014
ALPROSTADIL/LIDOCAINE HCL 20MCG/5MG/ML    20140902@17/1.25
                                                        10/17/2014
ASCORBIC ACID (B) 500 MG/ML INJECTABLE    20140821@17   10/20/2014
ASCORBIC ACID (PRES) 500 MG/ML
  INJECTABLE                              20140827@34   10/26/2014
                                          20140909@22    11/8/2014
                                          20140912@2    11/11/2014
AVASTIN (SYRINGE-REPKG) 1.25MG/
  0.5ML INJECTABLE                        20140715@13     1/3/2014
                                          20140716@25   10/14/2014
                                          20140717@7    10/15/2014
                                          20140724@14   10/22/2014
                                          20140724@15   10/22/2014
                                          20140729@11   10/27/2014
                                          20140801@17   10/30/2014
                                          20140805@1     11/3/2014
                                          20140807@13    11/5/2014
                                          20140811@30    11/9/2014
                                          20140813@10   11/11/2014
                                          20140825@8    11/23/2014
                                          20140904@46    12/3/2014
                                          20140905@8     12/4/2014
                                          20140909@12    12/8/2014
                                          20140909@21    12/8/2014
                                          20140912@30   12/11/2014
                                          20140917@11   12/16/2014
                                          20140917@9    12/16/2014
                                          20140922@30   12/21/2014
                                          20140814@15   11/12/2014
BEVACIZUMAB/DEXAMETHASONE (SYRINGE) 1.25/0.5 ML INJECTABLE
                                          20140916@3    12/15/2014
CALCIUM CHLORIDE (COMPOUND) 100 MG/ML INJECTABLE
                                          20140815@47    1/28/2015
CEFTAZIDIME (SYRINGE) 2.25/0.1ML INJECTABLE
                                          20140905@33   10/20/2014
CHORIONIC GONADTROPIN (STERILE) 4000 UNITS POWDER
                                          20140728@55    1/14/2015
                                          20140915@14     3/8/2015
CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN (STERILE) 5000 UNITS POWDER
                                          20140909@5      3/8/2015
                                          20140728@57    1/14/2015
CITRIC ACID/GLUCONOLACTONE MAGNES CARB (RENACIDIN) 66/1.98/31.77
MG/ML                                     20140908@2    10/23/2014
COPPER (SULF) 0.4 MG/ML INJECTABLE        20140919@21    11/3/2014
DEXAMETHASONE (AS SOD PHOS) 24 MG/ML INJECTABLE
                                          20140903@10   10/18/2014
DEXPANTHENOL - (PRES) 250 MG/ML INJECTABLE
                                          20140828@14   11/26/2014
DMPS-PRES FREE 50 MG/ML INJECTABLE      20140724@24/5   10/22/2014
                                          20140724@25   10/22/2014
                                          20140826@12   11/24/2014
EPINEPHRINE/WATER (PF) 1:1000 INJECTABLE   20140913@2   10/18/2014
ESTRADIOL CYPIONATE (COMPOUNDED/GRAPESEED OIL) 5 MG/ML INJECTABLE
                                          20140828@15   10/12/2014
GANCICLOVIR (PF) 2MG/0.1ML INJECTABLE     20140916@16   10/31/2014
GANCICLOVIR (PF) 0.2MG/0.1ML INJECTABLE    20140911@9   10/26/2014
GENTAMICIN SULFATE 100MG/1000ML IRRIGATION
                                          20140917@27   10/22/2014
GENTAMICIN SULFATE 480MG/1000ML IRRIG     20140912@29   10/16/2014
GLUTARALDEHYDE BUFFERED (POTASSIUM PHOSPHATE)
                                          20140722@5    10/20/2014
                                          20140723@45   10/21/2014
GLUTATHIONE (PRES) 100MG/ML INJECTABLE
                                       20140721@25/00   11/18/2014
                                          20140902@47   12/31/2014
GLUTATHIONE 100 MG/ML INJECTABLE           20140718@4   10/16/2014
HYALURONIDASE 240U/ML INJECTABLE          20140818@27    2/21/2015
HYDROXOCOBALAMIN-PF (B12) 1MG/ML INJ       20140717@6   10/15/2014
HYDROXOCOBALAMIN-PRES (B12) 1MG/ML INJ    20140729@18   10/27/2014
HYDROXYPROGESTERONE CAPROATE (SESAME OIL) 250MG/ML INJ
                                         20140718@1/5    1/14/2015
                                          20140813@25     2/9/2015
                                          20140903@32     3/2/2015
LIDOCAINE HCL (REPKG-STERILE) 4% SOLUTION
                                          20140815@12    2/16/2015
METHYCOBALAMIN (PF) 10MG/ML INJECTABLE
                                        20140729@16/1   11/26/2014
METHYCOBALAMIN (PF) 1MG/ML INJECTABLE   20140722@2/2     1/18/2015
                                        20140910@40/2     3/9/2015
METHYCOBALAMIN (PF) 20MG/ML INJECTABLE
                                        20140718@2/0.3   1/14/2015
                                         20140808@4/0.3   2/4/2015
                                          20140902@36/1   3/1/2015
                                        20140902@37/0.3   3/1/2015
                                         20140912@22     3/11/2015
METHYCOBALAMIN (PRES) 1MG/ML INJECTABLE    20140715@2   10/13/2014
                                          20140724@10   10/22/2014
                                           20140812@14   11/1/2014
                                            20140826@5   11/1/2014
MITOMYCIN 0.2MG/ML INJECTABLE              20140913@1   10/28/2014
MITOMYCIN 0.3MG/ML INJECTABLE              20140913@4   10/28/2014
OMNIPAQUE (REPKG) 300MGI/ML INJECTABLE       20140711@1   1/7/2015
                                           20140814@22   2/10/2015
                                           20140815@13   2/11/2015
PAPAV HCL/PHENTOL/PROSTAGL 12/1/10 INJECTABLE
                                          20140827@30   10/11/2014
                                          20140910@28   10/25/2014
                                      20140917@2/1.25    11/1/2014
PAPAVERINE HCL/PHENTOLAMINE/ALPROSTADIL 21.82/0.91/45 INJ
                                       20140722@16/1.7   12/3/2014
                                         20140728@43/2   12/3/2014
PAPAVERINE HCL (PRES) 30 MG/ML INJECTABLE
                                     20140903@14/1.25   10/18/2014
PAPAVERINE HCL/PHENTOLAMINE MES/ALPROSTADIL 22MG/0.8MG/8MCG INJ
                                           20140901@3   10/19/2014
PAPAVERINE HCL/PHENTOLAMINE MES/PROSTAGLANDIN 23/0.96/19.23 ML INJ
                                           20140708@30   12/2/2014
PAPAVERINE HCL/PHENTOLAMINE/PROSTAGLANDIN 27.70/0.45/45.45 INJ
                                          20140912@25   10/27/2014
PAPAVERINE/PHENTOLAMINE/ALPROSTADIL 26.5/0.98/58.9 INJ
                                     20140910@48/1.25   10/25/2014
                                     20140911@11/1.25   10/26/2014
                                     20140916@17/1.25   10/31/2014
PAPAVERINE/PHENTOLAMINE/PROSTAGLANDIN 17.16/0.57/19.45 INJ
                                           20140728@39   12/3/2014
PAPAVERINE/PHENTOLAMINE/PROSTAGLANDIN 17.44/0.64/5.8 INJ
                                           20140910@42   1/25/2015
PAPAVERINE/PHENTOLAMINE/PROSTAGLANDIN 17.64/0.58/5.88 INJ
                                       20140828@4/1.7   10/15/2014
PREDNISOLONE SOD PHOS 1% OPTHAMALIC       20140902@22   10/17/2014
PROCAINE HCL (BUFF) 1% INJECTABLE          20140905@11   12/4/2014
PYRIDOXINE HCL (PRES)100 MG/ML INJECTABLE
                                          20140715@18   10/13/2014
                                          20140917@18   12/16/2014
SODIUM CHLORIDE INHALATION 7% SOLUTION    20140916@23   10/31/2014
TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE (GRAPE SEED OIL/COMPOUNDED) 200MG/ML IN
                                             20140812@7   2/8/2015
                                            20140910@41   3/9/2015
TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE (SESAME OIL/CMPD)   20140714@51   1/10/2015
TOBRAMYCIN 480MG/1000 ML IRRIG            20140912@16   10/17/2014
TRIESENCE (SYRINGE-REPKG) 8MG/2.0ML INJ    20140909@6   10/24/2014
VANCOMYCIN (SYRINGE) 1MG/0.1ML INJ        20140905@32   10/20/2014
VITAMIN B COMPLEX(PRES) 100 INJ            20140811@5   10/16/2014
                                          20140827@12   11/25/2014

                        Veterinary Products
     Medication                          Lot Number   Discard Date
     ----------                          ----------   ------------
APOMORPHINE HCL 3MG/ML INJECTABLE         20140818@37   11/16/2014
CYCLOSPORINE-E PLUS 2% OPHTHALMIC         20140702@12   12/29/2014
POLYSULF GLUCOSAMIN GLYCAN 10% INJECTABLE
                                        20140820@7/30   11/18/2014
The company has begun notifying its customers by telephone, fax,
electronic mail and/or regular mail of this recall.  Users or
recipients of these products should immediately discontinue use
and return the recalled unexpired products.  To return product or
request assistance related to this recall, users should call
503-685-6111 or 877-585-6111, Monday through Friday, from
9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 1:30 to 5:30 p.m. PDT.

Consumers should contact their physician or health care provider
if they have experienced any problems that may be related to
taking these drug products. Adverse reactions experienced with the
use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse
Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.


ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls Vitros 5600 Integrated Systems
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 30, 2014
Posting date:             October 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41709

Recalled Products:

A) Vitros 5600 Integrated System (Device Licence #78571)
B) Vitros 5600 Integrated System (Device Licence #80701)

Ortho Clinical Diagnostics (OCD) has identified an anomaly with
Vitros system software version 3.1. Internal testing confirmed
that when using calibrator barcode labels supplied with Vitros
chemistry products calibrator kit 2, calibration may not occur
under specific circumstances.  Consignees are being advised not to
use the calibrator barcode labels for Vitros calibrator kit 2
until this anomaly is resolved in a future version of software.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.
                    100 Indigo Creek Drive
                    Rochester 14626
                    New York
                    United States


PAYTIME HARRISBURG: "Holt" Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Holt, et al. v. Paytime
Harrisburg, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03964, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (Harrisburg).  The Pennsylvania District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01968-CCC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts breach of contract claims.

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

               - and -

          Krishna B. Narine, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KRISHNA B. NARINE, PC
          2600 Philmont Avenue, Suite 324
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 914-2460
          E-mail: knarine@kbnlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Claudia D. McCarron, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berywn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (215) 977-4100
          Facsimile: (215) 977-4101
          E-mail: claudia.mccarron@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth R. Dill, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          550 E. Swedesford Road, Suite 270
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (215) 977-4100
          Facsimile: (215) 977-4101
          E-mail: elizabeth.dill@lewisbrisbois.com


PEPPO'S FOODS: Recalls Hommous Due to Listeria Monocytogenes
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Correction - Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Peppo's Foods
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9200

The food safety warning issued on September 26, 2014 has been
amended to correctly identify the affected codes for the Peppo's
Foods brand Hommous.

Peppo's Foods is recalling Hommous from the marketplace due to
possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.  Consumers should
not consume the recalled product described below.  Retailers,
restaurants and institutions should not sell or use the recalled
product described due to Listeria monocytogenes.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(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 the recalled
product from the marketplace.

Affected products: 1 kg. Peppo's Foods Hommous with codes of
JL201404-8, JL201404-9 AU201409-7*, AU201412-13, AU201422-11,
AU201422-12, AU201422-13, AU201422-14, AU201422-15, AU201420-13,
SE201404-5, SE201404-6, JL201418-8, JL201418-11, SE201413-6,
SE201413-7


PINNACLE GROUP: Tenants Still Await Settlement Payouts
------------------------------------------------------
David Cruz, writing for Norwood News, reports that for tenants who
lived or currently reside in Bronx buildings owned and managed by
the Pinnacle Group, a payout awaits.  But many have yet to claim
it.  It's a reason why Senator Gustavo Rivera is making the rounds
in his district, reminding locals they may be entitled to a part
of a class action settlement.  Since Sept. 29, Rivera has visited
hundreds of tenants reminding them of the settlement between the
management firm and residents.

Lawyers for Pinnacle settled their class action suit filed by
tenants who alleged tricky evictions tactics as a way to hike up
rents.  The case stretches back to 2006.

Despite notices distributed since the suit settled during the
summer, lawyers representing the Bronx victims say only one
percent of tenants have responded to the settlement, a reason why
Mr. Rivera's been visiting Pinnacle-owned residences in his 33rd
Senate District since Sept. 29.  Nearly half of the 62
Pinnacle-owned buildings are located in his district.


REYNOLDSBURG, OH: Parents of Kids With Special Needs Mull Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
10TV reports that dozens of parents who have children who attend
the Reynoldsburg City School District are looking to move forward
with a federal class action lawsuit against the district and
Huffmaster, the agency supplying substitute teachers during an on-
going teacher strike.

According to a post on the Raider Strong We Care Facebook page
from Michelle Timmons, a former special needs educator, the
parents met with attorneys from Leist Law Firm to discuss their
options on Oct. 5.

Ms. Timmons said in the post the parents don't think their
children's individualized education plans are being followed.

A retired special education intervention specialist who is also
helping the parents said she believes the district is violating
laws.

"They are not receiving instruction specific to their IEP goals,"
said Ellen Anderson Ross.

Under Ohio code, a substitute can sub for up to five days in a
class he or she is not specifically certified in.

Anderson Ross said in some special education classrooms, they are
simply switching out subs every few days.

A district spokesperson said it's making efforts to meet the
minimum requirements and it's not breaking any laws.


RICH PRODUCTS: Updates Recall to Include More Distribution Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Tree Nut, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Rich Products of Canada Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, Ontario, Possibly National,
                          Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9287

The food recall warning issued on Sept. 26, 2014, has been updated
to include additional distribution information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Rich Products of Canada Ltd. is recalling Gelato fino brand
Tartufo products from the marketplace because they may contain
almonds and wheat which are not declared on the label.  People
with an allergy to almonds or wheat should not consume the
recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

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

There has been one reported reaction associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the company.  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.


ROC OIL: Shrugs Off Class Action Rumors
---------------------------------------
Finance News Network reports that takeover target Roc Oil Company
Limited has shrugged off media speculation concerning a potential
class action relating to the downgrade of reserves in 2010.  The
oil and gas producer denies having been contacted by law firm
Slater & Gordon Limited regarding any action or that it has
received a claim.

Roc Oil says it considers the allegations by Slater & Gordon to
solicit support at this time as speculative and opportunistic.
The company has affirmed its compliance with disclosure
obligations relating to the Victorian oil and gas asst and rejects
any claim it should have known about the downgrade earlier.

Roc Oil has vowed to vigorously defend its position and says it
does not consider this matter to be material to its $474 million
cash takeover by China's Fosun International, which was launched
in August.

Roc Oil reported a net profit of $57.1 million in the first half
of the 2014 calendar year.


SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Ketorolac Tromethamine Injection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced the voluntary nationwide
recall of three lots of Ketorolac Tromethamine Injection, USP,
30mg/mL single-dose vials (NDC numbers 25021-701-01 and 25021-701-
02) manufactured by Cadila Healthcare Limited and distributed by
Sagent.  Sagent has initiated this voluntary recall of Ketorolac
Tromethamine Injection, USP, 30mg/mL to the user level due to
labeling the product with the incorrect expiration date.  The
labeled expiration date is longer than the known stability of the
product.

Sagent is not aware of any adverse patient events resulting from
the use of this product.

The lot numbers being recalled are MP5021, MP5024 and MP5025 which
were distributed to hospitals, wholesalers and distributors
nationwide from Sept. 17, 2014 through Oct. 1, 2014.  Ketorolac
Tromethamine Injection, USP, 30mg/mL is a nonsteroidal anti-
inflammatory drug (NSAID) indicated for short-term management of
moderately severe acute pain that requires analgesia at the opioid
level, usually in a postoperative setting, and is supplied in a
single-dose vial.

Customers are being notified by fax, email, FedEx, and/or
certified mail that includes arrangements for return of all
recalled product.  Customers have been instructed to examine their
inventory immediately and to quarantine, discontinue distribution
of and return the recalled lots of product.  Customers who may
have further distributed this product have been requested to
identify their customers and notify them at once of this product
recall.  The necessary form by which to document this information
as well as other information regarding this recall is available at
Sagentpharma website.

Any questions about returning unused product should be directed to
the customer call center at (866) 625-1618 M-F 8am-7pm CST.
Healthcare workers who have medical questions about Ketorolac
Tromethamine Injection, USP may contact Sagent Medical Affairs
(866-625-1618, Option 3) M-F 8am-5pm CST.

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

Any adverse events that may be related to the use of this product
should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program either online, by
regular mail or by fax.


SAMSUNG: Merchant Law Group Files Price-Fixing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class action litigation has been launched with the Courts claiming
$480 million in compensation for Canadian consumers regarding
price-fixing of electronic capacitors by many of Canada's largest
electronics manufacturers.

Merchant Law Group LLP is filing national class action lawsuits on
Oct. 6 with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the British
Columbia Supreme Court (with similar class actions having been
filed with the Superior Court of Quebec and the Court of Queen's
Bench of Saskatchewan) on behalf of all Canadian consumers and
businesses who have purchased products containing electronic
capacitors manufactured by Samsung, Hitachi, Panasonic, Sanyo, TDK
or various other electronics manufacturers.

The class actions allege that the defendants conspired to operate
as a cartel to foreclose competition, and that since at least
January 1, 2005, the defendants agreed to artificially augment the
cost of products containing aluminum, tantalum, or film capacitor.

Aluminum, tantalum, and film capacitors are utilized in everything
from vehicles to everyday consumer electronics, including laptops,
tablets, and cellular smartphones.

"The class action lawsuits launched today seek Canada-wide
compensation for the considerable consumer market manipulation
caused by the defendants alleged anti-competitive behavior", said
Tony Merchant, Q.C.  "Canadian consumers are understandably
unhappy to find out that they have been overcharged for everything
from cell phones to laptops as a result of the defendants
operating as a cartel to artificially set the cost of electronic
capacitors."

The class action lawsuits filed on Oct. 6 are similar to
litigation being pursued in this United States, and being
investigated by the US Department of Justice.

See for example:

http://is.gd/Tx6nkuand http://is.gd/cSIxPT

As a result of the alleged anti-competitive practices of the
defendants, it is estimated that Canadian consumers who purchased
products containing electronic capacitors have been overcharged by
$480 million or more, since 2005.

Anyone who wishes to obtain further information about the Canadian
capacitors class action should visit
http://www.capacitorclassaction.com/

Merchant Law Group LLP has twelve offices across Canada, from
Montr‚al to Victoria.  Merchant Law Group is well known for their
involvement in mass tort and class action cases in Canada, which
include lawsuits involving Winners, Residential Schools, System
Access Fees, Hollinger, Maple Leaf Foods, and many other cases on
our website.


SHOPPERS DRUG: Recalls "Novelty Toy" Halloween Squish Ball
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 10, 2014
Posting date:             October 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41765

Affected products: "Novelty Toy" Squish Ball

The recall involves a squishy ball which is a liquid filled ball
wrapped in black netting, joined together at the top, with a
plastic tie and black cap.  Although the product is not
necessarily Halloween, it has been displayed in the seasonal aisle
with the other Halloween toys.  The front panel of the attached
tag says Novelty Toy, and on the back side the toy can be
identified by the UPC code 057800879657.

The black plastic tie, cover and netting around the toy can easily
detach and due to the size of the pieces, may pose a choking
hazard.  Additionally, there is a possibility of the product
bursting when squeezed posing an ingestion hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Shoppers Drug Mart has received reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
Squish Balls.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see Health Canada's
General Toy Safety tips.

Approximately 1154 of the recalled toys were sold at Shoppers Drug
Mart and Pharmaprix stores across Canada.

The recalled toys were manufactured in China and sold from Sept. 6
to Sept. 29, 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Wahfay Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd.
                    Ningbo
                    China

   Importer         Shoppers Drug Mart
                    Toronto
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled toy and
return them to any Shoppers Drug Mart or Pharmaprix store for a
full refund with or without a receipt.


SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Advia Centaur, Advia Centaur CP
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 29, 2014
Posting date:             October 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41721

Recalled Products:

A) Advia Centaur CP System- Calibrator E
B) Advia Centaur XP System - Calibrator E
C) Advia Centaur System - Calibrator E

Calibrator e is used for calibration of the Advia Centaur Systems
Cortisol, Progesterone and Testosterone assays.  Siemens
healthcare diagnostics has identified a positive bias for
calibrator e kit lots ending in 38 and 39 with the Advia Centaur
Systems Cortisol and Progesterone Assays compared to the
respective master curves.  Patient serum samples evaluated with
the Advia Centaur Cortisol Assay and calibrated with calibrator E
kit lots listed in table 1 demonstrate an average positive bias of
16% across the assay range with a maximum bias of 28%.  Patient
serum samples evaluated with the Advia Centaur Systems
Progesterone Assay and calibrated with calibrator E kit lots
ending in 38 and 39 demonstrate a positive bias with samples above
30 ng/ml.  The average positive bias on the Advia Centaur/Advia
Centaur XP is 20% with a maximum bias of 39%.  The average
positive bias on the Advia Centaur CP is 17% with a maximum bias
of 35%.  The Advia Centaur Systems Testosterone Assay is not
affected by this correction.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.
                    511 Benedict Ave.
                    Tarrytown 10591
                    New York
                    United States


SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls N Latex B2 Microglobulin
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 1, 2014
Posting date:             October 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41747

Recalled Products: N Latex B2 Microglobulin

Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics has received a small number of
complaints about calibration failure with N Latex B2
Microglobulin.  In rare cases the signal generated at the highest
calibration point can exceed the analog-digital converter capacity
of an affected BN system.  This effect does not allow the
establishment of a calibration curve due an invalid calibration
point measurement.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Products GmbH
                    Emil-Von-Behring-Str. 76
                    Marburg 35041
                    Germany


SONY MUSIC: Doesn't Owe Toto Digital Music Royalties, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Music Entertainment does not owe digital music royalties to
the rock band Toto, best known for its 1980s pop hits "Rosanna"
and "Africa," reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

Toto was dissatisfied with the terms of a $8 million class action
settlement that their fellow bands The Allman Brothers Band, Cheap
Trick and other bands reached with Sony two years ago over digital
music download and streaming royalties, Rolling Stone reported.

Formed in Los Angeles in 1977, Toto had its greatest success in
the early 1980s, and in 1983, garnered album of the year and
record of the year Grammies, besting such competition as Billy
Joel, John Cougar, Paul McCartney and Willie Nelson.  Toto broke
up briefly in 2008, the same year that the band audited Sony's
records.  Its auditor claimed that Toto deserved "50 percent net
receipts" on digital downloads.

The band reunited in 2010, and two years later, sued Sony in
federal court, seeking $605,000 in compensatory damages for breach
of contract and other claims.  During discovery, the parties put
music executives on the hot seat, but also reportedly quibbled
over whether a "lease" and "licensee" agreement applied to their
contract.  Toto contended that the words meant the same thing, but
Sony disagreed.

U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan turned to Black's Law
Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary before ultimately siding with
Sony on this issue.

"[T]he dictionary definitions of the terms reflect that they are
not synonymous, with 'lease' generally pertaining to rights in
real or tangible property, and 'license' typically applying to
intellectual property," the 12-page opinion states.

Toto threatened more litigation if Sony stopped distributing its
albums through certain retailers.

Sony tried to prevent this by filing a countersuit seeking a
judgment that it had the right to "refrain" from the "manufacture,
sale and dealing" of Toto's records.

Sullivan ruled that it was premature to prevent a lawsuit that is
"more hypothetical than real" at this point.  He has not yet ruled
on Sony's remaining counterclaim that it is owed $500,000 in
royalties it says it overpaid the band over the years.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard S. Busch, Esq.
          KING & BALLOW
          315 Union Street, Suite 1100
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 259-3456
          E-mail: rbusch@kingballow.com

               - and -

          Kenneth E. Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON, GORDON & SCHNAPP, P.C.
          437 Madison Avenue, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 355-3200
          Facsimile: (212) 355-3292

The Defendant is represented by

          Jonathan M. Sperling, Esq.
          Douglas S. Curran, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 841-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 841-1010
          E-mail: jsperling@cov.com
                  dcurran@cov.com

               - and -

          Jennifer H. Saperstein, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 662-6291
          E-mail: jsaperstein@cov.com

The case is Toto, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, Case No. 12-
cv-1434 (RJS), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


SOUTHERN FARM: $3.6MM Deal in Eastwood Suit Gets Final Court Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge P.K. Holmes, III granted final approval of a
settlement, with a total settlement fund of $3,600,000, in the
class action captioned VINCENT EASTWOOD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN
FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:11-
CV-03075, (W.D. Ark.).

The motion for attorney fees is granted in part and denied in part
in that class counsel are awarded $670,042.50 in attorney's fees
and $9,164.62 in costs and expenses, and class representative
Vincent Eastwood is awarded a service fee of $3,000.00.

In light of these rulings, the case is dismissed with prejudice
with judgment to enter contemporaneously, ruled Judge Holmes in
his opinion and order dated October 7, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/Cy3erRfrom Leagle.com.

Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Counter Claimant,
represented by Edie R. Ervin -- eervin@fridayfirm.com -- Friday
Eldredge Clark LLP, Tory Lewis -- tlewis@fridayfirm.com -- Friday
Eldredge Clark & William A. Waddell, Jr. -- waddell@fridayfirm.com
-- Friday, Eldredge & Clark.


STEWART TITLE: Dist. Ct. Ruled on Bid to Dismiss "Knight" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action DAVID KNIGHT, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v.
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO.
07-87-DLB, (E.D. Ky.), defendant Stewart Title Guaranty Company
moved to dismiss 10 claims related to the charging of excessive
title insurance premiums.  Stewart Title also moved for partial
summary judgment as to all claims pertaining to fees charged for
an item listed on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement as a "title
insurance binder," asserting there has been a fundamental
misunderstanding as to the services provided in exchange for those
fees.

In an Oct. 6, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/GyQ5s1from Leagle.com, District Judge Gregory F. Van
Tatenhove ordered that:

   (1) Stewart Title's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect
       to Plaintiffs' claims for vicarious liability, negligent
       servicing and liability pursuant to KRS Sec. 304.12-190,
       and DENIED with respect to all remaining claims; and

   (2) Stewart Title's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is
       hereby DENIED.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Stewart Title is a title
insurance company licensed to sell title insurance for properties
located in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The putative class is believed to consist of more than 100,000
consumers in Kentucky whose individual claims exceed $50.

Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Defendant, is represented by
Christopher Tyson Gorman, Esq. -- tgorma@wyattfirm.com ,
Cornelius E. Coryell, II, Esq. -- ccoryell@wyattfirm.com , Mitzi
Denise Wyrick, Esq. -- mwyrick@wyattfirm.com , Jean W. Bird, Esq.
-- jbird@wyatt.com -- of Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP; as well as
D. Kelly, Esq., Jeffrey E. Crane, Esq., and Kevin M. Fee, Esq. --
kfee@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP.


STRYKER INSTRUMENTS: Recalls Small and Large Aseptic Housing
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 30, 2014
Posting date:             October 9, 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-41693

Recalled Products:

A) Stryker Smartlife - Small Aseptic Housing
B) Stryker Smartlife - Large Aseptic Housing

Stryker has become aware that periodic testing, normally completed
during the manufacturing process, was not conducted for products
manufactured between March 28, 2014 and May 2, 2014.  Changes to
the quality of the weld during this period may not have been
detected and may be less effective than intended.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Stryker Instruments
                    4100 East Milham Ave.
                    Kalamazoo 49001
                    Michigan
                    United States


TARGET CORP: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in "Small" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard H. Kyle denied a motion for certification
of a settlement class and preliminary approval of class action
settlement agreement in the case captioned Jonathan Small, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Target Corporation, et al., Defendants, NO. 13-1509
(RHK/JJK), (D. Minn.).

"Before the parties expend further time and resources litigating
this case, however, the Court believes they should be afforded
another opportunity to resolve this matter with the assistance of
the Magistrate Judge," ruled Judge Kyle in his order dated October
8, 2014, a copy of the Order is available at http://is.gd/uhL8XT
from Leagle.com. "Accordingly, it is further ordered that this
matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Keyes to conduct a
settlement conference, on such terms and at such time as he shall
direct," he added.

Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brandee L Caswell --
brandee.caswell@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Emily E
Chow -- emily.chow@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP &
Michael A Ponto -- michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP.


TENNESSEE: Twin Babies' Hospital Bill Illustrates TennCare Flows
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Wilemon, writing for The Tennessean, reports that TennCare's
problems with backlogged Medicaid applications have left Teddy
Miller worrying about a $200,000 hospital bill while he changes
diapers.

Separated from his wife, he's a full-time father taking care of
10-month-old twins.  Conner and Nolen spent weeks in a neonatal
intensive care unit in East Tennessee after being born a month
early.  It took him multiple attempts to get TennCare for the
twins, and he is still trying to get the coverage backdated to the
time of the original application.

"I don't know know what I'm going to do about that," Mr. Miller
said.

Tennessee's Medicaid program is not supposed to work that way.
The hospital could have temporarily enrolled the twins for
coverage at birth if TennCare had a presumptive eligibility system
in place.  Repeated applications would not have been necessary if
TennCare's new $35.7 million computer system had been working.

Mr. Miller's struggles illustrate flaws within the state Medicaid
program, including some that violate U.S. law, according to a
federal official and allegations in a lawsuit.  TennCare has taken
measures to correct the problems after receiving a mandate from
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and an order from a
federal judge, but the issues are far from resolved.

TennCare is still not in compliance with new presumptive
eligibility requirements established by the Affordable Care Act.
It is not processing all its Medicaid applications within the time
frame set by federal law.  And it is fighting the judge's order to
hold hearings for people who have waited months to learn whether
they qualify for coverage.

Poor and vulnerable Tennesseans are being hurt because of
political battles and policy disputes over the controversial
federal health law, said Carol Westlake, executive director of the
Tennessee Disability Coalition.

"There's an old Indian saying: When the elephants do battle, the
grass gets trampled," Westlake said. "That's what this feels like.
. . . While you play out disputes about how the system should run
in the legislature or you play them out in the courts or you play
them out between the state and federal governments, on the ground
there are sick babies who need care."

'Out of compliance'

TennCare on Aug. 18 did launch a hospital-based newborn
presumptive eligibility initiative -- a service it had previously
offered and then halted with the full rollout of the Affordable
Care Act.  The federal law did not require the state to stop
offering direct assistance to temporarily enroll pregnant women
and babies who probably qualified for Medicaid.  In fact, the law
gave hospitals the right to expand presumptive eligibility to
other types of patients.

Tennessee decided that all its Medicaid applications should be
processed through healthcare.gov because it was one of the states
that chose to operate under the "determination model."  It would
let the federal Health Insurance Marketplace determine new income
guidelines for Medicaid eligibility established by the law.

But other states did not simultaneously stop taking applications
directly from people, said Tricia Brooks, a Medicaid expert with
the Georgetown Health Policy Institute.

"In stopping accepting Medicaid applications, Tennessee is the
only state in the country that has drawn that line in the sand,
and they are completely out of compliance with federal
requirements by doing that," Ms. Brooks said.  "They did not have
the option to just wash their hands of providing access to
Medicaid for individuals and tell them to go to the (Marketplace)
and 'Good luck.'  There is no other state that I am aware of that
has done that."

No direction

A behind-schedule $35.7 million state computer system that could
properly interface with federal computers never went online.
People whose applications got lost are the plaintiffs in a class-
action suit that has been filed against the directors of three
state agencies: TennCare, the Department of Finance and
Administration and the Department of Human Services.

TennCare Director Darin Gordon submitted a presumptive eligibility
plan in July after Cindy Mann, the federal head of Medicaid
programs, told the agency to take corrective measures.  He said
hospitals would be allowed to make presumptive eligibility
determinations for pregnant women as well as expanded groups,
which include children under 19, caretaker relatives of children,
adult groups covered by the state, individuals eligible for family
planning services and former foster care children.

Hospitals at this point have not been given direction from
TennCare on how to enroll people who fall within the expanded
categories.

It took Teddy Miller multiple attempts to get TennCare for his
twins, Conner and Nolen, who were born a month early.


TEVA CANADA: Recalls Biomedic Acetaminophen With Codeine
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 28, 2014
Posting date:             October 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type I
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41673

Recalled Products: Biomedic Acetaminophen with Codeine

The product is packaged with a label for 30 count bottle size
which indicates a child resistant cap whereas the cap is not child
resistant.

Companies:

   Recalling Firm      Teva Canada Ltd.
                       30 Novopharm Court
                       Toronto M1B 2K9
                       Ontario
                       Canada

Marketing
Authorization Holder   Teva Canada Ltd.
                       30 Novopharm Court
                       Toronto M1B 2K9
                       Ontario
                       Canada


TEXAS BRINE: Wants Liberty Insurance to Cover Sinkhole Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janet McConnaughey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the collapse of a portion of a salt dome that left a 37-acre
sinkhole in swampy land west of Baton Rouge has bubbled up into a
$50 million dispute between the mine operator and its insurance
company.

Texas Brine LLC wants the Louisiana insurance commissioner to
order New York-based Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc. to pay
off on the policy, which was to kick in after the company's other
insurers paid more than $75 million in claims in the collapse.
Texas Brine claims the limit has been reached.

The sinkhole first developed in August 2012 and engulfed marshes
and trees as it grew.  Though no houses have been swallowed, Texas
Brine has bought out homes near the small Bayou Corne community as
a precaution.

Keeping people out of it

A federal judge in Louisiana approved a $48.1 million class-action
settlement in August, effectively ending the financial matter for
residents.  The settlement compensates about 270 people and
dismisses individual claims against Texas Brine.

Salt domes are natural underground formations that are common
throughout south Louisiana and can be found in association with
natural gas deposits.  Texas Brine has been burning off natural
gas near the sinkhole site.

The company was creating a cavern to extract brine used in the
petrochemical industry when scientists say the mine came too close
to the salt dome and the sinkhole developed.

Its fight with Liberty is tied to the risk the insurer says Texas
Brine took as it mined near the salt dome.

Liberty has asked a federal court in Houston to rule it owes
nothing to Texas Brine because the company knew it was mining
close to the edge of the dome.  The insurer alleges a 1998 Texas
Brine internal memo warned against raising the height of the
cavern roof and widening the diameter, saying "if we get greedy
. . . we could cause a disaster."

Iris Mack, who teaches risk management at Tulane University Energy
Institute in New Orleans, said the insurer's claim may be shaky.

"This is all about the law of large numbers," she said.
"Insurance companies are happy to take in premiums but nobody
wants to pay," she said.

She said the "law" isn't limited to corporate coverage.  "The
insurance company was happy to take my mother's premium before
Hurricane Katrina, but they didn't want to pay off after the
storm," she said.

Much risk to consider

Ms. Mack said there are 40-50 risks that mining and energy
industry managers are taught to consider in developing a project,
from land issues such as at the salt dome to weather and
geopolitics.  Insurance companies that cover the industry know
these as well, said Ms. Mack, author of a book on mining and
energy industry risk.

In its plea to Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon, Texas
Brine claims Liberty breached confidentiality by basing its
allegations on privileged material provided by Texas Brine to all
of its insurers, and making that material public.

According to Texas Brine, Liberty claims the other insurers
"inexplicably have paid $76 million in claims that were not owed
under their five separate policies," so the $75 million limit
hasn't been reached.

Neither Liberty nor its federal court attorneys responded to
requests for comment on the filing with Louisiana insurance
regulators.

A Louisiana judge recently held Liberty in contempt of his order
to drop the Texas suit.  Texas Brine can recover damages and
attorney fees involved in the Texas suit, and Liberty "owes
fiduciary duties to its insured, Texas Brine," Texas Brine
spokesman Jim Turner said.


TRANSNET: Can't Appeal Class Action Ruling in Pensioners' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAPA reports that Transnet's application for leave to appeal a
ruling allowing their pensioners to bring a class-action suit was
dismissed by the High Court in Pretoria on Oct. 13, the FF Plus
said.

"Judge (Ephraim) Makgoba clearly stated that according to him
there are no grounds for an appeal and he confirmed it by awarding
costs against Transnet and the pension funds," spokesman
Anton Alberts said in a statement.

Transnet and its two pension funds applied to the court for leave
to appeal the judgment handed down in favor of the pensioners in
July.

On July 31, Judge Makgoba granted an order allowing pensioners
Johan Pretorius and Johan Kruger to launch a class action suit on
behalf of Transnet's 62 000 impoverished pensioners, in an attempt
to recover close to R80 billion in assets and interest.  The group
has accused Transnet of stripping the Transnet Pension Fund and
Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund of its assets and mismanaging
them to such an extent that the funds were unable to meet their
obligations to members.  They accused Transnet of attempting to
dissolve the pension fund.

Mr. Alberts said the FF Plus would ask Transport Minister Dipuo
Peters in Parliament whether Transnet would be prepared to settle
the case.

"The FF Plus is delighted with the announcement that the Transnet
pensioners have won another round in court in their struggle for
dignified pension benefits."

Transnet spokesman Mboniso Sigonyela said they noted the high
court's decision.

"We will comment once we have studied the judgment," he said.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Dismissed in All Non-California Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC said in a Form 10-Q Report with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in January 2014, TA was
dismissed with prejudice in all the non-California cases in all
states in which it remained a defendant at that time.  Therefore,
the only case in which TA remains a defendant is the case in which
one remaining plaintiff is pursuing non-California claims.

The Company said, "Beginning in December 2006, a series of class
action lawsuits was filed against numerous companies in the
petroleum industry, including our predecessor and our
subsidiaries, in U.S. district courts in over 20 states.  Major
petroleum refiners and retailers were named as defendants in one
or more of these lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits
generally alleged that they are retail purchasers who purchased
motor fuel at temperatures greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at
the time of sale.  One theory alleged that the plaintiffs
purchased smaller amounts of motor fuel than the amount for which
defendants charged them because the defendants measured the amount
of motor fuel they delivered by volumes which, at higher
temperatures, contain less energy.  A second theory alleged that
fuel taxes are calculated in temperature adjusted 60 degree
gallons and are collected by governmental agencies from suppliers
and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in the amount of the tax by
the defendant retailers before the fuel is sold to consumers.
These "tax" cases allege that, when the fuel is subsequently sold
to consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell
a greater volume of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax,
and therefore reap unjust benefit because the customers pay more
tax than the retailer pays.  A third theory alleged that all
purchasers of fuel at any temperature are harmed because the
defendants do not use equipment that adjusts for temperature or
disclose the temperature of fuel being sold, and thereby deprive
customers of information they allegedly require to make an
informed purchasing decision.  All of these cases were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
pursuant to multi-district litigation procedures."

On May 28, 2010, that Court ruled that, with respect to two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, it would grant plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief (implementation of fuel
temperature equipment and/or posting of notices regarding the
effect of temperature on fuel).  On January 19, 2012, the Court
amended its prior ruling, and certified a class with respect to
plaintiffs' claims for damages as well.  A TA entity was named in
one of those two Kansas cases, but the Court ruled that the named
plaintiffs were not sufficient to represent a class as to TA.  TA
was thereafter dismissed from the Kansas case.  Several defendants
in the Kansas cases, including major petroleum refiners, have
entered into multi-state settlements.

"Following a September 2012 trial against the remaining defendants
in the Kansas cases, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of those Kansas defendants, and the judge likewise ruled in
the Kansas defendants' favor on the sole non-jury claim.  In early
2013, the Court announced its intention to remand three cases
originally filed in federal district courts in California back to
their original courts.  On April 9, 2013, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in connection with the
California claims in the California cases.  On August 14, 2013,
the Court granted summary judgment for the defendants with respect
to all California claims in the California cases, and in February
2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California entered judgment in favor of the defendants with
respect to those claims.

The plaintiffs in the California cases have all dismissed their
non-California claims against TA, except for one individual
plaintiff, who continues to assert claims based on purchases of
fuel in states other than California.  In January 2014, TA was
dismissed with prejudice in all the non-California cases in all
states in which it remained a defendant at that time.  Therefore,
the only case in which TA remains a defendant is the case in which
one remaining plaintiff is pursuing non-California claims.

"We believe there are substantial factual and legal defenses to
the allegations made in this remaining case.  While we do not
expect that we will incur a material loss in this case, we cannot
estimate our ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any,
related to this lawsuit."

TravelCenters of America operates and franchises travel centers
under the "TravelCenters of America," "TA" and related brand
names, or the TA brand, and the "Petro Stopping Centers" and
"Petro" brand names, or the Petro brand, primarily along the U.S.
interstate highway system.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: To Pay $10 Million in Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement in a class action provides for co-
defendants, including TravelCenters of America LLC, to pay an
aggregate of $130,000,000 to a settlement fund for class members,
including $10,000,000 from TA, the Company said in a Form 10-Q
Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September
30, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action suit against Comdata
Network, Inc., or Comdata, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add us as a defendant, which was allowed on March 25,
2010.  The amended complaint also added as defendants Ceridian
Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel Stops &
Country Stores, Inc.  Comdata markets fuel cards which are used
for payments by trucking companies at truck stops.

