/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141031.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 31, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 217 Headlines ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Sprouted Flax Seed Powder AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Chippy Corn Chips AIRCOM MANAGEMENT: Removes "Porco" Suit to Florida District Court ALADDIN USA: Faces "Espana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMERIPLAN CORP: Sales Directors May Pursue Class Action AMICA MUTUAL: Removes "Christian" Suit to Florida District Court ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Single-Rider and 2UP ATVs Due To Crash Hazard AU OPTRONICS: LCD Settlement Checks to Be Delivered This Week AVNET INC: Received $3 Million From LCD Class Action Settlement BARRETT'S UNION: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BAVARIAN LINK: Recalls Cooked Roast Beef due to Listeria BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Coulter HMX Hematology Analyzers BED BATH: Faces Class Suit in New Jersey Alleging Discrimination BLUESY'S HAPPY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Garcia, Artigliere & Medby Files Class Action BROOKS HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages CALVIN KLEIN: Sued in New York for Misclassifying Interns CANE CREEK: Recalls Bicycle Shocks Due to Risk of Injury CAREFIRST: 3rd Circuit to Address Catalyst Theory in ERISA Case CASTLE GROUP: Discriminated Against Latina Worker, Suit Claims CHEMICAL STRATEGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CINNABAR SERVICE: Oklahoma High Court Upholds Picher Ruling COACH INC: Bid to Dismiss "Pattie" Fraud Class Action Denied COOLTRADE INC: Faces "Ehlinger" Suit Over Violation of TCPA CORELOGIC INC: $9.9 Million Accord Reached in RESPA Class Action CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CVS PHARMACY: Can Move Wage-and-Hour Class Action to Federal Court DAKOTA GROWERS: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Approval DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY: Sued in California Over Violation of ERISA DIALYSIS CENTER: Seeks Dismissal of Product Liability Claims DOUBLE D CONTRACTORS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Petition for Writ of Mandate Granted in Part EASTMAN OUTDOORS: Archer Can Pursue Defective-Manufacturing Claim EASTSIDE PIZZA: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime EDF ENERGY: Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Sizewell C Project EDGER ASSOCIATES: Suit Seeks to recover Unpaid Wages and Damages EDWARD L. MARRA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Fritts" Suit Says ELECTRIC-ROOTERMAN: "Hankins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ELNA CO: Faces Quathimatine Suit Over Capacitor-Price Fixing ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: NRMA, CGU Take Policyholders Out of Class Suit ERICK FLOWBACK: May Not Provide List of Potential Class Members FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued in D. Minnesota Over Forgery of Documents FUJI HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GREAT LAKES HIGHER: Has Invaded Customers' Privacy, Suit Says GREENSTAR AGRICULTURAL: Faces Securities Class Action GULFVIEW II OWNERS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Fla. HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Reached Agreement to Settle Macondo Claims HALLIBURTON COMPANY: December 2014 Hearing in Securities Case HAMTRAMCK CITY, MI: Discriminates Against Workers, Class Claims HCA INC: Jacksonville Memorial Hospital Sued Over Exorbitant Fees HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Inkjet Printer Litigation Deal Gets Final OK HOME DEPOT: Faces Profinium Suit Over Alleged Data Breach HOME DEPOT: Faces Hudson City Savings Bank Suit Over Data Breach HOME NURSERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages HUB GROUP: "Lubinski" Suit Transferred From Illinois to Tennessee HYUNDAI MOTOR: Production Worker Files Overtime Class Action I.C. SYSTEM: Court Narrows Claims in "Abramov" FDCPA Class Action INDIGO BOOKS: Recalls Magnetics Spheres and Magnetics 4 x 4 INTEGRATED PRODUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Dull" Suit Claims INTREPID USA: Faces "Paine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime IOD INCORPORATED: Sued Over Overcharged Medical Records Request IRAN: Faces Suit Over 1983 U.S Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut J R STONE: Faces "Lorenzo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages KPMG US: 200 Female Employees Join Gender Bias Class Action LEAR CORPORATION: Settlement Remains Subject to Final Approval LEAR CORPORATION: Dismissed From Public Entities' Class Action LEAR CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuits in Canada MASSEY-YARDLEY INC: Faces "Alson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MEIJER: Recalls Halloween Projector Flashlight Due to Burn Hazard MIA HOSPITALITY: "Suarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MIDLAND FUNDING: Obtains Final Approval of "Vassalle" Suit Deal MIDWEST POULTRY: May 6, 2015 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MISSOURI: Court Approves Deal in Suit vs. Corrections Dept MUTUAL PHARMA: Georgia Plaintiffs Can't Sue Over Design Defects NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Lawyers Seek $50 Million in Fees NEENAH, WI: Teachers' Retirement Benefits Class Action Reinstated NEW YORK CITY, NY: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Forced Resignation ORBITAL SCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over ATK Merger PAN ASIA: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products Due to Undeclared Mustard PENFORD CORPORATION: Sued in Colo. Over Illegal Sale of Company PHILIPS ORAL: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Coe" Class Action PRICELINE GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Resort Fees QUALITY OFFICE: "Infante" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages RALLYE MOTORS: Faces "Siancas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RENT-A-CENTER INC: To Get $7.1MM From LCD Class Action Settlement RJ REYNOLDS: Motions Pending for New Trial in Wilcox Tobacco Suit SERVICE