The amended complaint alleged antitrust violations arising out of
Comdata's contractual relationships with truck stops in connection
with its fuel cards.

"On February 28, 2014, we entered into a Definitive Master Class
Settlement Agreement with the plaintiffs, or the settlement
agreement.  The Court approved the settlement agreement on July
14, 2014," the Company said.

"The settlement agreement provides for the co-defendants,
including us, to pay an aggregate of $130,000,000 to a settlement
fund for class members, including $10,000,000 from us, and the
dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and the unconditional
release of all claims that class members brought, or could have
brought, against us and the other settling co-defendants with
respect to the litigation and related actions.  We recognized a
$10,000,000 loss in connection with this matter in December 2013
and made the cash payment in March 2014."

TravelCenters of America operates and franchises travel centers
under the "TravelCenters of America," "TA" and related brand
names, or the TA brand, and the "Petro Stopping Centers" and
"Petro" brand names, or the Petro brand, primarily along the U.S.
interstate highway system.


TROPICAL VALLEY: Recalls Nature Dark Chocolate Cherries
-------------------------------------------------------
Tropical Valley Foods Inc. of Plattsburgh, NY, is recalling 455
cases (12 bags per case) of next by Nature Dark Chocolate
Cherries, Lot 460013, due to the potential for undeclared peanuts
to be packaged in the product.  People who have an allergy to
peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The affected next by Nature Dark Chocolate Cherries was sold to
distributors and retailers located in Iowa, California, Colorado,
Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Canada and Japan.  Distributors where
instructed to inform their customers of the recall of the product,
to immediately remove it from sale and to promptly discard it.

The affected product is packaged in 3 oz. plastic bags with UPC
817582252006, Lot 460013 and "Best by Date" of 2016.03.31.  The
product was distributed between Sept. 12, 2014 and Sept. 25, 2014.

The recall was initiated after an employee found a peanut piece in
a bulk case of Dark Chocolate Covered Cherries that was being
packaged into the 3 oz. bags.  Subsequent investigation by the
firm revealed that some Dark Chocolate Covered Cherries had been
packaged into 3 oz. bags of next by Nature Dark Chocolate Cherries
prior to the discovery.

No illnesses have been reported to date associated with this
problem.

Consumers who are allergic to peanuts are urged not to consume the
above product.  Customers who purchased the affected product may
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions may contact Kristain Stone at Tropical Valley Foods
by phone at (518) 314-7162, Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm
EDT.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "McCandliss" Suit to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned McCandliss, et al. v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 2014CV251052, was removed
from the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03275-WSD to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the antitrust laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William A. Pannell, Esq.
          WILLIAM A. PANNELL PC
          433 Chateau Drive, N.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 353-2283
          E-mail: pannellbill@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael W. Tyler, Esq.
          Ross D. Andre, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
          1100 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-6500
          Facsimile: (404) 815-6555
          E-mail: mtyler@kilpatricktownsend.com
                  randre@kilpatricktownsend.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
          Amit B. Patel, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          500 W. Madison St., Suite 2450
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
          E-mail: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com
                  amitbpatel@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Arthur M. Roberts, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          50 California St., 22nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 875-6600
          Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
          E-mail: arthurroberts@quinnemanuel.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Can't Appeal Dismissal of Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Out-of-state Uber drivers will not be able to appeal a dismissal
of their labor class action, reports Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse
News Service, citing a San Francisco federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen found in September that he was
wrong to let out-of-state drivers pursue labor claims under
California law.

On October 6, 2014, Chen denied those drivers' motion to appeal
his decision, saying they had not cited "substantial ground for
difference of opinion" for their claim.

"Plaintiffs have failed to articulate a logical reason why a
choice-of-law provision should yield to an express geographical
limitation in a statute and yet be able to overcome the strong
presumption against extraterritorial application of California law
that the state has adopted," Chen wrote.  "Further, plaintiffs
have cited no authority that would support such a distinction."

California drivers sued Uber in 2013, accusing the taxi-service
app-maker of falsely stating that gratuity is included in the
fare, then failing to pass along the full share of tips to which
the drivers claim they are entitled.

The California plaintiffs, led by Douglas O'Connor and Thomas
Colopy, sought to represent Uber drivers in all states but
Massachusetts and Illinois, where similar claims were brought in
2012.

The case is Douglas O'Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. C-13-3826 EMC, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.


UBS AG: Bid to Dismiss Remaining ERISA Suit Claims Wins Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard J. Sullivan granted a motion to dismiss
claims in IN RE UBS ERISA LITIGATION, NO. 08-CV-6696 (RJS), (S.D.
N.Y.).

Lead Plaintiff, Debra Taveras brought this putative class action
against UBS and certain of its committees, committee members, and
directors on July 28, 2008, alleging violations of fiduciary
duties established by the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq.  Plaintiff's
complaint was consolidated with those of three other plaintiffs,
and an Amended Complaint was filed on November 14, 2008, alleging
that Defendants breached their duties to the UBS Savings and
Investment Plan (SIP) by failing to eliminate the UBS Company
Stock Fund from the menu of investments at the time of the
financial crisis. On March 24, 2011, the Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, on
March 23, 2012, denied Plaintiffs' motions to alter the judgment
or amend the Amended Complaint. On appeal, the Second Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of claims related to another UBS employee
benefits plan -- the UBS Financial Services Inc. 401(k) Plus Plan
(the "Plus Plan") -- but vacated the dismissal of Plaintiff's
claims related to the SIP, remanding the case.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's remaining
claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Plaintiff also filed a motion to
file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the claims that
remain in this action, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted,
ruled Judge Sullivan. Additionally, because Plaintiff fails to
satisfy the standards for leave to amend under Rule 15(a),
Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to amend is denied, he added.

A copy of Judge Sullivan's September 29, 2014 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/JmNnHDfrom Leagle.com.

Defendants are represented by Robert Joseph Giuffra, Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Andrew Paul Giering --
gieringa@sullcrom.com -- Matthew Alexander Schwartz --
schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com -- Suhana S. Han -- hans@sullcrom.com
-- and Thomas Charles White -- whitet@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, New York, New York.


UNITED COLORS: Recalls Boys Hooded Jackets With Waist Drawstrings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 8, 2014
Posting date:             October 8, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41715

Affected products: Boys Hooded Jackets by United Colors of
Benetton

The recall involves boy's jackets made of 100% cotton.  They are
navy with a brown drawstring at the waist and a zipper and five
brown buttons in the front.  Snap buttons are located at the neck
and at each of the two side pockets.  Sold in boy's sizes S
through XL.  Inside the jacket at the neck area is a green label
with United Colors of Benetton printed on it.  Style number
2GQ1534Q0 is on the white label found inside the jacket near the
waist.

The jackets have a drawstring at the waist that could become
snagged or caught in small spaces or vehicle doors, posing a
significant entanglement hazard to children.

Neither United Colors of Benetton nor Health Canada has received
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of these jackets.

13 jackets were sold across Canada.

The recalled jackets were manufactured in China and sold from Feb.
2014 to July 2014.

Products were sold at one location which is no longer in business.
Their address was United Colors of Benetton, Rockland Centre, 2305
Rockland Road, Montreal, Quebec.

Companies:

   Distributor     Benetton Canada Inc.
                   New York
                   New York
                   United States

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the
jackets to eliminate the hazard.


UNITED STATES: Forest Service to Look Into Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Krista Langlois, writing for Summit Daily, reports that for all
the strides female firefighters have made in the last few decades,
wildland firefighting is still, at its heart, a men's club.  Only
10 percent of wildland firefighters in the U.S. are women, and
across the West, recruitment and retention are ongoing challenges.
Yet nowhere is this more evident than in California, where a
series of lawsuits meant to get more women onto the front lines
have seemingly backfired, leaving women in what some argue are
worse straits than before.

Earlier this month, a group of female Forest Service firefighters
in California filed a complaint alleging discrimination,
harassment and sexual abuse from men in the agency.  One, an
outspoken Comanche woman named Alicia Dabney, has shared lewd
voicemails she says were left by male co-workers and claims a
supervisor tried to rape her.  Another woman, Brooke Nunez, was
demoted from her position as fire captain because, according to
her supervisor, the men she oversaw would have "eat(en) her
alive."

The complaints are the first step toward a class-action lawsuit,
and if it goes forward it'll be the fourth such suit in three
decades.  According to Lesa Donnelly, vice president of the USDA
Coalition of Minority Employees, California also has the highest
number of equal opportunity complaints among U.S. Department of
Agriculture employees in the nation.

The heart of the problem seems to be the legacy of a 1972 lawsuit
called Bernardi v. Madigan, filed by a female Forest Service
researcher who said she was denied promotion because of her
gender. T he case was settled in 1981 with a "consent decree," or
a voluntary settlement without admission of guilt.  On the
surface, it seemed like a slam-dunk for equal rights: the USDA
(parent agency of the Forest Service) was forced to match the
gender breakdown of the civilian labor force in California by
employing 43 percent women, including in leadership positions.
New female hires and promotions flooded non-traditional fields.

Yet among many female firefighters who were around at the time,
the phrase "consent decree" can hardly be mentioned without a
shudder.  Bequi Livingston, a former hotshot who's now the Forest
Service's fire operations health and safety specialist for the
Southwest, calls it a "horrid and deplorable" time: qualified men
were denied promotions they deserved, while unqualified women were
thrust into new positions that set them up for failure.  "Men were
pissed and women were pissed," she says.  "The intention was good,
but the execution was bad."

The heart of the problem for women seems to be the legacy of a
1972 lawsuit called Bernardi v. Madigan, filed by a female Forest
Service researcher who said she was denied promotion because of
her gender.

Lesa Donnelly, a claimant in the suit, says men who felt bypassed
for promotions they'd been working toward for years were bitter,
and sometimes expressed their resentment by harassing female
colleagues.  Even female firefighters who didn't work in
California were aware of the resentment-fueled harassment, and
sometimes avoided the state for that very reason.  So in 1995,
Donnelly filed a second (followed by a third) class-action
complaint.

As a result, she says, a new process for investigating and
addressing complaints was implemented, sensitivity training became
mandatory, and conditions improved.  The first female Type One
Incident Commander in the nation, Jeanne Pincha-Tulley, was hired
in California in 2005, and 24 percent of leadership positions on
California wildland crews are now held by women -- not much, but
an improvement.  Yet after the terms of the agreement ended in
2006, Donnelly says harassment resurfaced. She's now leading the
latest lawsuit.

Elsewhere in the West, female firefighters I talked to acknowledge
that while the field remains male-dominated in both its numbers
and culture, the sense of camaraderie can surpass gender
differences. One, who asked not to be named, wrote in an email,
"For the most part, men were great when I was on the line . . .
There were men who thought we shouldn't be there, and who wouldn't
listen to my orders, but listened to men who gave them, and we
always felt pressure to succeed, but I never experienced threats
or sexual assault.  And I never heard of anyone who did."

Bequi Livingston has heard otherwise.  She says women's
experiences differ from one unit to the next, and in some places,
biases remain strong.  Rapes within crews happen, but often go
unreported "either out of humiliation or because (the victim)
doesn't think the agency will support them."

The Forest Service has responded to official allegations with
statements that say they take the problem seriously and are
looking into it.  The agency has 180 days to investigate and
potentially settle the most recent complaint before it goes to an
equal opportunity court.

Ms. Livingston, however, has lost some of her faith in the
efficacy of legal recourse.  Instead, she's created a boot camp in
Albuquerque and Phoenix to bring more women into the field.  Part
of the purpose is to recruit strong, qualified women to wildland
firefighting to help break down barriers.  But an equally
important purpose, she says, is to give women a place to share
their stories and build a support network.  "Let's say they become
a wildland firefighter and they experience bias, they have a
trusting environment where they can come back and report it."


WALGREEN CO: Wage and Hour Litigation Dismissed in its Entirety
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court held a hearing on September 29, 2014
at 1:30 p.m. in the cases, IN RE WALGREEN CO. WAGE AND HOUR
LITIGATION; and Related Cases: WILSON v. WALGREEN CO. HODACH v.
WALGREEN CO. BROWN v. WALGREEN CO. JEROMINSKI v. WALGREEN CO.
GINDI v. WALGREEN CO. HANNA v. WALGREEN CO. SHANINIAN v. WALGREEN
CO. McDOWELL v. WALGREEN CO. PETERSON V. WALGREEN CO, CASE NOS.
11-CV-07664-PSG (FFMX), 12-CV-07491-PSG (FFMX), 12-CV-08574-PSG
(FFMX), 12-CV-10134-PSG (FFMX), 13-CV-01154-PSG (FFMX), 13-CV-
02412-PSG (FFMX), 13-CV-03576-PSG (FFMX), 13-CV-01028-PSG (FFMX),
12-CV-01832-LJO (GSAX), (C.D. Cal.).

Before the Court were the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for an
Order:

     (1) for final approval of the parties' class action
settlement agreement; and

     (2) for judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

Scott Cole & Associates, APC appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff
classes and Seyfarth Shaw LLP appeared on behalf of Defendant
Walgreen Co.

On September 29, 2014, the Court entered its Order Granting
Plaintiffs' Motions For Final Approval Of Class Settlement And
Attorneys' Fees.  On October 3, 2014, the Court entered an amended
Order "Granting Plaintiffs' Motions For Final Approval Of Class
Settlement And Attorneys' Fees".  On October 6, 2014, the Court
entered its "Order Regarding Stipulation To Modify And Correct
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motions For Final Approval Of Class
Settlement And Attorneys' Fees".

Pursuant to and as required by the Settlement Agreement and the
foregoing Orders, District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, in a
judgment entered October 8, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/vVbfEYfromLeagle.com, ruled that the action is
dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, with each side to bear
its own attorneys' fees and costs.

Scott Edward Cole, Esq. -- scole@scalaw.com -- Molly A. DeSario,
Esq. -- mdesario@scalaw.com -- Stephen Noel Ilg -- silg@scalaw.com
-- SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC, Oakland, California, Lead Counsel
and Attorneys for Representative Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff
Classes.


* Lawsuits Over Fair Labor Standards Act Breach on the Rise
-----------------------------------------------------------
Franco Ordonez and Mandy Locke, writing for News & Observer,
report that workers fighting to have their bosses treat them as
employees are squaring off in the courts more and more in recent
years.  But the resolution they find varies greatly, depending on
the collective strength of the workers and the depth of the
companies' pockets.

The workers who find resolution -- and multimillion-dollar payouts
-- in the courts prevail in large part because they are joining
forces in taking on some of the biggest companies in America.  For
other workers, success in the courts can be elusive.  A single
worker, or a small crew, taking on a business with modest holdings
often faces overwhelming obstacles and long delays.

"It's a big headache," said Edy Solares, a 38-year-old truck
driver who has struggled to recoup more than $145,000 that the
California labor commissioner said he was owed from a former boss.

The disparity comes amid increased court action across the
country.  Private-action federal Fair Labor Standards Act cases
have increased in recent years.  In fiscal year 2013, more than
7,700 cases were filed, up from 5,302 in 2008.

The rise in lawsuits coincides with the growth of a scheme called
misclassification.  Companies try to cut costs by wrongly
classifying regular employees as independent contractors, to avoid
tax obligations.

Cases have been filed by state officials and the Obama
administration, which has been pushed by organized labor to crack
down on a practice that often cuts workers out of overtime pay and
employee protections.

But the expansion in lawsuits largely has been in the private
sector, with the biggest payouts coming in class-action suits.
Alfred Robinson, a former acting administrator of the Department
of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, said lawyers have capitalized
on provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to minimize the risk
for themselves and boost financial winnings.

In one recent case, more than 2,300 FedEx drivers wrongly
classified as independent contractors could receive hundreds of
millions of dollars after a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
this year in the employees' favor.

But in other cases in state and federal courts, workers have been
reluctant to challenge such practices for fear of losing work.
Many are low-skilled immigrants.  They don't have money to hire a
lawyer for a case that could take years.

Mr. Solares drove a delivery truck filled with metal and materials
to remodel kitchens across the Los Angeles metro area.  He thought
justice had prevailed when the California labor commissioner ruled
that his boss owed him more than $145,000 after wrongly
classifying him as an independent contractor.

Mr. Solares, who came from Guatemala and is in the United States
legally, and his wife talked about buying a home and putting money
aside for their three kids' college education.  But more than a
year later, they've only been able to recover a fraction of the
award.

"When we got that letter, the family celebrated," Mr. Solares
said.  "We were happy.  But now, today, we're still in the same
place.  We have nothing."

In California, only 17 percent of workers who won wage cases
before the state's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement were
able to recover any payment at all between 2008 and 2011,
according to the UCLA Labor Center.

"The difficulty is not in winning your claims for unpaid wages or
proving you're an employee as opposed to an independent
contractor," said Tia Koonse, the center's legal and policy
research manager.  "The difficulty is in collecting."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Orange County Schools Closed Over Fibro Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that three Orange County elementary
schools are being closed because asbestos was found on campus.

Huntington Beach school officials announced on Oct. 8 that Hope
View, Oak View and Lake View schools will be closed at least
through Friday for cleaning and re-testing.

Asbestos was found last summer at Oak View and Lake View during a
renovation project and some parents are furious that their
children were allowed to attend classes while it was being
removed.

Asbestos fibers were recently found again at Hope View and Lake
View and they've been closed all week.

Authorities say the schools had asbestos fire retardant that was
installed in the 1960s and it may be deteriorating.

Eight other campuses remain open but will be tested for asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plan Resolving RPM Units' Fibro Claims Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A plan of reorganization, which, among other things, resolve
asbestos-related claims against RPM International Inc.'s bankrupt
subsidiaries was filed in September, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2014.

Prior to May 31, 2010, Bondex and SPHC were defendants in various
asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state
courts. These cases generally sought unspecified damages for
asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-
containing products.

On May 31, 2010, Bondex and its parent, SPHC, filed voluntary
petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware (the
"Bankruptcy Court") to reorganize under chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code. SPHC and Bondex took this action in an effort to
permanently and comprehensively resolve all pending and future
asbestos-related liability claims associated with Bondex and SPHC.
As a result of the filing, all litigation related to Bondex and
SPHC asbestos personal injury claims has been stayed, with the
exception of the cases referenced in Note 3 with respect to which
the stay was lifted. The objective of the bankruptcy proceedings
is to enable the filing entities to establish a section 524(g)
trust accompanied by a court order that will direct all existing
and future SPHC-related and Bondex-related claims to such trust,
which will then compensate asbestos claimants based upon factors
set forth in an approved plan of reorganization. Since the date of
the filing, and in accordance with GAAP, the financial results of
SPHC and Bondex have been deconsolidated from our financial
results.

The Company has entered into an agreement in principle with the
official representatives of current and future claimants that
would resolve all present and future asbestos personal injury
claims related to Bondex and other related entities. The agreement
contemplates the filing of a plan or plans of reorganization and
related documents (the "Plan") with the Bankruptcy Court. A Plan
was filed on September 26, 2014. The Plan is subject to approval
of the claimants, as well as the Bankruptcy Court and U.S.
District Court.

In addition to Bondex and SPHC, the settlement resolves all
present and future asbestos personal injury claims related to
Republic Powdered Metals, Inc. ("Republic") and NMBFiL, Inc.
("NMBFiL"), both of which are indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries
of RPM, that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August 2014. Both
Republic and NMBFiL will remain consolidated subsidiaries,
considering the short-term nature of the bankruptcy and as long as
RPM maintains control, from a participating rights perspective, of
the subsidiaries.

Under the terms of the agreement in principle, a trust or trusts
(the "Trust") will be established under Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code for the benefit of current and future asbestos
personal injury claimants. Upon effectiveness of the Plan (the
"Effective Date"), the Trust will be funded with $450 million in
cash and one or more promissory notes, bearing no interest and
maturing on or before the fourth anniversary of the Effective
Date. The Plan shall provide for the following contributions to
the Trust:

* On or before the second anniversary of the Effective Date, an
additional $102.5 million in cash, RPM International stock or a
combination thereof (at our discretion in this and all subsequent
cases) will be deposited into the Trust;

* On or before the third anniversary of the Effective Date, an
additional $120 million in cash, RPM International stock or a
combination thereof will be deposited into the Trust; and

* On or before the fourth anniversary of the Effective Date, a
final payment of $125 million in cash, RPM International stock or
a combination thereof will be deposited into the Trust.

Of the first $450 million payment, $2.5 million relates to the
resolution of all present and future asbestos personal injury
claims related to NMBFiL. A portion of the payments due under the
promissory note(s) will be secured by a right to the equity of
Bondex and related chapter 11 debtor entities. All present and
future asbestos personal injury claims against Bondex and the
other related entities would be channeled to and paid by the
Trust.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Plan must be confirmed
and effective no later than October 31, 2015, otherwise simple
interest at the rate of 3.45% will begin to accrue on the
aggregate funding amount of the trust through the effective date
of the Plan. A confirmation hearing is scheduled for December 10,
2014.

There is no guaranty that the Plan will be confirmed. If the Plan
is not confirmed, the interests of SPHC, Bondex and RPM
International may be significantly and adversely affected, SPHC
and Bondex will remain in chapter 11, the amount of the asbestos
liabilities of SPHC and Bondex will remain unresolved and the
terms, timing and impact of any plan of reorganization ultimately
confirmed in the cases will be unknown. If the Plan is not
confirmed, the amount of SPHC's and Bondex's asbestos-related
personal injury liabilities will not be resolved and will continue
to be subject to substantial dispute and uncertainty as the
appeals process with respect to the estimation ruling will then
move forward. If the Plan is not confirmed, the amount of the
asbestos personal injury liabilities could ultimately be
determined to be significantly different from the amount agreed to
by the parties in the agreement. This difference could be material
to our financial position, cash flows and results of operations.
In the event the Plan is not confirmed it is unclear whether any
channeling injunction entered in connection with a plan of
reorganization will extend to all non-filing affiliates of the
filing entities, including RPM International.

At a hearing held on November 13, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court
granted the motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants and the Future Claimants' Representative
(collectively, the "ACC/FCR") for standing to pursue SPHC estate
claims against us, certain of our current and former directors and
executive officers, and third party advisors. As previously
disclosed, we anticipated that the ACC/FCR might be permitted to
pursue claims on behalf of the SPHC and Bondex estates against us.
We believe that the alleged SPHC estate claims are without merit
and, if such claims are made, intend to contest them vigorously.
The ACC/FCR have agreed not to proceed with any such claims unless
the Plan is not confirmed.

At August 31, 2014, no amounts have been accrued for the funding
of the Trust, as the Plan is subject to the approval of the
claimants, as well as the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District
Court. Once approved, the funding of the Trust will be accounted
for as a business combination and will allow us to regain control
of SPHC. The portion of the funding related to NMBFiL Inc. will be
recognized as a charge to the consolidated income statement at the
time the Plan is approved.

The Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion in May 2013 estimating the
current and future asbestos claims associated with Bondex and SPHC
at approximately $1.17 billion, which represented one step in the
legal process in helping to determine the amount of potential
funding for a 524(g) asbestos trust. The Debtors firmly believe
that the opinion substantially overstates the amount of their
liability and is not supported by the facts or the law, and we and
the Debtors have appealed the ruling. Those appeals have been
consolidated by the District Court and, on February 7, 2014, were
certified by the District Court for direct review by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but the Third Circuit
declined to accept the certification. The appeals remain pending
before the District Court. The ACC/FCR have also filed a motion
with the District Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that
the estimation decision was not a final, appealable order.
Briefing of the appeal, and the motion to dismiss the appeal, at
the District Court level have been stayed pending confirmation of
the Plan.

Prior to the bankruptcy filing, the filing entities had litigated
and, on many occasions, settled asbestos products liability claims
brought against them. The debtors paid $92.6 million during the
year ended May 31, 2010, prior to the bankruptcy filing, in
connection with the litigation and settlement of asbestos claims,
$42.6 million of which consisted of defense costs. With the
exception of the appeal bonds described in Note A, no claims have
been paid since the bankruptcy filing and it is not contemplated
that any claims will be paid until a plan of reorganization is
confirmed and an asbestos trust is established and operating.

Prior to the chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, we recorded asbestos
contingent liabilities that included estimations of future costs.
Such estimates by their nature are subject to many uncertainties
that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of
claims filed; (ii) the amounts required to resolve both currently
known and future unknown claims; (iii) the amount of insurance, if
any, available to cover such claims, including the outcome of
coverage litigation against the filing entities' third-party
insurers; (iv) future earnings and cash flow of the filing
entities; (v) the impact of bankruptcies of other companies whose
share of liability may be imposed on the filing entities under
certain state liability laws; (vi) the unpredictable aspects of
the litigation process including a changing trial docket and the
jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (vii) the outcome of
any such trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts,
as a result of the strategy of Bondex and SPHC to take selective
cases to verdict; (viii) the lack of specific information in many
cases concerning exposure to products for which Bondex, SPHC, or
another of our subsidiaries is allegedly responsible, and the
claimants' alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; (ix)
potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort
liability law; and (x) the potential impact of various proposed
structured settlement transactions. All these factors may have a
material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates.

As a result of their bankruptcy filing, SPHC and Bondex are
precluded from paying dividends to shareholders and from making
payments on any pre-bankruptcy filing accounts or notes payable
that are due and owing to any other entity within the RPM group of
companies (the "Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables") or other pre-
petition creditors during the pendency of the bankruptcy case,
without the Bankruptcy Court's approval. Moreover, no assurances
can be given that any of the Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables
will ever be paid or otherwise satisfied.

When SPHC emerges from the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court,
the subsequent accounting will be determined based upon the
applicable circumstances and facts at such time, including the
terms of any plan of reorganization.

SPHC has assessed its liquidity position as a result of the
bankruptcy filing and believes that it can continue to fund its
and its subsidiaries' operating activities and meet its debt and
capital requirements for the foreseeable future.

RPM International Inc. (RPM) through its subsidiaries
manufactures, markets and sells various specialty chemical product
lines. RPM's business is divided into two reportable segments: the
industrial reportable segment (industrial segment) and the
consumer reportable segment (consumer segment). The industrial
segment (RPM Building Solutions Group, Performance Coatings Group
and RPM2 Group), which comprises approximately 65% of its total
net sales, includes maintenance and protection products for
roofing and waterproofing systems, flooring, corrosion control and
other specialty applications. The consumer segment (Rust-Oleum
Group and DAP Group) comprises approximately 35% of its total net
sales and includes rust-preventative, special purpose and
decorative paints, caulks, sealants, primers and other branded
consumer products. In July 2014, the Company announced that its
Rust-Oleum Group has acquired Krud Kutter Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 125 Pending Cases at Aug. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. had 125 asbestos cases pending as of August 31, 2014,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2014.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Pennsylvania. There were 125 asbestos cases pending as of
August 31, 2014.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted
claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been
accrued.

In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne received a letter demand from AMEC,
plc, ("AMEC") the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the
business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet
Rocketdyne subsidiary, for Aerojet Rocketdyne to assume the
defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271 plaintiffs,
pending in Louisiana, and reimbursement of over $1.7 million in
past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet
Rocketdyne retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard &
Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under
the relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only
certain, specified liabilities relating to the operation of
Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all
unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed
to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are
asserted against it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet
Rocketdyne declined to accept the liability and requested
additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the
demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC filed a complaint for breach of
contract against Aerojet Rocketdyne in Sacramento County Superior
Court, AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-General
Corporation, Case No. 342013001424718. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed
its answer to the complaint denying AMEC's allegations and
discovery is ongoing. As of August 31, 2014, AMEC contends it has
incurred approximately $2.7 million in past legal fees and
expenses. The court has scheduled a trial date for May 18, 2015.
No estimate of liability has been accrued for this matter as of
August 31, 2014.

GenCorp Inc., incorporated in 1915, is a manufacturer of aerospace
and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale,
and leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company develops
and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space
applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long range
weapon systems applications. The Company operates in two segments:
Aerospace and Defense, and Real Estate. Its defense system
products include liquid, solid, and air-breathing propulsion
systems and components. Its space system products include liquid,
solid, and electric propulsion systems and components. In June
2013, United Technologies Corp announced it has closed on the sale
of substantially all operations of its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
unit to GenCorp Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T's Bid to Dismiss Coverage Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Corp., AT&T, Inc., and Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., have been
sued throughout the United States by two groups of plaintiffs: (1)
individuals alleging injury from exposure to asbestos in products
manufactured, distributed, sold and/or distributed by the
companies or its predecessor companies; and (2) certain current
and former employees claiming to have been injured due to asbestos
exposure during the course of their employment.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London filed an action against
AT&T and Alcatel, seeking a declaration that its members do not
owe the Defendants defense or indemnity under numerous insurance
policies issued by Lloyd's to American Telephone & Telegraph
Company and Western Electric Company Ltd. between 1953 and 1985.
In the event that it is found to owe that coverage, Lloyd's
contends that the other defendant insurers in the action likewise
owe coverage pursuant to their respective policies.  Accordingly,
the complaint asserts claims against these additional insurer
defendants for contribution and indemnification.

In March 2014, Judge James Hely of the New Jersey Superior Court
dismissed the NJ Action against all defendants without prejudice,
ruling that comity and common sense counsel a New Jersey court not
to interfere with a similar earlier-filed case in another
jurisdiction that is capable of affording adequate relief to the
parties and doing complete justice.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or a stay the action in
favor of the action filed in New Jersey.  The Defendants also seek
dismissal on the grounds of forum non convienens and for failure
to join a necessary party.  The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the
Defendants from proceeding with the NJ Action.

Judge Eileen Bransten of the Supreme Court, New York County, in an
opinion dated Sept. 25, 2014, denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
motion for injunctive relief enjoining the prosecution of the NJ
Action since the NJ Action is no longer pending.  Judge Bransten
also denied as moot the Defendants' request for relief since the
NJ Action is no longer pending.

The case is CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AT&T, CORP.; AT&T, INC.; ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC.;
et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 653090/2013, MOTIONS 004 & 009
(N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Bransten's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/zmaNaOfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Additional Briefs Needed in NY Coverage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the insurance coverage action styled DANAHER CORPORATION,
Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
NO. 10 CIV. 0121 (JPO)(JCF)(S.D.N.Y.), it has already been
determined that defendants and third-party plaintiffs The
Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company have a duty to defend third-party defendant Atlas Copco
North America, LLC, in actions related to asbestos and silica
exposure filed in courts around the country, as well as to pay
certain attorneys' fees expended in the insurance coverage action.

Atlas Opco filed a motion asking for an order calculating the
attorneys' fees and costs Travelers must pay in the insurance
coverage action in connection with the ruling that Travelers has a
duty to defend the asbestos and silica actions.  Plaintiff Danaher
Corporation and Atlas Copco also filed a motion seeking an order
calculating the costs and attorneys' fees that Travelers owes for
the defense of the asbestos and silica actions.

Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV, of the U.S. District for
the Southern District of New York, in a memorandum and order dated
Sept. 30, 2014 -- a full-text copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Bbxjkffrom Leagle.com -- refused to rule on the
motions based on the current briefing and directed the parties to
submit supplemental briefs on both motions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Houston" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action styled THOMAS HOUSTON and
ELLEN HOUSTON, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et
al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190119/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 011 (N.Y.
Sup.), defendant Mario & DiBono Plastering Co., Inc., moves for
summary judgment on the ground that it did not cause plaintiff
Thomas Houston to be exposed to an asbestos-containing product.

In a decision and order dated Sept. 17, 2014 -- a full-text copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/9UtYCsfrom Leagle.com --
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied M&D's motion, noting that asbestos-containing spray
insulation products were anything but a mere amenity for M&D.  In
fact, Judge Heitler further pointed out, the asbestos-containing
products were essential to M&D's business model.  Moreover, Judge
Heitler ruled that summary judgment is further precluded by the
Plaintiffs' undisputed allegation that M&D has not complied with
its discovery requests.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in "Yates" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, in an order
dated Sept. 30, 2014, granted in part and denied in part the
motions for summary judgment filed by Ford Motor Company and
Honeywell International, Inc., in an asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit styled GRAHAM YATES and BECKY YATES, Plaintiffs, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, successor by merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to The
Delaval Separator Company; ALFA LAVAL, INC.; CBS CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation f/k/a Viacom, Inc. (sued as successor by
merger to CBS Corporation) f/k/a Westinghouse Electric
Corporation; CRANE CO.; ELLIOTT TURBO MACHINERY COMPANY, a/k/a
Elliot Company; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
successor-in-interest to Bendix Corporation, f/k/a Allied-Signal,
Inc.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and WEIR VALVES &
CONTROLS USA, INC., f/k/a Atwood & Morrill, Defendants, NO. 5:12-
CV-752-FL (E.D.N.C.).

Summary judgment is granted for the Defendants regarding the
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty, claims for
willful and wanton conduct, and claims for false
representation/fraud.  Summary judgment is denied for the
Defendants regarding the Plaintiffs' claims of negligence and
failure to warn.

A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/RV9NZVfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amended Order Issued in Calif. Coverage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division
Three, on Oct. 7, 2014, issued an order modifying its Sept. 17,
2014, order in the lawsuit styled STEPHEN M. SNYDER et al., as
Trustees, etc., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE
GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent, NO. A139263 (Cal.
App.).  The modified order amended the language in the footnote of
the Sept. 17 order but did not change the judgment contained in
the order.

The Snyder case is an insurance coverage lawsuit underwhich
trustees of the Western Asbestos Settlement Trust, charged with
paying bodily injury claims against companies that distributed
asbestos-containing building materials, sought coverage under the
companies' insurance policies and, in 2004, after the insurer was
declared insolvent, brought a declaratory relief action against
California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) to determine
CIGA's obligation to pay the insolvent insurer's policy
obligations.  After CIGA filed an answer denying an obligation,
the proceedings against CIGA remained dormant for almost six
years.  In May 2011, the Western Trust dismissed its complaint
against CIGA without prejudice.  A declaratory relief action was
filed by the Western Trust against CIGA in February 2013.  CIGA
demurred on the ground, among others, that the complaint is barred
by the statute of limitations.  On this ground a trial court in
California sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and
dismissed the action.

In the Sept. 17 order, the California Appeals Court reversed the
judgment, holding that: "[t]o preserve a claim for coverage by
CIGA, an insured must give CIGA notice of its potential claim by
the deadline for filing a claim in the insolvent insurer's
liquidation proceedings. This notice permits CIGA to take such
steps as it deems appropriate to ascertain the facts and protect
its interests in responding to an eventual demand for payment. The
time within which the insured must submit its claim for payment,
however, does not commence until the insured possesses a "covered
claim" within the meaning of the statute. CIGA must be presented
with a timely claim for payment and affirmatively deny coverage
before a breach of its duty can occur. An insured's complaint
seeking a declaration of duty, and the defendant's answer
disputing its duty, does not constitute the submission and denial
of a claim sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations."

A full-text copy of the Sept. 17 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/jIvyePfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Oct. 7 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/GtPVOPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Federal Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harry Wendell Anderson brought an action against the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Sheridan Whitt,
Denise Dunn, Terry Deck, and Nicole Chamberlin, alleging, among
other things, a denial of his constitutional right to medical
treatment.  The Defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure
to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending
that the Court grant the Defendants' motion.

In an opinion and order dated Oct. 9, 2014, Judge Michael H.
Watson of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, adopts the magistrate's report
and recommendation and dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint.  Judge
Watson also dismissed the Plaintiff's asbestos claim on sovereign
immunity grounds.

The case is Harry Wendell Anderson, Plaintiff, v. Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
2:14-CV-191 (S.D. Ohio.).  A full-text copy of Judge Watson's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/J75gC9from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Not Bound to Arbitrate With Flintkote
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Flintkote Company, one of the nation's former major supplier
of asbestos-based products, filed a motion to compel arbitration
on a theory of equitable estoppel against Aviva PLC, a non-
signatory to the agreement containing the arbitration clause at
issue.  Aviva appeals a district court's order compelling
arbitration and denying as moot Aviva's motion to dismiss or
transfer.  Applying Delaware law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit concluded that Aviva is not equitably bound to
arbitrate on these facts.  Accordingly, the Third Circuit reversed
the District Court's order insofar as it compels arbitration, and
vacated the order to the extent that it denies as moot the motion
to dismiss or transfer.

The case is FLINTKOTE COMPANY, v. AVIVA PLC, formerly known as
Commercial Union Assurance Company Ltd., Appellant, NO. 13-4055
(3d. Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Decision
dated Oct. 9, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/xAHip1from
Leagle.com.

Michael P. Kelly, Esq., Katharine L. Mayer, Esq., McCarter &
English, LLP, Wilmington, DE Counsel for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Flips Ruling in "Gottschall" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The heirs and family of decedent Robert Gottschall sued Crane Co.
in the San Francisco Superior Court because of Robert's death from
mesothelioma, allegedly inflicted on him during his work in
shipyards and similar places.  Crane moved for summary judgment on
the basis that a Pennsylvania federal court's summary judgment in
favor of another manufacturer -- a judgment based on application
of the "sophisticated user" doctrine -- was collateral estoppel of
the San Francisco action.  The San Francisco court agreed, and
granted summary judgment for Crane.  The Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Two, reversed, holding that
the federal court's resolution of the issue was wrong under
California law, and thus collateral estoppel does not apply.

The case is KIMBRA GOTTSCHALL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. CRANE CO., Defendant and Respondent, NO. A136516 (Cal. App.).
A full-text copy of the Decision dated Oct. 8, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/Sl3EWPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in PI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Stevens filed a complaint alleging that he developed
mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease, after having been
exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by defendants
CBS Corporation and distributed by International Paper Co.
Specifically, he contends that he was exposed to asbestos in
connection with "Micarta panels" that he helped install aboard
U.S. Navy vessels between 1960 and 1985.

Stevens's only evidence of exposure to asbestos consisted of his
deposition testimony.  The defendants moved for summary judgment,
offering three crucial pieces of evidence in support of their
motion.  The District Court held that the Plaintiff's internally
inconsistent deposition testimony could not create a genuine issue
of material fact that a jury could credit, and granted summary
judgment to the defendants.

Taylor Stokes, as executor of the estate of Stevens, appeals the
District Court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on
his products liability claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an opinion
dated Oct. 8, 2014, affirmed, agreeing with the District Court
that the Plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to defeat
the defendants' motion for summary judgment.  The Third Circuit
pointed out that an essential element of the plaintiff's maritime
products liability claim is that the products to which he was
exposed actually contained asbestos.  The Third Circuit said that
on this issue, it did not see how any reasonable jury could credit
Stevens's internally inconsistent deposition testimony and return
a verdict for the plaintiff.

The case is In re: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. V)
Taylor Stokes, Executor of the Estate of Mr. Raymond Stevens,
Appellant, NO. 13-4002 (3d. Cir.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/r6rov1from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Orders Inmate to Respond to Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Just, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights action
alleging, among other things, that while incarcerated at "C.C.C.
Susanville," he was forced to work under unsafe conditions,
exposing him to toxic materials, including asbestos, without
access to protective clothing or other protective equipment.
Defendants Pat Cochrane, et al., filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim against them.

Magistrate Judge Allison Claire of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, in an Oct. 10, 2014, order
directed the Plaintiff to file an opposition, or a statement of no
opposition, to the motion to dismiss.  Failure to comply will be
deemed as consent to have the (a) pending motion granted, (b)
action against defendants Cochrane, Beard and Gower dismissed for
lack of prosecution, and (c) action against defendants Cochrane,
Beard and Gower dismissed based on the Plaintiff's failure to
comply with rules and a court order, Magistrate Claire said.

The case is JEREMY JUST, Plaintiff, v. PAT COCHRAN, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-01988 AC P (E.D. Calif.).  A full-text
copy of Magistrate Claire's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/zzoq0Yfrom Leagle.com.

Leonard Potter, Defendant, represented by Stanton W. Lee, Attorney
General's Office of the State of California.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Says Summary Judgment Bids "Premature"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Junius Millet was employed by Avondale Shipyards, Inc.
in Bridge City, Louisiana, from approximately 1968 to 1972, where
he worked as a sheet metal helper.  He alleges that during his
employment there he was exposed to asbestos-containing products
and dust, which caused asbestos-related mesothelioma.  Mr. Millet
allegedly worked on a number of vessels in proximity to asbestos-
containing insulation.  Mr. Millet filed suit against Defendant
Huntington Ingalls, Inc., as successor in interest to Avondale
Shipyards, alleging negligence.  Huntington thereafter filed
third-party actions against various other entities, including
Foster Wheeler LLC, General Electric Company, and CBS Corporation,
which filed summary judgment motions.

Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denied the summary judgment motions filed by
General Electric and CBS, holding that the motions are premature
as the discovery deadline is not until March 2015.  Judge Fallon
noted that although Mr. Millet's deposition has been taken, the
evidence, as it presently stands, is not sufficient for a finding
that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to the liability
of General Electric and CBS.  Because more discovery could
substantiate the arguments and evidence emphasized by Huntington,
summary judgment is not appropriate at this time for the General
Electric and CBS motions, Judge Fallon added.

Judge Fallon granted Foster Wheeler's motion, noting that no party
has put forth any evidence, or made any argument, as to why Foster
Wheeler's motion for summary judgment should not be granted as
unopposed.