EMPLOYEES: LA Unified School District Workers File Suit SMUCKER NATURAL: Falsely Marketed Root Beer Products, Suit Claims SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Suit Removed to C.D. California SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Removes "Peck" Suit to C.D. California TAKEDA PHARMA: Discovery of E-mails Whitewash, Plaintiffs Say TAKEDA PHARMA: Judge Cuts Actos Punitive Damages Verdict TARANTINO PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Mathis" Suit Claims TEACHERS INSURANCE: Two Plaintiffs Added in "Dunn" FLSA Case TEMPUR SEALY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Moved to Feb. 2015 TRUASSETS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims TRUSCAPES INDUSTRIES: Failure to Pay OT Hours, "Raymer" Suit Says UNITED STATES: Motion to File Counterclaims v. Border Agents Nixed UNITED STATES: Aponte Case Plaintiffs May Amend Notice of Appeal US BANCORP: Court Upholds Denial of Discovery Bid US PARKING: Faces "Amorin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Obagi Class Action in Delaware Dismissed VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Solta Class Action Settlement Approved VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Responses Due Nov. 24 in Solodyn Case VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against Afexa Class Action VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: MoistureLoc(TM) Appeal Fully Briefed VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Allergan Seeks Preliminary Injunction VALOR HOMES: Faces "Sanders" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime VARIABLE ANNUITY: Class Certification Hearing Set for January VENTAS INC: Faces 13 Putative Class Actions Over HCT Acquisition VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves $15MM Class Action Settlement VERIZON COMMS: 5th Cir. Upholds Judgment in "Murphy" Suit WATERWAY PLASTICS: Recalls Spa Drain Suction Covers WHITEHA VEN: Court Orders "Chestnut" Case Parties to Arbitrate ZIMMER SURGICAL: Recalls Power System Handpiece (2014-10-21) * Gov Christie Calls on President Obama to Help Enact Tort Reform Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reichhold Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Stays Fibro Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Has $1MM Fibro-related Litigation Expense ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Has 8,100 Claimants at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 3,200 Fibro Claims at Sept. 27 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Had $250.5MM Fibro Liability at Sept. 27 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Suits v. Travelers Companies Are Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Companies Has $2.45B Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Continue to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $9-Mil. Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had $352.9-Mil. Fibro Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bartel" Suit Recommended for Remand ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit Recommended for Remand to State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Drumgo" Suit Junked for Failure to State Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Grants 32 Motions to Junk MARDOC Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Izell" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Superior Court Affirms "Krauss" Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand "Laurent" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leave to Appeal in "Suttnet" Suit Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Palazzo" Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Oneal" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Podedworny" Suit Denied ********* ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Sprouted Flax Seed Powder --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 21, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Advantage Health Matters Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9357 Advantage Health Matters is recalling Organic Traditions brand Sprouted Flax Seed Powder from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers 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. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. 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. AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Chippy Corn Chips ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 21, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: AFOD Ltd., APO Products Ltd., Corinthian Distributors Ltd., UNO Foods Ltd., Wilby Commercial Limited Distribution: Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Possibly National, Prince Edward Island, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9278 Industry is recalling Chippy brand and Jack 'N Jill Chippy brand Barbecue Flavored Corn Chips from the marketplace because they contain wheat which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to wheat or sensitivity to gluten should not consume the recalled products described. 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 wheat or sensitivity to gluten, 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 product from the marketplace. Affected products: 110 g. Chippy Barbecue Flavored Corn Chips with all codes where wheat is not declared on the label AIRCOM MANAGEMENT: Removes "Porco" Suit to Florida District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled Porco v. Aircom Management Corp., Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-14-018132-02, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-62441-BB to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Gary Andrew Costales, Esq. 