The case is JUNIUS MILLET, JR. v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED,
ET AL. Section "L" (4), CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0934 (E.D. La.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Fallon's Order and Reasons dated Oct. 7,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/KtC3KFfrom Leagle.com.

General Electric Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by
John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot
L.L.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Remands "Papp" Suit to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Sue Papp filed a personal injury action in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Law Division, County of Middlesex, against numerous
defendants, alleging injury sustained as a result of take-home and
bystander exposure to asbestos from her husband, Robert Keck,
whose employment throughout the relevant period exposed him to
asbestos dust.  As a result of the exposure, Papp contracted
mesothelioma, which has resulted in various injuries and attendant
complications.

The Boeing Company removed the matter to the district court
pursuant to a statute commonly known as the federal officer
removal statute.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
action to the state court.

Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand
after determining that Boeing has failed to carry its burden of
establishing that it was "acting under" the control of a federal
agency or officer in failing to warn as to the attendant health
risks to individuals such as Papp of exposure to asbestos
contained in components used in the manufacture of the C-47.
Therefore, Judge Sheridan concludes, the District Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissal of the action is
required.

The case is MARY SUE PAPP, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. FORE-KAST SALES
CO., INC., ET AL., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-05940
(PGS)(DEA) (1)(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of Judge Sheridan's
memorandum and order dated Oct. 9, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/yBeWWjfrom Leagle.com.

THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO., Cross Defendant, represented by
TERENCE W. CAMP, BUDD, LARNER, P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Rodrigue" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana issued an order and reasons on Oct. 6, 2014,
granting a motion to remand to the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
styled RODRIGUE, v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,
SECTION: "J" (3), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1797 (E.D. La.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/NlC0fSfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Joins 2 Negligence Suits for Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Maureen Gallagher, Executor for the Estate of Dennis
Gallagher, by her agent, The Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust, and Constance Podedworny, Executrix for the Estate
of Joseph Podedworny, by her agent, The Federal-Mogul Asbestos
Personal Injury Trust, filed asbestos-related negligence claims
against a number of defendants, including Turner & Knewell.  The
Plaintiffs move to consolidate the two cases.

In a decision dated Oct. 10, 2014, the Superior Court of Rhode
Island, Providence, SC, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Consolidate Cases for Trial, after applying the eight-factor test
laid out in Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2d Cir.
1990).

The cases are MAUREEN GALLAGHER, Executor for the ESTATE of DENNIS
GALLAGHER, by her agent, THE FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL
INJURY TRUST, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INSULATED WIRE CORP., et al.,
Defendants, and CONSTANCE PODEDWORNY, Executrix for the ESTATE of
Joseph PODEDWORNY, by her agent, THE FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS
PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INSULATED WIRE
CORP., et al., Defendants, C.A. NOS. PC 11-5269, PC 11-5268 (R.I.
Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/dC9HSWfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Denies Bid to Quash in Exposure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville Division,
denied a motion to quash filed by a defendant in a lawsuit
involving the exposure of asbestos at work.  The case is ROBERT W.
MILLSAPS, individually and as personal representative of the
Estate of Brenda Lee Millsaps and for the benefit of the children
of Robert W. Millsaps and Brenda Lee Millsaps, Plaintiff, v.
ALCOA, INC., and BREEDING INSULATION COMPANY, INC., Defendants,
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-358-RLJ-CCS (E.D. Tenn.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision dated Oct. 2, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/ha7YsDfrom Leagle.com.

Aluminum Company of America, (ALCOA INC), A PENNSYLVANIA CORP.,
Defendant, represented by H Barret Marshall, Hawkins, Parnell,
Thackston & Young, LLP, BEVERLY M. BOND, HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON
YOUNG LLP, EDWARD M. SLAUGHTER, HAWKINS PARNELL & THACKSTON, JULIA
A. GOWIN, HAWKINS, PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, Michael K
Atkins, Esq. -- matkins@boatlf.com -- at Baker, O'Kane, Atkins &
Thompson & Robert E Thackston, Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston &
Young, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted in part motions for summary judgment
filed by defendants in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit styled SMITH, v. UNION CARBIDE CORP., ET AL., SECTION: "J"
(5), CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6323 (E.D. La.).  The Defendants' motions
are granted with respect to any negligence claim the Plaintiff may
have raised that is based on vicarious liability.  The Defendants'
motions are also granted with respect to the Plaintiff's strict
liability claims.  The Defendants' motions are denied regarding
the Plaintiff's independent negligence claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision dated Oct. 1, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/I0lt2bfrom Leagle.com.

Ethyl Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Mark Bienvenu,
Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John
Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC,
Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga,
APLLC & Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator
& Holinga, APLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Sues Contractor Over Workers' Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
John Cote, writing for San Francisco Gate, reported that the San
Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed suit against San
Francisco construction contractor and permit expediter Henry
Karnilowicz, accusing him of exposing dozens of workers and
residents at three different residential hotels to asbestos during
renovations.

The lawsuit alleges that Karnilowicz obtained building and other
permits using his contractor's license but then didn't do the
work, which was illegally performed by unlicensed contractors. He
is also accused of repeatedly ignoring orders from city health
officials to introduce safety measures in dealing with the
asbestos, a carcinogen, and in one instance, lead, including at
least five orders on one building alone.

"Mr. Karnilowicz flouted the law by allowing his unlicensed agents
to perform the work without supervision in a way that actually
exacerbated -- rather than solved -- serious health and safety
issues," Herrera said in a statement.

The workers were subjected to "grave occupational dangers,"
possibly without even being aware of them, Herrera said.

Karnilowicz, who is also president of the San Francisco Council of
District Merchants Associations and well-known in city political
circles, seemed stunned when asked about the lawsuit.

"Wow. Wow," Karnilowicz said when reached by phone. "My clients
were hiring the people who were doing the work over there. I was
doing the consulting on it. It was all taken care of. I'm sort of
bewildered on this. I'm in shock."

The 66-page pleading filed in San Francisco Superior Court
contends Karnilowicz violated city health codes and state law on
housing and fraudulent business practices, among others. It also
names his business, Occidental Express.

The violations cover three residential hotels -- 481 Minna St., 56
Mason St., and 250 Kearny St. -- but city investigators are
looking at more of the 645 permits that Karnilowicz has obtained
since 2011 and other properties he's associated with.

"We've begun our look," Deputy City Attorney Jerry Threet said.
"These were the most egregious examples we know of."

One of the named properties, the single-room occupancy Stanford
Hotel at 250 Kearny St. was in such disrepair in July 2011 that it
was described by city inspectors a "horror show."  Only 23 tenants
remained in what had been a 145-unit building.  Pigeon feces and
refuse covered rooms. A decomposing rodent lay in one room,
squatters apparently occupied another.  There were large holes in
walls.

After the renovation work began, a Department of Public Health
inspection on Sept. 22, 2011, found that "the construction had
caused significant lead and asbestos contamination in the common
areas and hallways," according to the lawsuit.  The next day, the
health department ordered that all the tenants be moved "because
of the significant and imminent nature of the health hazard," the
suit said.

Karnilowicz, though, repeatedly ignored the cleanup order issued a
few days later, according to the lawsuit. Twenty-three tenants and
12 construction workers were exposed to asbestos at 250 Kearny St.
alone, according to the city.  The building has since been
renovated and the city is looking to lease it from Sam Patel,
whose company managed it at the time of the asbestos inspections,
for about $2 million a year to house 130 homeless veterans. Patel
is not named in the lawsuit.

The case is the latest in a string of problems with permit
expediters, who are consultants paid to help builders or owners
navigate the city's labyrinthine building permit bureaucracy.
Expediters are often accused of behind-the-scenes favor-swapping
or offering incentives to get quick approvals. Former Mayor Gavin
Newsom tried to clean up the process in 2004. Ethics reforms
authored by Herrera and Board of Supervisors President David Chiu
that take effect Jan. 1 will require some permit expediters to
publicly report which city staff they talk to about specific
permits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Renovating Firehouse Exposed to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Owen, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reported that a
Chicago real estate and management company is facing more than
$40,000 in fines after workers renovating a historic firehouse in
the River North neighborhood were exposed to asbestos.

An OSHA investigation found employees of Structure Development
Midwest were exposed to asbestos and electrical hazards while
renovating a firehouse at 228 W. Illinois, according to a
statement from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

An inspection on March 25 found the company failed to collect and
dispose of asbestos-containing material in sealed, labeled and
waterproof bags, according to OSHA.

The company was cited for one willful and seven serious
violations, according to the statement. The proposed penalties
total $46,000.

"Exposure to asbestos can cause loss of lung function and cancer,
among other serious health effects, and workers must be trained in
procedures that minimize exposure," OSHA's area director Kathy
Webb said in a statement.

"Workers should never be put at risk because a company failed to
protect them from a known, dangerous substance," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teens Ignoring Fibro Warnings in Clydebank
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clydebank Post reported that children and adults may have
unwittingly exposed themselves to deadly asbestos simply by taking
a shortcut in Clydebank, England.

A warning of an asbestos outbreak near to homes was issued by West
Dunbartonshire Council chiefs.

The cancer-causing substance was discovered by contractors on the
former grounds of the demolished St Eunan's Primary School.

The council alerted the press and also spread the word via social
media -- however many residents living in the area are furious
they were not notified immediately in person or by letter.

Concerns have also been raised that the contaminated zone is still
being used as a right-of-way by children.

Shocked John McLean lives near to the site and has demanded more
information is shared with residents.  He said: "I speak for a
number of neighbours whose houses are on the boundary of the site
-- it would not have been a difficult task for the council to
notify us of the danger of the asbestos report.

"All the council has done is put up a number of posters telling
people to keep out. The council has failed to repair the wall
which is used as a shortcut by kids."

Civil servant Lorraine Hill, 50, who lives on Montrose Street,
said: "I'm furious that I had to find out about an asbestos
contamination on my doorstep through online news," she said. "Why
could they not come and tell us? Or send us a letter sooner? This
is just yards from my back garden."

Warning signs, which read "keep out, contaminated ground," were
put in place at the former St Eunan's site.  However, council
chiefs insist they do not know where the asbestos has come from
and are investigating as a matter of urgency.

A council spokesman said: "The council would like to apologise to
any resident who feels they have not been communicated with on
this issue. The council's priority, following the discovery of the
asbestos, was to erect warning signs on the site to deter people
from entering and alert the local and regional media to pass this
information on to the general public.

"Although the properties in the vicinity of the site were not at
risk we were keen to keep their owners informed and a letter was
issued to all."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turbine Co. Proved Fibro Removal Case Was Proper
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Louisiana federal judge has denied an asbestos claimant's
motion to remand, ruling that the defendant sufficiently proved it
was acting according to the government's specifications.

Judge Lance M. Africk issued the Sept. 23 order in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruling
in favor of defendant Elliott Company.

Claimant John Humphries, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
June 2013, alleges he was exposed to asbestos while working as a
turbine operator for E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company and Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Company.

Humphries alleges Elliott sold asbestos-containing turbines to
DuPont for use at the Savannah River facility, which was used by
the Atomic Energy Commission for manufacturing nuclear materials.

Elliott removed the case to federal court, claiming it is entitled
to a government contractor defense. Africk agreed, ruling that
Elliott sufficiently showed that it acted under the color of a
federal office when designing the turbines.

Michael Guinta, Elliott's regional sales manager for North
America, testified that the defendant typically used mineral wool
insulation on turbines, but it special ordered asbestos insulating
blankets for DuPont in order to comply with the customer's
requirements.

Humphries called Guinta's testimony "self-serving" and
"speculative" but failed to rebut his statements.

However, the plaintiff argued that because the products at issue
in this case are identical to products Elliott regularly services
today, the turbines were not deigned under the control of the
government.

"The turbines at issue, however, were not 'off the shelf' items,
but rather were made-to-order pieces of industrial machinery made
to exacting specifications," Africk wrote.

"Customers apparently could and did make special requests
regarding certain components. Moreover even if much of Elliott's
turbine design has been unchanged since the 1950s, that fact is
irrelevant to whether Elliott was directed to provide and install
asbestos blankets in the two turbines at issue," he added.

Guinta's testimony proved that the defendant acted pursuant to the
federal officer's directions when it designed the turbines, the
udge ruled.

"Elliott has made a sufficient showing that it was acting pursuant
to a reasonably precise specification attributable to the
government regarding the type of insulating blankets to be used,"
Africk concluded.

As for the plaintiff's failure-to-warn claim, Africk added that no
evidence shows Elliott withheld information or that it knew it was
required to warn the government of asbestos hazards.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concerns Raised Over Fibro-Contaminated Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Ryan, writing for Crewe Chronicle, reported that Health
and safety experts will visit a building site in Sandbach,
England, contaminated with asbestos following concerns from
residents that strict working guidelines are not being followed.

Scientific investigations into the Stewart Milne development site
off Hassall Road in Sandbach reveal levels of lead, mercury and
asbestos have all been found in the ground where work is underway
to build four four-bedroom detached homes.

A qualitative risk assessment report reveals the risk to human
health on site is moderate and suggests safety measures be imposed
to safeguard the health of workers.

The report states if the site is not disturbed it 'does not pose a
risk to the wider general public in its present condition'.  It
continues with the control measures suggested it 'will continue
not to present a risk for the duration of the works'.

One of the control measures states when the soil -- which has to
be damped down first -- is transported 'lorries will be sheeted
prior to leaving the site'.

This, residents allege, is not being done.

Caroline Cresswell, whose Hassall Road property backs on to the
site, said: "Lorries have been driving down Hassall Road over the
speed humps there and the soil is falling out from the lorries and
going over the road. This is potentially contaminated soil."

She said far from 'sheeting', 'the lorries have been covered with
a netting over the top and that was not enough to stop asbestos
fibres flying around'.

Mrs Cresswell insists the site was not screened off and warning
signs were not put up about the contaminated land.  "But they've
been digging since August," she said, adding, "although they
denied they had taken anything out in August. I dispute this."

When the Chronicle visited the site, the warning sign was just an
A4 sheet of paper -- the wording reads 'contaminated land' and
there is no mention of asbestos.  Nearby residents said they were
unaware of the asbestos -- even though some of the homes they live
in are right next to the building site.

Ward councillor Sam Corcoran has contacted Cheshire East Council
several times and said he has spoken to the developer about
concerns over a potential health hazard.

"Local residents are understandably concerned about the risk from
asbestos on this building site close to their homes," said Cllr
Corcoran. "I had a positive, informal, discussion with the site
manager. He assured me that all the necessary precautions were
being taken. I informed him that I had heard rumours that asbestos
sheeting was buried somewhere on the site and he assured me that
no large sheets of asbestos had been found so far. There is no
dispute though that asbestos fibres have been found.

"The site manager did agree to put up signs warning that the site
was contaminated with hazardous material so that nobody would try
to access the site. I would encourage all local residents not to
enter the site and to take reasonable precautions."

Cheshire East Council confirmed to the Chronicle that a member of
its environmental protection team would visit the site.

Cllr Les Gilbert, who is responsible for enforcement, said: "We
have told the developer that they must follow a contaminated land
remediation strategy and an asbestos management plan. This entails
damping down and covering the soil before it is disturbed to
prevent the asbestos being released into the air and removing
material from the site in covered lorries.

"We have made the developer aware that they need the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) to approve the way that asbestos is being
handled on the site. We have also alerted the Environment Agency."

Cheshire East said its enforcement powers relating to asbestos
only cover the treatment of contaminated land. The health and
safety aspects of construction site operations are a matter for
HSE.  It confirmed its environmental protection team has alerted
HSE about the residents' complaints and that a member of the team
will also be visiting the site to check whether conditions for
dealing with contaminated land, which were imposed as part of the
planning process, are being followed.

A spokesman for the health and safety executive confirmed it was
'making enquiries following complaints from local residents'.

Developer's response

A spokesman for Stewart Milne Homes said: "We purchased this
additional land adjacent to our Sandbach development to enable us
to complete four additional homes. The land was originally a
brownfield site and as part of our standard due diligence, prior
to developing the site, we undertook a site survey. The survey
highlighted low concentrations of asbestos within the soil on this
land.

"Following discussions with local authority and Environment Agency
and engagement with a firm of remediation specialists, we have
agreed a remedial strategy. This includes an asbestos management
plan (AMP), in accordance with the Care of Asbestos Regulations
2012. We are working to that plan and the agreed strategy is
compliant with health and safety legislation and guidance. Local
authority officers are up to date with progress at the site and no
concerns have been raised.

Once the remediation works have been completed, the planning
condition pertaining to remediation of the development will be
discharged to the satisfaction of the local authority and
Environment Agency. The site will then be declared a remediated
site, safe for habitation, as standard with all Brownfield
development.

Stewart Milne Homes is one of the UK's leading house builders. We
take our health and safety obligations very seriously and will
continue to work with the local council and specialist consultants
to ensure we take all relevant measures to ensure compliance with
legislation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock, Claimants Fighting Over Fee Request
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
or ACC, has requested more than $2.5 million in fees and $175,632
in expenses in response to its work in the Garlock Sealing
Technologies bankruptcy case -- an amount Garlock has objected to.

In a Sept. 23 memorandum in support of its 12th fee application,
Caplin & Drysdale, counsel of the Committee, responded to the
debtors' objection to the "substantial amount" requested.

The committee claims that while this is the sixth time the debtors
have objected to a large amount of fees, this objection is unique
because the debtors wish to withhold roughly 40 percent of the
total requested amount.

"For a debtor to withhold the compensation of opposing
professionals on arbitrary grounds is an abuse of the fee
objection process, and should not be countenanced by this court,"
the committee argued.

The debtors to which the committee are referring to include
Garlock, Garrison Litigation Management Group and The Anchor
Packing Company.

A bankruptcy judge has ruled Garlock's asbestos liability is $125
million, roughly $1 billion less than plaintiffs attorneys sought.
In earning the favorable ruling, Garlock introduced evidence that
plaintiffs attorneys have been withholding evidence of exposure to
other companies' products for years in civil lawsuits against the
company.

The judge ruled that was the case, deciding that past settlement
and verdict figures are unreliable because of what he called
manipulation. Legal Newsline and other companies are seeking
access to the evidence Garlock introduced.

A federal judge recently ruled the bankruptcy judge was wrong to
seal the evidence in the manner that he did, and now parties are
arguing over which evidence should remain sealed.

As for the fee request, this particular interim period stretches
from March to June, and the debtors specifically object to the
committee's work with respect to issues of public access
addressing sealed materials from the estimation proceeding, among
other objections.

"Yet that work was important and necessary for protecting the
procedural and substantive rights of the committee's constituency,
and ultimately led to the present protocol process pursuant to
which claims of public access are being evaluated," the committee
argued.

"[T]he various positions taken by the Committee were well-grounded
in law and were largely sustained by the courts. They have
obviated piecemeal access requests and promoted an efficient
coordinated protocol for determining which documents should or
should not remain sealed, as well in placing reasonable
restrictions on further transfer of Rule 2019 exhibits consistent
with applicable precedents," it added.

While the interim period does not include the time period
addressing the unsealing process, the committee still made its
argument against the debtors' objections just 12 days after
abdicating any responsibility to identifying documents in the
unsealing process.

In the ACC's Sept. 11 motion to seal, it suggested the court
should consider any particular interests asserted and arguments
advanced by the claimants rather than specify documents it felt
should be kept confidential.

"It merits emphasis that, in contemporary life, privacy is not
just a matter of maintaining the secrecy of personal matters; it
also includes ensuring individuals' control over the dissemination
of sensitive information -- even information that is already
public to some limited extent," the committee claimed.

The committee also rejects "any effort by the debtors or others to
skew the public record, or the facts surrounding Garlock's
historical verdicts and settlements in asbestos cases, by cherry-
picking for continued sealing those documents of record that
debtors find unhelpful to their position in the estimation
proceeding."

With that being said, the committee said it had no further
objections to unsealing the estimation proceeding.

"Subject to the protection of asbestos victims' legitimate privacy
interests, and without prejudice to any other issues asbestos
victims and their counsel may raise, the Committee has no
objection to unsealing the record of the estimation proceeding,"
it states in its motion.

The ACC did go as far as requesting an order sealing or redacting
any information that would invade the legitimate privacy issues of
asbestos victims if disclosed, such as medical information and
personally identifying information.

However, in his unsealing order, bankruptcy Judge George Hodges
specifically required parties to file a motion to seal identifying
and describing each document or testimony they believe should be
sealed or redacted and the reasons the materials should be kept
confidential.  Parties must also explain why no means that are
less restrictive than sealing are available and how long the
materials should be maintained under seal.

The committee, however, claimed its work in the access litigation
was necessary and justified, saying the "vast bulk of the
information at stake" is that of the committee's constituents.

"Thus, when both debtors and strangers to this bankruptcy sought
to strip that information of confidentiality protection
altogether, it was well within the ACC's role to protect its
constituency's interests in confidentiality recognized in the
protective orders," the committee argues. "It was also wholly
within the ACC's role to insist on absent claimants' due process
rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard before issue was
joined on whether those prior orders should give way to public
access."

Furthermore, the debtors attacked the committee's requested fees
in the access litigation, arguing that various entries are
insufficiently detailed.

The committee went on to claim that it incurred the "substantial
fees" from responding to various initiatives that the debtors
either began or supported, such as motions or appeals filed by the
debtors and third parties.

"This court has made clear that the committee need not stand idly
by while the rights and interests of its constituency are under
attack. Apparently, debtors would prefer a process where their
self-serving view of the world is simply accepted without
challenge," the committee states.

The debtors argue that the fees are excessive for the work the
committee has done in the access litigation, but the committee
asserts that the objections are "merely expressions of their
disagreement" with the committee's proper role in the access
litigation.

The debtors' specific objections are as follows:

     -- March: Committee requested $453,779 in fees and $26,473 in
expenses total. Debtors disputed $241,339 in total fees,
specifically $192,648 in fees relating to access litigation;

     -- April: Committee requested $784,577 in fees and $29,642 in
expenses total. Debtors disputed $281,427 in total fees,
specifically $276,925 in fees relating to access litigation;

     -- May: Committee requested $658,714 in fees and $76,835 in
expenses total. Debtors disputed $244,622 in total fees,
specifically about $177,329 in fees relating to access litigation;
and

     -- June: Committee requested $637,960 in fees and $42,681 in
expenses. Debtors disputed $273,465 in total fees, specifically
about $213,659 in fees relating to access litigation.

The debtors objected to roughly 50 percent of the amount requested
in relation to the access litigation for each month, and the
entire amount requested in March.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Islip Man Wins $7MM Award in Fibro Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Harrington, writing for News Day, reported that a man from
West Islip, New York, who alleged he contracted a rare form of
lung cancer from exposure to asbestos during construction of the
Northport Power Station has been awarded $7 million by a jury in
state Supreme Court.

Lawyers for the man, Ralph North, 79, said in court papers that he
contracted mesothelioma in 2012, some 46 years after he worked for
a private contractor installing giant boilers during three phases
of construction at the plant, which was built starting in 1966.
National Grid, a primary defendant in the case, took over the
LILCO plants after it acquired KeySpan in 2007.

While LIPA is not listed as a defendant in the case, it is unclear
whether the authority, which is still technically the Long Island
Lighting Co. "doing business as" LIPA, faces any liability in the
case. LIPA and PSEG Long Island both declined to comment.

"The exposures to asbestos were very high and very intense," said
Jerome Block, an attorney for North at the Manhattan law firm Levy
Konigsberg. He said evidence presented at trial showed that LILCO
supervisors took "no safety measures whatsoever to protect workers
from asbestos during the construction of the Northport plant."
National Grid, in a statement, said: "While we sympathize with Mr.
North and his family, we strongly believe [the] verdict is not
supported by the facts and does not meet the legal standards
applied to such cases. We believe we have strong legal and factual
arguments to overturn this decision, and we will review our legal
options including appeal."

Block said Northport plant case represented the largest single
verdict against National Grid or LILCO.

A verdict sheet issued assigned 100 percent of the fault for
North's exposure to LILCO, and awarded him $3.5 million for pain
and suffering and another $3.5 million for future pain and
suffering.

One witness called in the case was former LILCO employee Richard
Gallagher of Coram, who oversaw asbestos insulation application at
the plant for LILCO's construction division. He testified that the
company never told him about the dangers of breathing asbestos,
did not monitor air quality for asbestos or post warning signs
about the hazards, according to a trial transcript. Block said
similar cases are pending against the company for asbestos-related
exposure at other former LILCO plants, including a "substantial
number" stemming from construction of the never-opened Shoreham
nuclear power plant.

LIPA, in its annual financial statement, notes that asbestos
litigation by "thousands of plaintiffs" is pending in state court
against it, National Grid and LILCO, involving six major LILCO
plants.

"These cases include extraordinarily large damage claims, which
have proven to be excessive," LIPA's filing states, while noting
the amount paid to plaintiffs from LILCO plants "has not been
material" to the authority. LIPA expects it will have liability in
a "significantly smaller percentage of cases" in the future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleveland Man Indicted for Fibro Pollution
-----------------------------------------------------------
James F. McCarty, writing for The Plain Dealer, reported that a
federal indictment was filed charging Christopher Gattarello with
Clean Air Act violations for failing to remove asbestos before
demolishing a former factory in Cleveland, Ohio's Collinwood and
East Glenville neighborhoods.

Gattarello, 50, of Cleveland, also was charged with defrauding a
Louisiana company out of nearly $1.2 million, conspiracy to commit
fraud, money laundering, and of illegally dumping garbage in
buildings on the city's East Side.

Gattarello's lawyer, Jaye Schlachet, said he has represented the
defendant in other criminal cases and had read the indictment, but
declined to comment.

Gattarello, an ex-con with prior convictions for theft and
receiving stolen property, is scheduled to appear in Cuyahoga
County Common Pleas court on Oct. 17 to answer to the state
dumping charges.

Two other men also were indicted as co-defendants with Gattarello
in the federal Clean Air Act case. They are Willam S. Jackson,
Jr., 44, of Cleveland, and Robert A. Shaw, Sr., 74, of Ypsilanti,
Mich.

"I can't understand for the life of me how that went on for
years," said City Councilman Mike Polensek, whose ward holds both
of the garbage-dumping sites.

"That was like 15 acres of raw garbage with rats running around
the size of 'possums in broad daylight. The city has got to take a
more aggressive stance on this stuff by going after the garbage
brokers," Polensek said.

According to a four-count, 13-page indictment, Gattarello owned
several garbage-hauling businesses, including Reach Out Disposal,
All Points Rubbish Disposal and Axelrod Rubbish Recycling. Shaw
worked for Gattarello at those companies, while Jackson operated a
Cleveland building demolition company.

In 2011, Gattarello leased the National Acme building, a former
manufacturing plant at 170 East 131st St., and located near many
homes and a school in East Glenville. Gattarello told the
building's owner that he intended to recycle waste paper and
cardboard at the facility.

Over the next several months, thousands of tons of paper,
cardboard waste and municipal garbage were delivered to the
facility, and by April 2012 the building was filled with garbage,
according to the indictment.

Gattarello signed a contract to buy the building, which he
intended to demolish. In July 2012, Jackson submitted a notice of
demolition with the city's Division of Air Quality stating there
was no asbestos in the building -- which was not true. A company
had previously estimated that removing the asbestos from the
facility would cost $1.5 million.

The city agency rejected Jackson's notice, but Gattarello ignored
the order and directed Jackson to demolish the building. During
the demolition, asbestos fibers were released into the
environment, and asbestos debris accumulated outside the facility
was exposed to the wind and elements, according to the indictment.

In the state case, Gattarello is charged with illegal dumping, and
operating a landfill and a solid waste transfer facility without a
license. The charges stem from solid waste violations at the
National Acme facility and a building at 965 Wayside Ave. in
Collinwood.

Gattarello's brother, Anthony, 48, of Highland Heights, also was
charged in the state case with illegal open dumping and operating
a solid waste disposal facility without a license. Jackson also is
charged with illegal open dumping.

"We will not allow our neighborhoods to be used as garbage dumps,"
said U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach. "Mr. Gattarello's actions
show his total disdain for the law and for the people who live
near the factory. He will be held accountable for his actions."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victims Win Damages Ruling
-------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that the U.K. Government plans to deduct legal
fees from the damages paid to people dying from asbestos exposure
are unlawful, the High Court has ruled.

The Asbestos Victims' Support Groups Forum UK brought the action
against Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.  The group challenged
his decision to allow 25% of damages awarded to mesothelioma
sufferers to be used to pay legal insurance premiums and costs.

The Ministry of Justice said it was "disappointed" with the
judgment.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos.  It can take decades to develop, yet people live for an
average of just nine months after diagnosis.  Around 2,000 people
are diagnosed each year, and the numbers are set to increase over
the next 30 years.  Many people seek compensation by taking legal
action against their former employers or the employer's insurance
company.

Who pays?

In 2013, there was a shift in the legal system.  The Legal Aid
Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) moved the
responsibility of legal costs from the losing party to the person
making the claim.  However, people with mesothelioma were exempt
from the new rules until there was a full review of the
implications on this group of claimants.  The government said the
review took place at the end of last year, and that the same rules
should apply to mesothelioma sufferers.

The Asbestos Victims' Support Groups Forum UK said: "It could only
be described as a back of a fag packet review."  It took legal
action against the government.

In his judgement, the honourable Mr Justice William Davis said:
"The issue is whether the Lord Chancellor conducted a proper
review of the likely effect of the LASPO reforms on mesothelioma
claims. . .  I conclude that he did not."

He ruled attempts to deduct costs from damages were unlawful.

'Very happy'

Doug Jewell, from the Asbestos Victims' Support Groups Forum UK,
told the BBC News website: "We are very happy indeed. This lifts
the burden of fear from thousands of mesothelioma sufferers.

"People ask about legal action because they want to look after
their families after they've died, but they're scared by the legal
fees.

"Now they're told they're safe, it won't cost you anything, and
they can take action and provide for their families."

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "Mesothelioma is an awful
condition which can destroy lives in a frighteningly short amount
of time, and we want to help sufferers and their families.

"We are committed to finding the best way to get claims settled
fairly and quickly.

"It remains our view that the Ministry of Justice review of this
issue was conducted fully and openly and we are disappointed with
this judgment. We will now consider our next steps."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cattaragus Legislature to Vote on Fibro Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Miller, writing for Olean Times Herald, reported that
lawmakers in Cattaraugus County, New York, are expected to vote to
proceed with asbestos removal at the county's Civil War Monument
and Historic Building, a prelude to the 100-year-old building's
demolition.

Descendants of Civil War soldiers from the 154th Regiment of
Cattaraugus County have asked county lawmakers to preserve the
building, and the Landmark Society of Western New York has called
it historically significant and worth saving.

Legislators, however, believe the cost of preserving the building
is close to $1 million, an amount the county cannot afford.

Legislator Steve Teachman, R-Olean, a Civil War enthusiast and
chairman of a subcommittee charged with deciding what parts of the
building's exterior to save for a new monument, said he met
recently at the building with a representative from Crandall's
Monuments.

Mr. Teachman said many of the parts of the building that should be
preserved -- perhaps part of a new monument -- were not granite,
but sandstone. The sandstone has cracks in it has significant
erosion of the surface. The columns on each side of the entrance
are decorative and would not support weight.

Mr. Teachman said a new monument could cost $20,000 or more. An
arch over the parking lot entrance, which he envisioned, would
cost $50,000 or more.

Mr. Teachman said DPW crews could be used to remove parts of the
exterior and store them until they could be made part of a new
monument or move them to Machias, the site of the new Cattaraugus
County Museum.

"There are a lot of options," he said.

Legislator Linda Edstrom, R-Olean, also a member of the
subcommittee, said she toured the building with county
Administrator Jack Searles and Legislature Chairman Norman Marsh,
R-Little Valley, and said the arched piece of the doorway could be
saved, but would have to lay on the ground. They could be used in
conjunction with the 1911 cornerstone and the plaque dedicating
the memorial to Civil War soldiers.

Ms. Edstrom said later the committee never had a formal meeting.
Public Works Committee Chairman William Weller, R-Franklinville,
said the committee should proceed with a resolution to remove
asbestos from the building.

"We're not going to preserve the old structure," he said.
Mr. Weller added, "I want to see a nice monument to the Civil War
veterans when we are done. I don't want to move it all to
Machias."

Legislator John Padlo, D-Olean, asked whether there were any parts
of the building's interior that should be preserved before
demolition. He suggested those who had sought to preserve the
building be contacted to see if there are any parts of the
building they wish to save.

"Just tell me what you want to save," said Mark Burr, Public Works
director of engineering.

On Wednesday, the full Legislature will vote on a resolution
seeking immediate consideration to award a bid for asbestos
removal that was put on hold last year to give preservationists
time to offer options to save the building.

"We need to move forward on asbestos abatement," Mr. Weller
insisted.

Preservationists mounted an email campaign among descendants of
soldiers who served in the 154th "Hardtack" Regiment. They later
pointed to a State Senate bill that would have required war
veterans' monuments like the Civil War Monument and Historic
Building be preserved.

The Senate twice passed the bill unanimously, but it was not taken
up in the Assembly.

Last year, the county Legislature authorized $175,000 for asbestos
removal and demolition of the building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attys Predict Wave of Fibro Insurance Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that while comparing asbestos litigation trends in neighboring
states, two attorneys from both sides of the asbestos argument
predict a wave of insurance cases as asbestos defendants fight for
coverage from decades-old insurance packages.

As part of the HarrisMartin Midwest Asbestos Litigation Conference
in St. Louis on Sept. 18, Patrick Stufflebeam of HeplerBroom and
Andrew O'Brien of the O'Brien Law Firm compared trends in Illinois
and Missouri asbestos litigation, specifically Workers'
Compensation laws.

Stufflebeam and O'Brien outlined the differences between
neighboring states' Workers' Compensation system, saying Illinois
is "wait and see" and Missouri is "show me the enhanced benefits."

Stufflebeam said Illinois Workers' Compensation claims typically
come from local employers and employees but has seen the "net cast
a little bit wider" recently as Illinois fields calls from foreign
states.

Illinois uses two laws to govern these types of claims: the
Workers' Compensation Act and the Illinois Occupational Diseases
Act.

Stufflebeam said the two acts are essentially mirrors of each
other, because they each contain identical provisions addressing
asbestos, calling it both an injury and a disease.

However, the two acts differ on their statutes of limitations.
Injured employees filing a claim under the Workers' Compensation
law must file it within 25 years of the exposure and those filing
a claim under the occupational diseases law must file it within
three years of the diagnosis.

In some cases, Stufflebeam said plaintiffs are filing cases beyond
both limitations, which is where exclusive remedy comes in to
play.

He explained the sad truth is that when claims are filed after the
statute of limitations time has run dry, the remedy is the very
fact that it is too late for a case.

However, there are some exceptions, such as whether the employer's
actions were intentional.

O'Brien, on the other hand, discussed Workers' Compensation laws
in Missouri, saying the facts show that the defendants have the
upper hand in these cases.

"Bad facts tend to make bad law," he said, "and good facts tend to
make good law."

He explained that previously, Workers' Compensation claims only
paid for burial expenses in wrongful death cases if there was no
widow or children.

"On paper, you have quite a valuable claim," O'Brien said of the
early claims.

Then, in 2005, Missouri redefined what was considered a
compensable injury in these claims. And eventually, occupational
diseases were added to the state's Workers' Compensation law.

While a claimant could still file suit despite the Workers'
Compensation laws, Stufflebeam said some defendants are self-
insured or have an insurance provider that refuses to defend the
company, meaning defendants may be "pushing back" against the
lawsuit in an effort to work through the insurance issue.

"It's a large snowball effect," Stufflebeam said.

As a result, he predicted that there will be a mass filing of
insurance cases as defendants fight for coverage and insurers
fight against it.

O'Brien explained that the insurance industry realized that it
sold coverage packages that didn't require any paid claims for
years. Now, it has to pay claims on policies from decades ago, but
it wants to be paid for the work it is doing on those claims
today.

Therefore, the insurance companies reworked their statutes and are
charging additional premiums to cover liability for the next
several years, O'Brien said.

"They are scamming all these companies to pay for what they've
already paid for," O'Brien said.

Personal Jurisdiction

The two also discussed personal jurisdiction, which is a popular
subject in Madison County, Ill., where roughly 90 percent of the
newly filed cases come from out-of-state claimants.

Stufflebeam addressed what it takes to make a jurisdiction "at
home," noting that there is no test or standard handed down by the
U.S. Supreme Court to make the determination more black and white.

Instead, parties must argue that an affiliation exists, but can't
simply rely on the fact that a defendant does business in a
particular state.

"Affiliations must be so continuous and systematic as to render it
essentially at home in the forum state," the presentation stated.

Common connections to a particular state include an affiliate's
office, employees, licenses or real estate purchases.

However, Stufflebeam said it could take more convincing to prove
jurisdiction, because "purchases in and of itself is not
sufficient to render a case at home."

As an example of how gray it can be when arguing for a specific
jurisdiction, O'Brien mentioned a case he was able to keep in
Missouri by relying on a local registered agent.

O'Brien got the court to agree that the defendant intended to do
business in Missouri and chose to make itself physically present
in Missouri by having a local registered agent.

Settlements

When addressing settlements, Stufflebeam said there are three D's
for asbestos defense attorneys: defend, delay and don't pay.

However, when payment is inevitable, settling seems to be the go-
to resolution for asbestos cases.

In both states, the defendants must confirm that a settlement was
reached and then must pay the award within 30 days of the
agreement.

When dealing with written confirmation of a settlement agreement,
Stufflebeam strongly encouraged both defense and plaintiffs'
attorneys to consider what constitutes as written confirmation. He
added that virtually anything could potentially be interpreted as
written confirmation.

For example, an email chain discussing settlement options could be
taken as written confirmation of an agreement by one of the
parties. To avoid such confusions, parties should be careful about
their communication and clearer about their intentions.

Additionally, O'Brien said Missouri is currently concerned about
how to balance defendants' rights to information and confidential
settlements.

The general public policy in Missouri is to encourage settlements,
but some defendants are seeking settlement information to help
unmask any potential additional exposures.

O'Brien said some judges are uncomfortable disclosing the
information because it fails to encourage settlements.

Missouri punitive damages

Stufflebeam and Patrick ended their discussion with a recent
development in Missouri after the state's Supreme Court
unanimously struck down its cap on punitive damages.

The case they were referring to is the Lewellen v Franklin
decision from Sept. 9, in which a jury awarded $25,000 in
compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages on both
counts of a common law fraud claim.

After the verdict was entered, the circuit court reduced the
punitive damages award pursuant to the state's cap, but the state
Supreme Court held that the mandatory reduction of Lewellen's
punitive damages award violated her right to a jury trial.

"Because the right to a jury trial in 1820 included the right to
have a jury determine the amount of punitive damages in an action
for fraud, section 510.265's cap on punitive damages awards is
unconstitutional because the statute imposes a legislative limit
on the jury's assessment of punitive damages when such limits did
not exist in 1820," the Supreme Court held.

"The court is trying to do things, undoing what the legislature is
doing," Stufflebeam said of the decision.

While the Lewellen case is not an asbestos case, Stufflebeam and
O'Brien said the decision is important because it removed a
punitive damages cap for personal injury asbestos cases as well.

Howver, Stufflebeam said defendants are prepared to argue in favor
of caps on wrongful death asbestos cases.

"We'll argue that one," he said. "We'll try to come up with
something creative."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Old Marshfield High School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Kashinsky, writing for Wicked Local Marshfield, reported that
demolition work at the old Marshfield High School, in
Massachusetts, was shut down recently after materials containing
asbestos were found in the last remaining section, according to an
email sent to Marshfield Public School District members and
families.

Superintendent of Schools Scott Borstel said he sent the notice
after learning workers found Transite board materials, an
asbestos-containing material, in the building. Crews have been
working to demolish the building since the summer.

According to Borstel's email, work was immediately stopped in the
area and the Department of Environmental Protection was contacted
to help develop a plan to remove the asbestos material.

The remaining section of the school will be fully enclosed in
order to remove the material. That work will begin immediately,
the email said, and will last for about four weeks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mum Was Exposed to Lightest Dusting of Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Abbit, writing for Manchester Evening News, reported that a
popular mum developed an incurable cancer after 'the lightest
dusting' of exposure to asbestos as a teenager -- an inquest has
heard.

Penny Jane Garner, 46, died in March this year, after a three-year
battle with malignant mesothelioma, a terminal cancer linked to
exposure to asbestos.  At an inquest, lung cancer specialist Dr
Simon Taggart described the case of Ms Garner, who lived on
Woodlands Avenue, Peel Green, Salford, as one of the most unusual
he has ever seen.  He said the mum-of-three may have been exposed
to a 'sudden burst' of asbestos or could have come into contact
with the substance in several places, which had an accumulative
effect.

He said: "It's unusual, but Penny is unusual. She died at 46 and
her lungs were healthy. The average age of mesothelioma sufferers
in Salford is upwards of 70 years old.

"This is the lightest dusting of exposure I have ever seen."

Bolton Coroners' Court heard that Ms Garner was 'devastated' when
an attempt to sue Salford council and Ardwick-based building firm
P McGuinness and Co, which demolished Seedley swimming baths, was
unsuccessful.

The seamstress believed demolition of the baths had exposed her to
deadly fibres while she was a child playing at neighbouring
Seedley Primary School, but a High Court ruling found neither
party was responsible.