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1230 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-9510 Facsimile: (305) 375-9511 E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com ALADDIN USA: Faces "Espana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Jhenry Gonzalez Espana, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees v. Aladdin USA Inc., and Abdul M. Chowdhury, Case No. 1:14-cv-06161 (E.D.N.Y., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and kitchen facility located at 24-10 34th Ave., Long Island City, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Garbarini, Esq. GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C. 420 Lexington Ave, Suite 2743 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 300-5358 Facsimile: (888) 265-7054 E-mail: rgarbarini@garbarinilaw.com AMERIPLAN CORP: Sales Directors May Pursue Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Nagele, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that three former medical plan sales directors may pursue their putative class action claim that AmeriPlan Corp. violated a contractual obligation to pay them "lifetime residual income" on commissions generated by salespeople they recruited, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Oct. 16. Reversing in part the district court's order compelling arbitration, the Fifth Circuit found that a mandatory arbitration provision AmeriPlan added to its policy manual in 2010 couldn't be harmonized with dispute resolution procedures contained in the plaintiffs' original "sales director agreements." The court rejected AmeriPlan's argument that the original provisions applied to "a limited scope of claims not governed by arbitration." This argument is "at odds with the contracts' broad language" that requires "any claim, controversy or dispute" to be submitted to mediation and then, if unresolved, to be adjudicated in court, the court said. The Fifth Circuit found that a mandatory arbitration provision AmeriPlan added to its policy manual in 2010 couldn't be harmonized with dispute resolution procedures contained in the plaintiffs' original "sales director agreements." Because the claim involved the validity of an arbitration provision, the court applied state contract law. "Only at the second step of the analysis -- determining the scope of the arbitration agreement -- do courts apply the federal policy favoring arbitration and resolve ambiguities in favor of arbitration," Judge Gregg J. Costa wrote for the court. Judges W. Eugene Davis and Jennifer W. Elrod joined the opinion. Cessation of Payments Prompts Lawsuit According to the court, Robert J. Sharpe, William C. Moen and Gary Downard were "independent business owners" who sold health-care plans through AmeriPlan's network. Each of them reached the "sales director level," which permitted them to collect "lifetime residual income" through the commissions generated by salespeople they recruited, the court said. The sales directors claimed that when AmeriPlan terminated their contracts in February 2011, along with approximately 800 other sales professionals, it stopped providing commission payments. The plaintiffs filed a breach of contract case in federal court in California. Relying on a venue provision in its sales director agreements, the company successfully transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. After the sales directors sought class certification, AmeriPlan filed a motion to compel arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause that was added to the policy manual in 2010. Terms of Documents Can't Be Harmonized The plaintiffs argued that the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it couldn't be harmonized with the provisions in the sales director agreements they signed. The court agreed. Although amended contract provisions would ordinarily supersede any prior conflicting provisions, the court said, there are two reasons why that rule doesn't apply here. First, their agreements only permitted changes "by written amendment duly executed by all parties," the court said. Thus, even though the policy manual that contained the arbitration clause could be amended solely by AmeriPlan, those amendments can't override the sales director agreements, it held. Second, the company is estopped from arguing that the initial provisions are no longer in effect, the court said, because it relied on the venue clause in the sales director agreements to transfer the case to Texas. According to the court, the agreements contained a detailed, two-step dispute resolution process listing categories of claims that could be adjudicated in court immediately and additional categories that required nonbinding mediation before going to court. The arbitration clause included very similar categories, it said. "Those expansive dispute resolution provisions cannot be harmonized with the similarly expansive arbitration provision without rendering the dispute resolution provisions meaningless," the court held. One additional plaintiff, Cindy Guarisco, had an agreement that included different language, the court said. Her agreement stated, "Any action brought on matters relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas." This is not incompatible with the arbitration clause because lawsuits often precede or follow arbitration, the Fifth Circuit held, affirming the district court's order compelling arbitration for Ms. Guarisco. Christman Kelley & Clarke PC represented the sales directors. Cowles & Thompson represented AmeriPlan. AMICA MUTUAL: Removes "Christian" Suit to Florida District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Christian v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 14-CA-002571, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for Lee County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00620-SPC-CM to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from insurance-related disputes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus W. Viles, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC 6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 334-3933 Facsimile: (239) 334-7105 E-mail: marcus@vilesandbeckman.com The Defendant is represented by: Kevin J. Fitzsimmons, Esq. Stephen A. Spaid, Esq. MANDELBAUM, FITZSIMMONS, HEWITT & CAIN, PA 100 S. Ashley Dr., Suite 1100 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 221-0200 Facsimile: (813) 221-8558 E-mail: kjf@manfitzlaw.com sas@manfitzlaw.com ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Single-Rider and 2UP ATVs Due To Crash Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Arctic Cat Inc., of Thief River Falls, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 40,000 All-Terrain Vehicles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Components in the front gear case can fail, posing a risk of loss of control and crash hazard. Arctic Cat has received 44 reports of components in the front gear case failing, including 10 reports of the vehicle stopping abruptly or the operator losing of control of the ATV. Arctic Cat has received four reports of injury, including one incident involving a consumer sustaining broken ribs and injuries to a knee and a back. The recall involves model year 2008 and 2009 Arctic Cat single- rider and 2 UP style ATVs. Single-rider ATVs have one seat and one set of footrests for the operator. 