Ms Garner was initially given antibiotics for pneumonia before
doctors discovered she was suffering from mesothelioma. The
inquest heard she may have been exposed to asbestos while working
at a textiles factory in her late teens. Deborah Hopwood, who
worked with Ms Garner at a factory during the 1980s, said
'cracked' floor tiles, clothes presses and heating pipes used at
the workplace may have contained asbestos.

Coroner Jennifer Leeming said Ms Garner's 'shocking' death was a
result of industrial disease and added: "I was so touched by what
you said about Penny and how cruel what had happened to her was."

Speaking after the inquest, Ms Garner's mum Jane Garner, 66, said
she was shocked her daughter could have developed a terminal
illness from such a low exposure to asbestos.

She said: "It's just so sad that with such a low exposure she
passed away.

"She was a lovely, hard working mother, who adored her children
and loved her jobs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Landfill Presents Risk to Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Northampton Chronicle & Echo reported that asbestos mixed into
the soil in a former landfill site presents a high and severe risk
to both construction workers and potential home owners, a
contamination report says.

The report, paid for by Northampton Town Football Club, in
England, says that, as things stand, dust containing the lung
cancer-causing material could be kicked up during preparation and
breathed in by workers.  And the site's landfill past could see
asbestos retained in soil in planned gardens and other landscaped
areas.

The report says: "Future site users could come into contact with
contaminated soils in garden or soft landscaped areas.

"Staff working in excavations could come into contact with
contaminated soils."

For the same reasons, solvents and metals buried in the site could
become dangerous to future residents, the reports says.  It warns:
"Residential development including gardens is proposed. Plants
grown in contaminated soils could take up phytotoxic metals."

Other severe hazards that the experts highlighted included the
build-up of ground gas, a mixture of carbon dioxide and methane,
from decomposing organic matter that could lead to an explosion.
And drinking water quality may also be affected if houses are
eventually built.

The report says: "Organic compounds can permeate plastic potable
water supply pipes and affect drinking water quality."

All of the concerns raised are based on knowledge of past uses of
the land rather than new tests.

The site had a tramway through it leading to two offsite quarries
which were later turned to landfills.

Although covered in plants now, the site is believed to consist of
'made ground' from construction or demolition fills, landraising
and material from Weedon Road landfill.

The report summarises: "Further investigation to allow a
quantitative assessment of these risks and the potential
requirements for remedial/preventative measures are highly
recommended.

"Information within the public domain acknowledges the brownfield
status of the site and indicates a remediation programme has been
undertaken. "However no records can be found on the specifics of
the remediation works."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kids Kept Home Over School's Fibro Concerns
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Los Angeles reported that several parents in Huntington Beach,
California, kept their children out of class over concerns of
asbestos contamination.

The parents want answers about several schools in the area that
are part of a modernization project, including: Hope View School
on Flintstone Lane, Oak View School on Oak Lane, and Lake View
School on Zeider Lane.  They believe district officials have been
vague about possible asbestos contamination.

"There would be the modernization. There would be construction. To
please bear with the noise. With the dust. But nothing on that
postcard stated that there was asbestos abatement," said Leitta
Strecke, a parent.

Ocean View School District Superintendent Gustavo Balderas said,
"In the summertime, when kids weren't in school, we did the
majority of the abatement."  He added, "We're doing additional
assessments to do more testing of other environments."

One parent reported seeing ceiling panels missing, broken, or
damaged at Hope View Elementary School. The superintendent says he
is investigating those claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in NY Public Library Room
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Ross, writing for New York Daily News, reported that the
New York Public Library's majestic Rose Reading Room will be
closed another six months, library brass disclosed.

Officials said engineers had found a "new" problem -- asbestos in
the rafters above the coffered ceiling.  The room was closed in
June after an ornate plaster rosette popped off the ceiling and
crashed onto a bookcase in the middle of the night. Nobody was
hurt.

The incident triggered an engineering study of the ceiling to
determine the cause of the crash, how best to fix it and whether
any other parts of the ceiling are in jeopardy. The ceiling in the
room is 52 feet high and unusual in that it is two city blocks
long and not supported by any columns.

"Asbestos is commonly found in many older buildings in New York.
The Library is currently taking steps to remove it as quickly and
safely as possible," officials said on the library's website.

They said that engineers who found the asbestos in a closed attic
area above the main reading room will do further inspections and
construct a scaffold to get access to the affected areas. They
said "the additional inspection will take six months" and at that
time, the library will disclose "what, if any, actions need to
take place."

Meanwhile, the library has moved the Reading Rooms' functions to
other parts of the research facility at 42nd St. and Fifth Avenue.
Rooms previously closed to the public have been opened and
equipped with tables, chairs and Wi-Fi.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired School Cook Dies From Fibro Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Express & Star reported that senior corone at Black Country, in
England, Zafar Siddique ruled that Marjorie Lillian Birks died due
to industrial disease.

Mrs Birks, who was known as Lillian, died at Sandwell General
Hospital on July 9, aged 81.

Mr Siddique said a post-mortem found that Mrs Birks, of St Luke's
Road, Wednesbury, died from a malignant mesothelima, a rare form
of cancer usually caused by exposure to asbestos.

Pathologist Dr Nithian Nair said that while his examination found
no trace of asbestos, it was his opinion that this was the most
likely cause of the cancer.

Mrs Birks' son, Tim Birks-Kindred, said his father had worked as a
builder, and handled materials which probably which probably would
not be considered safe today.

"When she was washing his overalls, she used to shake the dust off
them, so it is possible she could have inhaled dust particles that
way," said Mr Birks-Kindred, who added that his mother had also
worked in school kitchens before she retired.

"She worked through some of the schools while they were undergoing
refurbishment, so it is possible she might have come into contact
with it that way."

Mr Birks-Kindred added that the family got in touch with Asbestos
Support West Midlands after his mother had been diagnosed and the
organisation had made an interim payment of GBP13,000.  However,
after contacting a solicitor, Mrs Birks was advised it was not
worth pursuing a claim as the interim payment would have to be
returned.

Mr Siddique said he was satisfied that Mrs Birks' death was
primarily caused by a malignant mesothelioma due to asbsestos
exposure, with pneumonia and heart disease also being contributory
factors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Deceased Man Files Fibro Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reported
that the wife and children of a recently deceased man have filed
suit against his former employer, alleging the man died after
exposure to asbestos.

Dolores Belton, Carla Mahan and Myra Mitchell allege their husband
and father, Jack Belton, was working for defendant Gulf
Oil/Chevron in Jefferson County. During his employment, Jack
Belton was exposed to toxic materials, including asbestos dust and
fibers, according to the complaint filed Aug. 26 in Jefferson
County District Court.

"As a result of such exposure, Jack Belton, developed an asbestos-
related disease, asbestosis, from which he died a painful and
terrible death on March 6, 2014," the suit states.

Jack Belton's next-of-kin blame Chevron for causing his injuries,
saying the company knew that the products could case asbestosis
and other related cancers but still allowed their employees to
work around the products.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs seek unspecified exemplary and
punitive damages plus costs.

J. Keith Hyde and D'Juana Parks, of Provost Umphrey Law Firm LLP
in Beaumont, will represent the family.

Jefferson County District Court case number: B196-052


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newcastle Laborer Wins Six-Figure Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Rae, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that a shipyard
labourer diagnosed with an asbestos-related cancer after being
exposed to the deadly dust during his career has won compensation.

John Canham, from Shieldfield, Newcastle, in England, was
diagnosed with mesothelioma, which affects the lining of the
lungs, in January this year after suffering from shortness of
breath. He is currently undergoing chemotherapy for the terminal
cancer.

Asbestos experts at law firm Irwin Mitchell negotiated an
undisclosed six-figure settlement for John from three companies he
worked for which will help cover the cost of care as his condition
deteriorates. It will also provide some financial support for his
family in future.

John said he feels he feels "justice has been done".

The dad-of-two added: "I remember when I used to fit steel plates
to the boilers which were already lagged with asbestos; the
handsaws we used got covered in dust and as we worked in such as
confined space, there was no way of avoiding the dust.

"My colleagues and I were never given any protective clothing or
masks whilst we worked with asbestos and I was also never warned
about the potential dangers of inhaling the substance.

"It was devastating for my family and I to find out years later
that this exposure to asbestos had made such a horrific impact on
my health and the illness has completely changed my life. We are
all anxious about what the future may hold but I am grateful to
have the support around me from my loved ones.

"The settlement will be a big help financially when it comes to my
care and will help support my family to look after me and help me
to battle on against this incurable disease and it does feel like
justice has been done as my former employer should have done
something to protect me and my colleagues from this."

John worked as a labourer at various shipping yards and
engineering firms in the North East.

Isobel Lovett, an asbestos-related disease expert at Irwin
Mitchell's Newcastle office, said: "The past year has been
incredibly difficult for John and his family as they have had to
come to terms with his illness, which has seen his health rapidly
decline.

"As the delay between exposure to asbestos dust and the onset of
symptoms of mesothelioma is more than 30 years in most cases,
people like John are only now discovering their health has been
affected as a result.

"Mesothelioma is an asbestos-related cancer for which there is
sadly no cure. Unfortunately John's case is not isolated and it's
always sad to learn of such exposure to asbestos when, even in the
1960 and 70s employers knew of the risk associated with the
dangers of inhaling the lethal dust.

"No amount of money can make up for the illness John has, but the
settlement will provide him and his family with some financial
security for the future."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK High Court Halts Plans to Raise Legal Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rochdale Online reported that a judicial review judgement handed
down in the United Kingdom Royal Courts of Justice has halted
government plans to increase legal costs for the victims of the
asbestos related cancer mesothelioma. This is an extremely
aggressive disease usually affecting the pleura around the lungs,
life expectancy after diagnosis is approximately nine months and
the only known cause in this country is exposure to asbestos.

In his judgement the Honourable Mr Justice William Davis ruled
that according to the Government's own Legal Aid Sentencing and
Punishment of Offenders Act of 2012 (LASPO) a review had to be
carried out into the likely consequences of such plans before they
could be implemented. Commenting on the 'review' the Government
did undertake he concluded that "no reasonable Lord Chancellor,
faced with the duty imposed on him by Section 48 of the Act, would
have considered that the exercise in fact fulfilled that duty". He
has called on the Lord Chancellor to carry out a proper review.

Until this review is concluded the Government cannot implement the
changes.

Asbestos Victims Support Groups have welcomed this judgement. Tony
Whitston, Chairman of the UK wide Forum of Asbestos Support
Groups, called on the Government to "see this judgement as an
opportunity to take a new approach based on justice for victims of
big financial institutions. The old plans were rooted in a culture
of secret deals with insurers and flawed consultations which
excluded the victims of asbestos. Now is the time for a change.

"We need a new approach based on prioritising policies that help
victims and their families. A proper review is needed, one based
upon evidence of the likely consequences of making these changes.
We need to understand that it will take three to five years for
that evidence to emerge.

"This matter must go back before Parliament. It is time we had an
open and transparent debate about an agenda for justice not
another shabby deal done in the dark."

This judgement is only the latest in a series of developments
which have undermined the Government's case.

During the process of taking the judicial review the Asbestos
Support Groups discovered that the Government had signed a secret
Heads of Agreement with the Association of British Insurers
concerning the reform of mesothelioma claims in July 2012. The
secret agreement contained all of the measures the Government
would include in a 2013 consultation paper on reforming
mesothelioma claims, including the commitment to increase the
legal costs for sufferers in mesothelioma cases.

Shortly after this revelation the Government's plans came under
further attack when the Parliamentary Justice Select Committee
published a damning report into the conduct of the review required
before the changes could be brought in. They concluded that the
review was "maladroit and "unsatisfactory" and called on the
Government to start again.

The origins of the Government's situation lie in the Legal Aid
Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Sections
44 and 46 of this Act impose legal costs on people taking personal
injury cases. 'During the passage of the Act, the Lords, in an act
of humanity, insisted that dying mesothelioma sufferers be exempt
from legal costs. The Government grudgingly allowed a temporary
exemption pending a review of the likely effects of legal costs on
mesothelioma claims.

The Government carried out this review in 2013, largely as part of
a consultation into a wider raft of measurers aimed at reforming
the mesothelioma claims process.

Asbestos Support Groups have always maintained that the review was
deeply flawed. In light of the Justice Select Committee report and
the ruling that case appears unanswerable.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fines Levied v. Mt. Maresa Townhouse Developer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maura Grunlund, writing for silive.com, reported that the
Committee to Save Mount Manresa is leading its "Rally to Stop
Dangerous Demo at Mount Manresa" with a victory march from Von
Briesen Park, in Staten Island, New York, to the former retreat
house property after the city levied fines against those involved
in efforts to build 250 townhouses at the site.

Asbestos problems at the controversial Mount Manresa project have
led the city to levy $67,400 in violations against Savo Brothers
of Prince's Bay and other parties involved in the demolition at
the former Jesuit retreat house.

Bolstered by the latest development, the Committee is calling for
a wider investigation into the demolition by federal, state and
city agencies.

"The fines show how very serious this is," said Barbara Sanchez,
secretary of the Committee. "However, for a builder like Savo, it
is the cost of doing business.

"OSHA and other agencies like the city and state health
departments should also investigate."

GOP Borough President James Oddo is championing the Committee's
cause, saying, "We should stop this project dead in its tracks."

"The Borough President's voice on this issue speaks volumes," Ms.
Sanchez said. "It's been a big comfort to have him standing with
us and calling loudly for this full investigation and full stop-
work order."

The Advance reported that Oddo has written to the city Department
of Investigation asking that it direct the city Department of
Environmental Protection and the city Department of Buildings not
to issue any more permits for the project, and to rescind those
that have already been granted.

The Committee's wish has been granted for a partial stop-work
order on the site.

"We also want a full stop work order," Ms. Sanchez said. "Those
permits should have never been issued."

Gaspare Santoro, the engineer who who took only 19 samples before
saying that the six buildings on the site were free of asbestos,
was hit with a total of $37,200 in violations, according to the
DEP.

Savo Brothers was cited for $19,000 in violations, while
contractor Toth Excavating Inc. received $11,000 in violations,
the DEP said.

The Committee wants all the buildings with asbestos to be fully
encapsulated with negative air pressure to reduce the risk of
spreading asbestos to the surrounding neighborhood. Committee
members also are demanding that monitoring for asbestos and lead
be done at various locations in the area by an independent
contractor and that testing for lead and asbestos be done on the
dust in residents' homes.

"Many residents are experiencing problems breathing since the
demolition began in August," Ms. Sanchez said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Killed Former Rail Worker
-----------------------------------------------------
Isaac Crowson, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a former
British Rail worker, who breathed in dust when he came into
contact with asbestos, died from industrial disease.

Peter Lee's inquest heard that he was exposed to the material when
he joined the industry in Derby as an apprentice in 1958.  Mr Lee
helped build locomotive steam engines. He was exposed to asbestos
lagging where he would be "covered in it and would breathe it in",
according to a statement submitted by his family to South
Derbyshire Coroner's Court.

Engineer Mr Lee, who later went on to work for Rolls-Royce,
submitted the statement before his death to Thompsons Solicitors,
which successfully applied for compensation.

'Plumes of asbestos dust' led to death of Codnor 74-year-old
In the statement, he said: "We never had any information about
masks or ventilation. I was there when we did the work with
asbestos in the environment all of the time."

He said asbestos came from sacks which was then left on workers'
hands and faces.

After leaving British Rail, he went on to work in the Merchant
Navy, where he said there may have been some asbestos lagging in
the ships.

The statement also acknowledged the effect the exposure, and his
medical troubles in later life had on his family, who were present
at the inquest.

Mr Lee, of Blackberry Way, Kilburn, died peacefully with his
family at his bedside at the Royal Derby Hospital on July 9.

Acting senior coroner Louise Pinder declared the cause of death
was malignant mesothelioma, and this was as a result of an
industrial disease.

Mr Lee's wife, Linda, said she was very proud of her husband's
career and said he was an inspiration to the rest of the family.
She said: "He was a very special man and was a great husband.

"We miss him a lot and we feel devastated by what has happened. We
have now got a big void in our lives.

"He was a very clever man, he was funny and a caring father.

"Peter was the sort of man who could turn his hand to anything. He
was always very helpful."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Granted in Fibro Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a North Carolina federal judge has concluded that summary
judgment was proper for seven defendants in an asbestos lawsuit
after the claimant failed to respond to any of the defendants'
motions.

Judge Martin Reidinger's Sept. 23 order granting summary judgment
came out of the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, concluding that "all seven of the
defendants' forecasts of evidence is sufficient to establish that
no genuine dispute exists as to any of the material facts."

Plaintiff Ralph O'Neil Starnes alleged he was exposed to asbestos
from 1956 through the 1980s while working as a control fitter for
Powers Regulatory Company, Robert Shaw Controls Company and
Honeywell Company, which caused him to develop mesothelioma.

As part of his job, Starnes installed and repaired pneumatic
controls for heating and cooling systems and repaired and
installed compressors manufactured by some of the defendants. He
alleges the repair work involved asbestos-containing products.

Six of the defendants raised the same issue in their motions for
summary judgment.

Defendants FMC Corporation, on behalf of its former subsidiaries
Crosby Value and Peerless Pump; Sterling Fluid Systems; Ingersoll
Rand Company; Gardner Denver; and Trane U.S. Inc. claimed they
were entitled to summary judgment because Starnes failed to
provide any evidence showing he was exposed to their products,
meaning they were not responsible for causing his mesothelioma.

The court held that because Starnes did not respond to the
requests for summary judgment, it is undisputed that the necessary
evidence of causation linking these defendants to Starnes'
contraction of mesothelioma is absent.

"Thus, there being no genuine issue of any material fact in
dispute, the court will grant the six defendants' summary judgment
motions," Reidinger wrote.

Defendant Watts Walter Technologies, Inc., argued that summary
judgment was proper because Starnes failed to present evidence
supporting the theory on which he sued Watts.

Starnes sole claim against Watts alleges it was the legal
successor to the "Powers Regulatory Company."

However, Watts contended the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence
that Watts is the true successor in interest to Starnes' former
employer. It further argued that it did not acquire the business
assets of Powers Regulatory.

Watts explained that in October 1977, Mark Controls Corporation
acquired the assets of Powers Regulatory.  Then in 1985, the
Powers Regulatory business was incorporated as a subsidiary of Old
Mark, and named MCC Powers.  Two years later, Old Mark entered
into a series of transactions resulting in a merger into Landis &
Gyr Powers, Inc.  However, prior to its merger, "Old Mark 'carved
out' certain valve-related assets, which are the only assets of
the former Powers Regulatory business that were ultimately
transferred to Watts."

Therefore, the business Starnes worked for was passed to Landis,
not Watts.

"As such, it is undisputed that the necessary evidence of
causation linking Watts to Mr. Starnes' contraction of
mesothelioma is absent for the purposes of Watts' motion,"
Reidinger wrote.

As a result, the court granted Watts' summary judgment motion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Closed Groton City Hall
-------------------------------------------------------
NBC reported that city offices and the Utilities building in
Groton, Connecticut, were closed over asbestos concerns, according
to the city's official Facebook page.

Groton officials posted a special notice on the city's Web site
notifying residents of closures at the municipal building and the
Groton Utilities/Ledyard WPCA customer service centers on Meridian
Street.

According to Groton Mayor Marian Galbraith, carpet pulled up left
dust in the air, and some employees expressed concern about mastic
from tiles that had once lain underneath the carpet.

Air quality tests revealed that the building was "well below the
safe level for asbestos." Although floor samples tested positive
for asbestos, nothing from the mastic was released into the air,
Galbraith said.

"Our asbestos management plan requires us to close any area where
there was a possibility of exposure," city officials wrote on
Facebook.

The building will be cleaned overnight as a precaution. Officials
will make a decision about whether or not to open City Hall but
"believe beyond a reasonable doubt" that there will be no issues,
Galbraith said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Power Station Worker Dies From Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Whyatt, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a
grandfather who clocked up 27 years in power stations died because
he was regularly exposed to asbestos dust that "hanged thick in
the air".

Richard Wedd, of Rye Close, Oakwood, in England, lost his battle
with sarcomatoid mesothelioma -- an asbestos-related cancer -- on
August 25, eight months after being diagnosed with the condition.

An inquest heard he worked at Spondon Power Station between 1965
and 1982, followed by 10 years at Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station.

In a statement written by Mr Wedd before his death, aged 78, the
retired foreman said he was exposed to "excessive" amounts of
asbestos at both plants.

Mr Wedd wrote: "While I worked at Spondon Power Station, I was
based in A Station and H Station.

"A Station had three boiler houses and all the boilers and
pipework were covered in asbestos lagging.

"When it was disturbed, asbestos dust became airborne and it was
on the floor everywhere.

"H Station had four boilers and three turbines. I used asbestos
string on a regular basis. This was part of my tool box and I
would carry it around with me.

"Laggers would carry out their jobs around me and I would be
exposed to asbestos.