2 UP ATVs have an elongated seat designed to hold one passenger behind the operator, a set of hand-holds mounted to the rear frame for the passenger and two sets of footrests. The recalled ATVs came in a variety of colors and have the name Arctic Cat on each side of the fuel tank and on the front above the grill opening. All model year 2008 Arctic Cat ATVs with 400 cubic centimeter (cc) and larger engines are being recalled. Model year 2009 Arctic Cat ATVs with 400 cubic centimeter (cc) and larger engines and with production numbers within the following ranges are being recalled: 200001 through 203861, 808001 through 808137, and X25082 through X30243. The engine size is printed on the back of the instrument cluster between the handle bars. The vehicle identification number (VIN) in the format 4UF09******XXXXXX is on the frame tube near the driver's side rear wheel and contains the model year and production number of the vehicle. The model year is the fourth and fifth characters of the VIN in the YY format. The production number is the last six characters of the VIN. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/yi7iZd The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Arctic Cat dealers nationwide from May 2007 to Oct. 2014 for between $5,500 and $12,000. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ATVs and contact an Arctic Cat dealer to schedule a free repair. AU OPTRONICS: LCD Settlement Checks to Be Delivered This Week ------------------------------------------------------------- John Ewoldt, writing for Star Tribune, reports that the prolonged class-action suit is reaching its final stage: delivering the money. After a two-year wait, checks will finally be in the mail this week for claimants of the LCD class-action lawsuit. For the past seven years, more than 100 law firms around the country have worked to punish manufacturers of liquid crystal displays, the most common type of flat panel for computers and TVs, that were found to have illegally fixed prices between 1999 and 2006. The nine makers of LCD panels were ordered to repay $1.1 billion to consumers and small businesses, the largest antitrust settlement of its kind. Nationwide, more than 233,000 checks will be mailed to consumers and businesses in 24 states. Claimants will get $43.49 per monitor or laptop and $86.98 per TV. The checks add up to about $707.4 million after attorney's fees, attorney general redress programs and costs, said Robin Niemiec, client services director at Rust Consulting in Minneapolis, which distributes the checks. In Minnesota, more than 29,000 consumers and small businesses will be splitting $17 million on more than 471,500 panels claimed. More people from Minnesota applied for the money than from any other state except California. Consumers had until Dec. 6, 2013, to file their claim on the number of LCD TVs, laptops and monitors purchased during the seven-year period. The LCD class action is unique for several reasons. It is twice as large as the next-largest settlement, according to attorney Joe Alioto, who helped lead the case against the manufacturers in San Francisco. But it was also one of the most consumer-friendly settlements. Most class actions require consumers to produce proof-of-purchase receipts or documents, model numbers and serial numbers. For their effort, they're usually rewarded with a discount in a future purchase. Dan Shulman -- daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com -- an attorney at the Minneapolis law firm Gray Plant Mooty, said that this class action had a lot going for it besides a big payoff. "The evidence against the manufacturers was amazing," he said. "These guys met monthly for six years to decide on prices and three of the companies kept minutes on everything. They had nowhere to go." Mr. Shulman described the seven-year battle as prolonged. He made nearly a dozen trips to Asia and his firm put in $3.5 million of their time and nearly $1 million in out-of-pocket costs. The law firms will get about $300 million of the settlement, including about $14 million to Gray Plant Mooty and $15 million to Minneapolis firm Gustafson Gluek. Companies named in the suit include Hitachi, Sharp, Toshiba, Samsung, LG, AU Optronics, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, HannStar Display Corp., and Chi Mei Optoelectronics. Gloria Ross of Minneapolis, who sent in her claim nearly two years ago, said she's thrilled that she's finally getting her check, but has no idea how much she's getting. "It's been so long I can't remember how many panels I claimed," she said, laughing. Minnesotans shouldn't have to wait long after Oct. 28 to get their checks, Mr. Niemiec said. They're being mailed from Eden Prairie. Claimants who don't receive a check can go to www.lcdclass.com to check on a claim. AVNET INC: Received $3 Million From LCD Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Avnet Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the Company filed a proof of claim in the settlement of a class action proceeding that sought damages from certain manufacturers of LCD flat panel displays. A settlement was reached in the proceedings and in the first quarter of fiscal 2014 the federal district judge overseeing the proceeding issued an order approving the distribution of settlement funds to the class claimants and the Company received an award payment of $19.1 million. In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the federal district judge overseeing the proceedings issued an order approving a final distribution of funds and the Company received a final award payment of $3.0 million. BARRETT'S UNION: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Jose Acosta-Valle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barrett's Union Motor Company, Inc., Union Motor Company, Inc., and Elwaine Barrett, Jr., Individually and d/b/a Better Auto Co., Case No. 4:14-cv-03016 (S.D. Tex., October 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours workweek. The Defendants own and operate a used car dealership located in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq. Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES 440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675 Houston, TX 77002-1637 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net melissa@mooreandassociates.net BAVARIAN LINK: Recalls Cooked Roast Beef due to Listeria -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 18, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Bavarian Link Meat Products Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 9343 Affected products: 5 lb. Bavarian Link Meat Products Ltd. Cooked Roast Beef with UPC 3814 BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Coulter HMX Hematology Analyzers --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 20, 2014 Posting date: October 29, 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-41977 Recalled Products: A) Coulter HMX Hematology Analyzers B) Coulter IH 500 Series System Customers have observed that the differential results for coulter 5c abnormal ii cell control recovered an excessive number of incomplete computation (.....) And/or review ("R") flags on the coulter IH 500 series and HMX analyzers. The issue may occur more often when laboratory temperatures fall below 70 degrees Fahrenheit (21 degrees Celsius). Affected products: A) Coulter HMX Hematology Analyzers Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: 6605523, 6605526 Companies: Manufacturer: Beckman Coulter Inc. 250 S. Kraemer Blvd. Brea 92821 California United States B) Coulter IH 500 Series System Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: 178833 Companies: Manufacturer: Beckman Coulter Inc. 250 S. Kraemer Blvd. Brea 92821 California United States BED BATH: Faces Class Suit in New Jersey Alleging Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Archana Rana and Earl Porter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. d/b/a Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc., John Does 1-5 and ABC Corps. 1-5, Case No. 2:14-cv-06642-KM-MAH (D.N.J., October 24, 2014) alleges job discrimination based on race. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan Scott Johnston, Esq. 1 AAA Drive, Suite 205 Robbinsville, NJ 08691 Telephone: (609) 587-5100 BLUESY'S HAPPY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Olliges, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. Bluesy's Happy Snapper, LLC, A Florida Limited liability company, Case No. 2:14-cv-14416 (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees of this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bluesy's Happy Snapper, LLC purchases and resells food and beverage products imported from other states and conducts interstate credit card transactions for the payment of goods and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah Lynn Sanders, Esq. CRARY BUCHANAN LAW OFFICES 759 S.W. Federal Highway, Suite 106 PO Drawer 24 Stuart, FL 34995-0024 Telephone: (772) 287-2600 Facsimile: (772) 223-4358 E-mail: dls@crarybuchanan.com BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Garcia, Artigliere & Medby Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Elder abuse law firm Garcia, Artigliere & Medby on Oct. 21 filed a class action suit against Shlomo Rechnitz, owner of Brius Management and Brius LLC, which owns, controls and operates 57 skilled nursing facilities throughout California. The suit alleges fraud, unfair business practices, and violation of resident rights by the intentional misrepresentation of the quality of services and care provided by Mr. Rechnitz's facilities. "The complaint alleges that Mr. Rechnitz preys on the extremely vulnerable segment of our society knowing the residents have no knowledge or sophistication concerning the operation of skilled nursing facilities and would have no way of detecting his fraud, concealment and other violations," said lead attorney Stephen M. Garcia. "The Complaint alleges that he repeatedly disregards compliance with industry laws and regulations, and intentionally jeopardizes patient care in order to avoid liability and personal negative financial impact." The complaint alleges that Mr. Rechnitz and his corporate entities actively engaged in intentional misrepresentation to the public of the quality and services provided by each of the nursing facilities, including: Concealing from patients of Mr. Rechnitz's long history as a serial violator of skilled nursing industry laws and regulations, including those of the California Department of Health Care Services; Hiding from residents that the health care facilities were chronically understaffed and under-funded in order to enhance Mr. Rechnitz's personal profits; Failing to treat patients with consideration, respect, dignity, and individuality, including privacy in treatment and care of personal needs; Failing to employ an adequate number of qualified staff necessary to carry out the functions of the nursing facilities; Misleading prospective patients into believing that the health care facilities were properly operated to induce them to become residents; Knowing that each of the residents would be harmed by the defendants' frauds, concealments and other violations; and Failing to provide the state-mandated statutory and regulatory Bill of Rights to patients. The class action suit seeks to permanently enjoin Mr. Rechnitz and his entities from future violations of patient rights and that he: Comply with the laws and regulations regarding health care facilities; Report future violations to the Department of Public Health; Conduct confidential quarterly surveys of patients to detect abuses that would only be disclosed to the Long Term Care Ombudsman; Notify all of the current and future residents of the injunction and its terms; Be subject to monetary damages; Draft a suitable policy and procedure regarding suspected patient abuse and neglect. Case number: BC559909, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles. Garcia, Artigliere & Medby, a national law firm with offices in California, Florida, Arizona, Washington and Kentucky, specializes in elder abuse and nursing home neglect. BROOKS HOSPITALITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Mackin and Amber Osche, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Brooks Hospitality, LLC, d/b/a Qdoba Mexican Grill, Case No. 2:14-cv-01428 (W.D. Pa., October 21, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Brooks Hospitality, LLC owns and operates Qdoba Mexican Grill restaurants in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. 100 First Avenue, Suite 1010 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com - and - John R. Linkosky, Esq. 715 Washington Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106-4107 Telephone: (412) 278-1280 Facsimile: (412) 278-1282 E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net CALVIN KLEIN: Sued in New York for Misclassifying Interns --------------------------------------------------------- Tess Hofmann and Jessica Corso, writing for Law360, report that Calvin Klein Inc. and parent company PVH Corp. are the latest targets of allegations that they didn't pay interns for work that didn't qualify as education or training, according to a proposed statewide class action filed on Oct. 21 in Manhattan. The fashion companies are accused of misclassifying interns as exempt from minimum wages and paying nothing, while requiring them to perform tasks that would otherwise have been performed by paid staff, including data entry, inventory and setting up for a fashion show. "Defendants' unlawful conduct had been pursuant to a corporate policy or practice of minimizing labor costs by denying plaintiff and the putative class compensation in violation of [New York Labor Law] and its implementing regulations," the complaint says. Lead plaintiff Rajwinder Kaur worked approximately 28 to 30 hours each week and performed tasks ranging from researching recent trends to checking merchandise in and out, according to the complaint. The class consists of more than 100 interns who were employed by PVH and Calvin Klein beginning in October 2008 or at any time after, the complaint says. Calvin Klein and PVH are accused of paying no wages intentionally, willfully and in bad faith, in violation of New York Labor Law. This is the latest in a spate of unpaid intern class actions filed against media and fashion companies in New York by similar legal teams. Columbia Recordings Corp., Sirius XM Radio and Coach Inc., have also faced suits. In September, the lead plaintiff in a class action on behalf of "Late Show with David Letterman" interns against CBS Broadcasting Inc. withdrew her suit and went public with a letter claiming she was coerced into participating by attorneys at Virginia & Ambinder LLP. Additionally, former interns with one of the world's largest talent agencies, International Creative Management Partners LLC, are currently battling for conditional certification in a federal collective action suit over unpaid wages for purported entry-level work. The U.S. Department of Labor has thrown its hat in on the side of the interns via an amicus brief filed with the Second Circuit in July, saying that Fox Entertainment Group Inc.'s use of unpaid interns does not fall under Fair Labor Standards Act exemptions for trainees. The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey K. Brown and Daniel Markowitz of Leeds Brown Law PC and Lloyd R. Ambinder and Kara Miller of Virginia & Ambinder LLP. The case is Rajwinder Kaur et al. v. PVH Corp., Calvin Klein Inc. et al., case number 160264/2014, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. CANE CREEK: Recalls Bicycle Shocks Due to Risk of Injury -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Cane Creek Cycling Components, Inc.; Fletcher, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,000 in the US and 500 in Canada DBINLINE Rear Shock. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The shock absorber is marked with graphics that incorrectly identify the adjustment directions for High Speed Rebound (HSR) damping. Following these directions will cause unexpected behavior by a bike's suspension and pose a fall hazard to a rider. Cane Creek has received four complaints from customers, one of which involved a report of injury with bruises in the midsection. The recall involves Cane Creek Cycling Components DBINLINE bicycle rear shock absorbers. The shocks are marked with graphics that incorrectly identify the adjustment directions for High Speed Rebound (HSR) damping. HSR on the shock is decreased by turning the adjuster counter-clockwise and increased by turning it clockwise. The incorrect graphics present the opposite; that is, the plus(+) and minus(-) symbols are switched. The consumer can be misled or confused when adjusting HSR on these shocks. The shocks come in black anodized aluminum with the words "INLINE" marked on the air can portion of the shock and are attached to a full-suspension mountain bike frame. Recalled products have a serial number on the underside of the top valve body in the following ranges: AA00002 - AA07304 and SA00077 - SA03926. The shocks were sold separately and were sold with these mountain bikes: 2015 Alutech - Tofane 2015 Banshee - Phantom and Spitfire 2015 Bianchi - Methanol 29 2015 Canyon - Spectral 140 - 27.5 and 29; and Strive CF 2015 Ghost - AMR Riot 130 2015 Guerilla - Gravity Megatrail 2015 Ibis - Ripley 29 2015 Intense - Tracer, Carbine 29 and Spyder 29 Comp 2015 Knolly - Warden 2015 Nicolai - Helius 2015 Norco - Sight Carbon 7.1 2015 Nukeproof - Mega TR 2015 Orange - Five and Five 29 2015 Specialized - Enduro 650B and 29 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/m0nVHl The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at distributors and retailers globally from May 2014 through Sept. 2014 for about $495 each or included in the price of the bike. Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact Cane Creek for a repair decal kit to correct the HSR adjustment markings on affected product. CAREFIRST: 3rd Circuit to Address Catalyst Theory in ERISA Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that after broaching the issue in a nonprecedential opinion released last summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit suggested during arguments on Oct. 21 that it might soon answer definitively whether the catalyst theory for recovering attorney fees applies in ERISA cases. The catalyst theory allows plaintiffs to collect fees when the pressure of legal action causes a defendant to voluntarily change its conduct. "I'm trying to sort out the law here . . . on the catalyst theory," Judge Thomas L. Ambro told Mark Oberstaedt -- moberstaedt@archerlaw.com -- on Oct. 21. Mr. Oberstaedt, of Archer & Greiner in Haddonfield, N.J., argued on behalf of CareFirst, a member of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and a defendant in the case. The case, Templin v. Independence Blue Cross, was initially filed as an Employee Retirement Income Security Act action in 2009 by people who have hemophilia seeking reimbursement for their medication. The insurance companies agreed to pay $2.2 million in claims, according to court papers. The plaintiffs then moved to collect the interest that had accrued on those claims, which settled in 2013. They are now seeking to recover attorney fees for that part of the litigation. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance that the ERISA statute gives district courts broad discretion to award attorney fees to plaintiffs. The high court ruled the statute doesn't limit attorney fee awards to only prevailing parties, but allows parties who show "some degree of success on the merits" to recover attorney fees. U.S. District Judge Joel Slomsky of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had rejected the plaintiffs' bid to collect attorney fees in the hemophilia case because the interest they collected came from a settlement rather than a judgment and the amount of interest they had won was small. The plaintiffs got $68,000 in interest through a settlement. "The district court erred in holding that appellees' payment did not constitute 'success on the merits' because it was obtained in out-of-court settlement discussions rather than by means of a judgment or judicial decision," the plaintiffs argued in their brief to the Third Circuit. "This may be the problem, at least that I personally have, with what Judge Slomsky does -- it sounds like it has to be judicial activity in his world, whereas it could be litigation activity in other worlds," Judge Ambro said during arguments, citing to the Second Circuit's 2013 opinion in Scarangella v. Group Health, which Judge Slomsky had read as requiring that some kind of judicial activity must spur the ultimate outcome in order for the catalyst theory to apply. "But other circuits, the Fourth, the Eleventh, and the D.C. Circuit seem to think it's litigation activity," Judge Ambro said to Blue Cross' lawyer, Katherine Katchen -- kkatchen@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. "Don't we need to weigh in on that legal issue?" he asked. "I think this is not the case to do that," Ms. Katchen said. In August, the appeals court issued a nonprecedential ruling in a case captioned Boyle v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 863 Welfare Fund, in which a panel led by Judge Jane Richards Roth, and including Judges Thomas I. Vanaskie and Joseph A. Greenaway Jr., reversed a New Jersey district judge's ruling that the ERISA statute does not permit attorney fee awards under the catalyst theory. In that case, the court held that while the plaintiffs ultimately didn't prevail, they still achieved some success with their lawsuit by prompting their former employer to voluntarily offer to retroactively reinstate benefits to early retirees and to reimburse them for any alternative coverage they may have purchased during the four-month period in 2011 when benefits ceased. During arguments on Oct. 21, Judge Julio Fuentes referred to Judge Slomsky's comments at a hearing about the amount of interest due in the case several weeks before it settled, discrediting two of the three bases on which the plaintiffs had argued that interest was owed -- they were the two state statutes from Pennsylvania and Maryland that the plaintiffs had cited in addition to ERISA itself. "Slomsky said, 'You have a Treasury note that would amount to $68,000.' Within six or seven weeks, the case is settled after years of litigation," Judge Fuentes said, summarizing the plaintiffs' argument that "that comment spurred the settlement." Ms. Katchen responded by saying Judge Slomsky's comment catalyzed the plaintiffs to act, not the defendants. "They were seeking $1.5 million going in to that hearing. They took 4 percent of that," Ms. Katchen said. You do "agree that catalyst theory can be adopted in the ERISA context?" Judge Fuentes asked her. "I don't think it can," Ms. Katchen said. "By definition, I think, a catalyst theory requires analysis of a defendant's subjective motivations for settling a case," she explained. "I think the ramifications of that could be endless." "Are you asking us to create a circuit split?" Judge Ambro asked. "You've got 2002, the Eleventh Circuit says that the catalyst theory applies; 2003, the D.C. Circuit says that; 2007, the Fourth Circuit says that; and then Scarangella from the Second Circuit says it, albeit with judicial activity," Judge Ambro said. Senior Judge Richard L. Nygaard was also on the panel. CASTLE GROUP: Discriminated Against Latina Worker, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Hernandez v. C Castle Group, Corporation, Spa Castle, Inc., Steve Chon, Individually, and Gean Choe, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06238 (E.D.N.Y., October 24, 2014) seeks damages to redress the alleged injuries the Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being discriminated against and terminated on the basis of race (Latina) and gender. C Castle Group Corporation is a New York domestic business corporation headquartered in Flushing, New York. Spa Castle, Inc., is a New York domestic business corporation headquartered in College Point, New York. Spa Castle is a wholly owned subsidiary of C Castle. The Individual Defendants are officers or managers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marjorie Mesidor, Esq. Nicole Welch, Esq. PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 620 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 248-7431 E-mail: mmesidor@tpglaws.com CHEMICAL STRATEGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Carpenter v. Chemical Strategies, Inc., a Deleware corporation; Christopher Meagher and Jane Doe Meagher, husband and wife; Richard Williams and Jane Doe Williams, husband and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv-02371-NVW (D. Ariz., October 24, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount of liquidated damages, including interest, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Chemical Strategies, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware, and has its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona. The Individual Defendants are owners, directors or officers of the Company. Chemical Strategies is a company specializing in chemical distribution and supply management. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trey Dayes, Esq. Sean Davis, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 288-1610 E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com CINNABAR SERVICE: Oklahoma High Court Upholds Picher Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Wally Kennedy, writing for The Joplin Globe, reports that the Oklahoma Supreme Court on Oct. 20 upheld a 2013 ruling that a class-action lawsuit brought by former residents of Picher, Oklahoma, can proceed against a Tulsa-based appraisal firm involved with the buyout of property in Picher. The court's decision upholds an appellate court ruling on July 24 that was appealed by Cinnabar Service Co., the appraisal firm. A spokeswoman for the clerk of the Oklahoma Supreme Court on Oct. 21 said the court issued a writ of certiorari that ordered the lower court to deliver its record of the case so that the higher court could review it. After that review, the court denied Cinnabar's appeal, she said. John Wiggins, an Oklahoma City attorney representing the class, advised his clients "that the case should become active again shortly." Unless an out-of-court settlement can be reached, the case will proceed to trial. About 260 former residents of Picher were granted class-action status in a 2013 ruling by the Tulsa County District Court. They allege that their properties were intentionally undervalued by Cinnabar Service Co., during the company's appraisal process for the Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust (LICRAT). The Oct. 20 decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court to uphold the decision of the Division II Court of Civil Appeals preserves the residents' class-action status so that they could pursue the matter as one entity against Cinnabar Service Company, of Tulsa, which performed the appraisals along with several smaller companies that also are named in the suit. A spokesman for Barber and Bartz, the Tulsa law firm representing Cinnabar in the appeal, could not be reached for comment on Oct. 21. Picher, located in Ottawa County, Okla., lies at the heart of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Tar Creek Superfund Site. Years of zinc and lead mining led to studies conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that found properties in the town were undermined and at high risk of caving in. That prompted the buyout of residents. There were 878 buyout offers totaling nearly $45 million for property in the area. COACH INC: Bid to Dismiss "Pattie" Fraud Class Action Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan denied a motion to dismiss the case Julie Pattie, Plaintiff, v. Coach, Inc., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14 CV 628, (N.D. Ohio). Julie Pattie, brought this putative class action against Coach, Inc. for the distribution of in-store coupons by the defendant. The Court previously dismissed most of Plaintiff's original complaint, including claims for fraud and unjust enrichment because they failed to meet the pleading standards of Rule 9. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which she again alleges claims for unjust enrichment and fraud. "Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts in support of her unjust enrichment claim and as such the motion to dismiss is denied," ruled Judge Gaughan in her October 24, 2014 memorandum of opinion and order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/vPi9Yg from Leagle.com. COOLTRADE INC: Faces "Ehlinger" Suit Over Violation of TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------- Landon Ehlinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cooltrade, Inc. and Robotic Returns, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-02998 (S.D. Tex., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants own and operate a computer stock trading company. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Edwards Wynne, Esq. WYNNE & WYNNE LLP 1021 Main Street, Suite 1275 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 227-8835 Facsimile: (713) 227-6205 E-mail: dwynne@wynne-law.com - and - Kenneth R. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE & WYNNE LLP 1021 Main Street, Suite 1275, One City Centre Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 227-8835 Facsimile: (713) 227-6205 E-mail: kwynne@wynne-law.com CORELOGIC INC: $9.9 Million Accord Reached in RESPA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the RESPA class action conducted a court-ordered mediation and subsequently reached agreement in principle to settle the case for a total of $9.9 million inclusive of attorney fees, subject to court approval, CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9, 2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim. On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order. Following discovery, on July 1, 2014 the defendant filed motions for summary judgment and to decertify the class. On September 16, 2014 the trial court granted summary judgment against one named plaintiff but denied it as to the other, denied the motion to decertify the class, and bifurcated trial into two phases with the first phase to begin November 24, 2014. The parties