"The asbestos dust hanged thick in the air and I would inhale
this."

A pathologist's report found Mr Wedd died from sarcomatoid
mesothelioma. Sarcomatoid cells are the least common of the
mesothelioma cell types and are the most resistant to cancer
therapies.

Assistant coroner Paul McCandless concluded Mr Wedd died from an
industrial disease.

He said: "During 1965 and 1982, while working at the then Spondon
Power Station, Mr Wedd has a very real recollection of being
exposed to asbestos when other trades were working with asbestos
and he was in close proximity

"He used asbestos string in his own work and was often in close
proximity to other trades working with asbestos. I am satisfied
that it is more likely than not that death here was due to
industrial disease of sarcomatoid mesothelioma."

Mr Wedd's family, who did not attend Derby Coroner's Court, are
seeking compensation over his death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Cleanup in Ambler Nears Completion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica McDonald, writing for News Works, reported that although
the asbestos factories closed decades ago, the suburban town of
Ambler, Pennsylvania, is still home to lots of toxic waste.

After years of work, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
now nearing its completion of the first phase of cleanup for its
remaining Superfund site, known as BoRit. But for some in the
Montgomery County community, questions linger about whether the
fix is sufficient.

A green solution

Some 20 miles north of Center City, Philadelphia, the BoRit site
no longer looks like the dump it once was. In some corners, it
even seems bucolic.

"We've tried to do a green solution here, and as you can see
vegetation is taking very well, there's a mixture of wildflowers
and many different things," says Eduardo Rovira, the EPA's on-
scene coordinator at the site.

When Rovira arrived here six years ago, asbestos waste was just
under the surface. Crumbling remnants of asbestos tiles and
shingles dotted nearby creek beds and the banks of a reservoir.
And not far from a McDonald's sat a 2-acre, 25-foot-high pile of
waste.

"The consistency of the pile was like a cream cheese, toothpaste
consistency," recalls Rovira.

That pile has been transformed into a grassy hill. Workers layered
2 feet of soil over special materials to make sure the asbestos
waste cannot get out. The creek beds were also widened and lined
with rocks to curb flooding and erosion.

The grasses and wildflowers have a special purpose here, too.

"The root system of the vegetation helps keep everything kind of
locked," explains Rovira.

The primary task remaining is draining the reservoir. As of this
summer, Rovira says they've pumped out more than 28 million
gallons of water, filtering each drop for asbestos before
releasing it into the bordering Wissahickon Creek. When they're
finished, they plan to fill it back up and return this land to the
Ambler community.

An industrious Philadelphia pharmacist

The tale of how Ambler ended up with more than 1.5 million cubic
yards of asbestos waste begins with a pharmacist from Philadelphia
named Dr. Richard Mattison.

In the late 1800s, he formed a company with businessman Henry
Keasbey and moved to Ambler. In his experiments, he had learned
asbestos, which is a naturally occurring mineral, was a great
insulator and hardy construction material.

Keasbey & Mattison soon set up factories and made Ambler a company
town that thrived on asbestos manufacturing. Over the next half
century, asbestos was added not only to building materials such as
shingles, siding, and floor tiles, but also automobile brakes,
electrical cords, and cement pipes.

The material was even spun into yarn and made into fabrics used as
fire-resistant curtains for opera houses, and improbably,
underwear.

The 'White Mountains' of Ambler

Business boomed, and Ambler flourished. But with more and more
production, the waste piles grew.

"We used to come down here and ride the 'White Mountains,' slide
on cardboard boxes, and stuff like that, not knowing it was
dangerous," says Flo Wise. She was just 7 years old when she
coasted down the waste piles and romped on a nearby playground.

By the 1970s, it had become undeniable that the magically strong,
fire-resistant mineral was also a health hazard. When breathed in,
asbestos fibers can lodge in the lungs, leading to the potentially
fatal disease asbestosis. Exposure can also increase the risk of
lung cancer and a rare cancer of the chest cavity called
mesothelioma.

"We do know there's more mesothelioma in the Ambler ZIP code than
there is compared to what we'd expect looking at statewide rates,"
says Lora Siegmann Werner of the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry.

Between 1992 and 2008, the cancer registry logged 28 cases in the
Ambler ZIP code -- more than three times the expected number.
Because of the long latency of the disease, even though Ambler has
long ceased asbestos manufacturing, historical exposure still
concerns health officials today.

"We're going to keep on seeing more of these cases," says Siegmann
Werner.

Cleaning up

In the 1980s, the EPA stepped in to clean up the worst of the
waste piles. By 1996, those areas were deleted from the Superfund
priority list. But that didn't mean the waste was gone.

Sharon McCormick, an Ambler Borough council member, can easily
point to bits of asbestos waste in a ditch just off a road near
the first waste pile the EPA covered more than 20 years ago.
Apartments and houses are nearby.

"You can take a walk up here and you can see it -- being pulled
out in spots -- because this is a dump," she says. "People live
here, every day."

McCormick has been researching asbestos in Ambler for a decade,
and she helped found two area groups, Citizens for a Better Ambler
and the BoRit site's Community Advisory Group (CAG), to deal with
asbestos issues.

Instead of doing more covering, she says, the EPA should remove
the asbestos. But she knows her wish is a long shot.

Ruth Wuenschel, the EPA's community involvement coordinator for
the BoRit site, says the Army Corps of Engineers estimated it
would take about 12 years of constant trucking to do so.

"If you're digging up soil and moving it that much, ultimately
that would create more of a hazard than covering it because it has
the potential to become airborne," she says. "So, really, covering
it is a better option."

Future reuse

Some talk of turning the BoRit site, which sits partially in the
neighboring townships of Whitpain and Upper Dublin, back into a
park once the EPA finishes with it.

Ruthie Weeks remembers the swing sets and ball fields at the
Whitpain Park that used to be a centerpiece of life in her
community. It was part of their identity.

"What we did have in a blurp of a piece of time, it's gone," she
says. With careful monitoring, she's in favor of a park returning.

McCormick agrees the community needs play spaces, but doesn't
think it should be on top of asbestos.

"You can make it look pretty, but at the end of the day, it's
toxic waste," she says.

Diane Morgan, another member of the CAG, is also concerned about
safety.

"You can't guarantee the fact that the animals aren't going to
burrow up," she says. "I think it's an absolutely terrible idea."

One hope is that research can provide more clarity. The University
of Pennsylvania recently received a $10 million grant to
investigate six asbestos-related research questions relevant to
the people of Ambler and the surrounding communities. They include
identifying susceptibility genes, developing a blood test that
could detect early-stage disease, and using a fungus that could
break down asbestos fibers into a non-toxic form.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court Won't Mull New Trial Order
------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that the U.S. Supreme
Court declined to hear a suit brought by the estate of a deceased
paper mill worker who had won a $9.4 million judgment in an
asbestos case before the Ninth Circuit ordered a new trial because
of a lower court's potential error involving expert testimony.

The high court denied a petition for certiorari by the family of
Henry Barabin, who had asked the court to consider whether a
federal appeals court could order a new trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kenyan Locals Warn of Fibro Roof Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Elias Yaa, writing for The Star, reported that Kenyan residents
have called on the Kilifi government to renovate Bamba Subcounty
Hospital and replace its asbestos roofing.

The residents said the roof is harmful to the health of patients,
who sometimes drink rain water harvested from it.

Speaking during the burial of Charo Karisa, who died after a long
battle with cancer, the residents expressed fears that the
asbestos has exposed them to cancer.

Charo lived a few kilometres from the hospital for 50 years.

According to Michael Kazungu, a resident, promises by former
political leaders from the area to replace the roof have not been
fulfilled.

"All over the world people are doing away with this kind of
roofing. We want the county government to remove this roofing and
save us from cancer," said Kazungu.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consultation Over Payout Curbs Illegal
-------------------------------------------------------
Owen Bowcott, writing for The Guardian, reported that the Ministry
of Justice in the United Kingdom may have to rerun a public
consultation about reducing compensation payments for cancer
patients after a judge ruled that the previous procedure was
illegal.

The high court decision is the second judicial review defeat in
the space of a few weeks for the MoJ's legal reforms. The long-
running dispute exposed the existence of a secret understanding
between the government and the insurance industry.

The case revolves around restrictions that the MoJ tried to
impose, under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders
(Laspo) Act 2012, on claimants diagnosed with the asbestos-related
condition mesothelioma.  The act prevents the recovery of success
fees and insurance premiums from losing defendants, who in
mesothelioma cases are often insurance companies. The aim of the
legislation was to tackle excessive legal costs.

There was supposed to be a public consultation assessing the
impact on mesothelioma patients before the provision was extended
to cover their specific cases. Around 2,500 people a year in the
UK are diagnosed with the malignant condition.  The judicial
review challenge was brought by Tony Whitston, of the Asbestos
Victims Support Groups Forum UK, who alleged that mesothelioma
sufferers would have to pay up to 25% of their damages for costs
previously paid for by insurers.

Mr Justice William Davis declared that the exercise carried out by
the MoJ last year was inadequate. "The issue is whether [the
justice secretary, Chris Grayling] conducted a proper review of
the likely effect of the Laspo reforms on mesothelioma claims.

"I conclude that he did not. No reasonable lord chancellor faced
with the duty imposed on him by . . . the act would have
considered that the exercise in fact carried out fulfilled that
duty," the judge said.

It is the second time in a few weeks that a court has ruled that a
consultation carried out by the MoJ was so flawed as to be
unlawful. In September, MoJ plans to cut criminal legal aid by
GBP220m were thrown into confusion after the high court ruled that
the MoJ consultation process was so unfair that it was illegal.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) intervened in the court
action in support of the government. This summer the Commons
justice select committee criticised the consultation process. MPs
on the committee also expressed concern about a secret heads of
agreement document, dated 2012, between the government and the ABI
which was not been previously disclosed.

In a scathing conclusion, the committee said: "We are concerned
that the government has not been transparent or open, either with
us or with other interested parties, about the fact that its
overall policy in relation to mesothelioma has been shaped in
accordance with an 'agreement', however informal and elastic,
which it had reached with employers' liability insurers.

"It is hard to see how a balanced and informed public debate can
take place when a prior agreement has been reached between two of
the principal parties to that debate, and that agreement is not
known to others participating in the debate, including victims."

Richard Stein, of the law firm Leigh Day, which brought the
judicial review against the MoJ, said: "This government is
seemingly intent on doing what it is told by the insurance
industry against the best interests of those suffering from the
negligent behaviour of the insured.

"[This] judgment should send a clear message to the government
that it has to conform with the laws of the land and cannot ride
roughshod over the interests of mesothelioma sufferers and their
families to benefit the insurance industry."

Whitston, of the support groups forum, said: "The old plans were
rooted in a culture of secret deals with insurers and flawed
consultations, which excluded the victims of asbestos. Now is the
time for a change."

Nicola Hill, president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors'
Association, which got the MoJ consultation in September
overturned, said: "Yet again Chris Grayling breaks the rules. Yet
again he's ticked off by one of the country's highest courts. In
short he's been held to account by a process, judicial review,
which he's seeking to restrict.

"We have every sympathy for the asbestos cancer victims who have
already suffered enough without these broken promises. It is
depressing to see the MoJ trying to worm their way out of the high
court's findings, in much the same way they did over the ruling in
our judicial review." The MoJ on that occasion said the judgment
against it "has raised some technical issues about the
consultation process".

James Dalton, of the Association of British Insurers, said: "[We
are] frustrated by this development which delays long overdue
reform of the legal system for mesothelioma sufferers. As a
result, the legal costs of mesothelioma claims in England and
Wales remain disproportionately high and claimant lawyers need to
answer why they do not support lowering these costs and getting
more compensation to mesothelioma sufferers.

"Insurers remain committed to compensating mesothelioma sufferers
as quickly as possible, and the government now needs to review
without delay the application of the Laspo reforms to mesothelioma
claims."

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "Mesothelioma is an awful
condition which can destroy lives in a frighteningly short amount
of time and we want to help sufferers and their families. We are
committed to finding the best way to get claims settled fairly and
quickly.

"It remains our view that the Ministry of Justice review of this
issue was conducted fully and openly and we are disappointed with
this judgment. We will now consider our next steps."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bay Path Closed Due to Fibro Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
Debbie LaPlaca, writing for Telegram.com, reported that an early-
morning automated phone message alerted students of Bay Path
Regional Vocational Technical High School, in Massachusetts, the
building was closed and classes canceled because of a late-night
discovery of asbestos.

The message recorded by Superintendent-Director John A. Lafleche
said school construction crews discovered previously unidentified
asbestos in a classroom.

In an interview, Mr. Lafleche said crews were removing duct work
from a second floor classroom undergoing renovation. The asbestos
was discovered under fiberglass insulation when the duct work was
moved to the trash outdoors.

"We put the area under containment and as well the path taken to
the trash," he said.

Mr. Lafleche had just finished a school committee meeting on the
first floor and was in the building when the discovery was made.

The first recorded message, advising a two-hour delayed opening,
was sent to 1,900 phone numbers shortly after.  At 5 a.m. the
decision was made to close school for the day and the second
recorded message went out.  Mr. Lafleche said the decision to
cancel school for one day was made with an abundance of caution
for the well-being of students, staff and the public.

Crews licensed to handle asbestos worked until the early morning
to sanitize the area as a precaution, Mr. Lafleche said.   Air
samples taken during throughout the night were tested at a lab in
Woburn. Test results received reported the school was safe to
occupy.

"There is no evidence of any airborne asbestos in the affected
area," Mr. Lafleche said.

State inspectors went to the school and cleared the process used
to remove and sanitize the area.

Bay Path will open and operate on schedule.

The school gym was to be opened for the presentation by
bestselling author Capt. Luis Montalvan and his service dog named
Tuesday. The 7 p.m. event is free and open to the public.

Bay Path serves students from Auburn, Charlton, Dudley, North
Brookfield, Oxford, Paxton, Rutland, Southbridge, Spencer and
Webster.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Found During Conn. School Renovation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Hoffman, writing for The Hartford Courant, reported
that asbestos removal costs for the high school renovation project
in Wethersfield, Connecticut, continue to climb, as workers keep
discovering more of the hazardous material in the building.

The town council approved an additional $380,000 for monitoring
and removal after asbestos was unexpectedly found beneath a four-
inch concrete floor, above ceiling tiles and behind walls. Town
manager Jeff Bridges predicted more asbestos would turn up and
costs would continue to rise.

"I would anticipate additional requests for abatement," Bridges
said.

The project's $85 million budget still contains about $2.8 million
for contingency, which should be enough to cover additional clean
up costs, building committee chairwoman Christine Fortunato said.
The asbestos poses no danger to students and staff, who continue
to use the building as it's renovated, she said.

Fortunato emphasized that the project remains on budget and on
time.

"That's what contingency is for," she said of the unexpected
asbestos removal costs. "We knew that asbestos is a concern. We
have the funding, and we're doing our due diligence to find and
address it."

Unexpected amounts of hazardous materials have plagued the project
almost from the start. Town officials were forced to secure an
additional $10 million in state funding earlier this year in large
part to cover the cost of removing unanticipated PCBs.

The town has spent about $3.5 million on clean up of asbestos and
PCBs so far, much more than planned, Fortunato said.

The ongoing discoveries are the result of poor recordkeeping
during prior renovations of the building, which dates to the
1950s, officials said. In the 1992 renovation, much asbestos was
encapsulated instead of removed and is now being discovered,
Fortunato said.

"I think we're surprised by the amount that we're finding in the
building given that there was work done," she said.

Mayor Paul Montinieri and other council members expressed
frustration over the continuing asbestos discoveries and
increasing cost.

"At what point will we be able to say that we've visited all the
dark places of this building and there are no more unforeseen
costs?" Montinieri said.

Project Manager Gus Kotait of O&G Industries, the project's
general contractor, responded that workers are doing work in
phases, meaning unexpected asbestos could be found as late as the
summer of 2016, near the project's conclusion.

The council approved an additional $337,735 for Fuss & O'Neill to
cover extra testing and monitoring. That is more than twice the
company's original $254,015 contract.

Fuss & Neill Project Manager Carlos Texidor told the council the
appropriation would cover the rest of the project, scheduled for
completion in September 2016.

Councilmen also agreed to pay hazardous material removal
contractor Southern Middlesex Industries $42,387 more to dispose
of the latest unanticipated asbestos.

Asbestos is a highly effective fire retardant that was widely used
in construction until the early 1970s. Asbestos was banned after
it was learned that the material causes lung cancer if it becomes
airborne and is inhaled.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Councils Urge Fibro Checks on Homes
--------------------------------------------------------
Antony Dubber, writing for Goulburn Post, reported that property
owners across the Goulburn Mulwaree region, in New South Wales,
Australia, are being urged to get their homes checked to find out
if they contain the deadly 'Mr Fluffy' loose-fill asbestos
insulation material.

Both Goulburn Mulwaree Council general manager Warwick Bennett and
Upper Lachlan Shire acting general manager Andrew Croke told the
Post that they were unaware of any homes in Goulburn, Gunning and
Crookwell containing the material.

Authorities were notified in August that 11 properties in the
Queanbeyan area, one in Yass and one in the Palerang area all
contained the Mr Fluffy insulation.

Detailed testing has already started in these homes, including
asking householders to wear monitors to test the air they are
breathing as they go about their day-to-day business.

Mr Bennett and Mr Croke are recommending any residents concerned
to utilise a free inspection service put in place by the NSW
Government and Workcover NSW, known as the Heads of Asbestos
Coordination Authority (HACA).

"We are referring any residents concerned to talk to the people
from the Heads of Asbestos Coordination Authorities and Work Cover
NSW, to ensure that they are getting the appropriate testing done
in their homes," Mr Croke said.

A spokesperson from the Heads of Asbestos Coordination Authorities
(HACA) told the Post that as of September 29, there had been eight
registrations for the sampling and inspection service through
Goulburn Mulwaree Council.

"Licensed Asbestos Assessors will commence the collection of
ceiling insulation samples across the State in the next two
weeks," the spokesperson said.

The NSW government is offering the free service to owners of all
homes built before 1980 that contain loose-fill asbestos
insulation in 14 other local government areas across the State.

Loose-fill asbestos was sold as the main form of ceiling
insulation throughout the 1960s and 70s for residential and
commercial premises mainly by the one company trading as 'Mr
Fluffy' in the ACT.

A small number of properties in south east NSW have also recently
been identified as containing the same material.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Responsible for Fibro Shortfall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ean Higgins, writing for The Australian, reported that New South
Wales Treasurer Andrew Constance has launched a campaign to
pressure James Hardie Industries to meet an expected shortfall in
compensation for its asbestos victims, saying he will not agree to
commit taxpayers' dollars to a bailout.

Signalling the start of what looms as another major battle over
Hardie's asbestos liabilities, the company indicated it would
reject Mr Constance's call, saying it would stick to the terms of
a funding agreement but not put in more. Mr Constance's office
told The Australian that the government was not inclined to meet
calls from the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund for the state
and federal governments to increase their loan facility to the
AICF by more than $100 million to fill the forecast gap.

He also indicated the government was inclined to use its veto to
block a bid by the AICF to pay victims in instalments rather than
lump sums.

The developments follow assessments, first revealed in The
Australian, that a spike in claims from sufferers of the severe
asbestos cancer mesothelioma means the AICF is unlikely to be able
to meet all future claims.  While, under an agreement struck in
2005, Hardie pays 35 per cent of its free cashflow into the AICF
each year, this is running below the rate of claims: the fund has
paid compensation to date of about $800m compared with inflow from
the global building products company of $720m.

In a press release, the AICF said that given the expected
shortfall in coming years, it would apply to the NSW Supreme Court
to be allowed to pay asbestos disease claims in instalments.  The
AICF said it could avoid going down that route if the state
government agreed to waive restrictions and allowed it to borrow
$320m under the loan facility agreement, compared with the $214m
to which it was now limited.

But a spokesman for Mr Constance said: "Payments due under the
scheme are not legally or morally the responsibility of the NSW
government. Any support the NSW government has made to date, or
makes in the future, are payments by other NSW taxpayers to cover
the liabilities of James Hardie.

"Consequently, the NSW government does not see it as a merely
procedural action to provide further loans to the AICF."

The spokesman said the government believed Hardie had a moral
responsibility to make up any shortfall. "The NSW government has
met with James Hardie on several occasions and has written to them
to seek further support for the AICF," he said. "The US housing
market, where James Hardie makes the bulk of its profits, has now
recovered."

Mr Constance's spokesman said in principle the government "does
not support payments from the AICF being made by instalment".

A spokeswoman for Hardie said: "James Hardie considers the payment
obligations set out in the funding agreement present the best
chance of ensuring that the company continues to prosper over the
long term and thereby remains capable of paying all future
claimants as well as current claimants."

The AICF declined to comment.


                              *********

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 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *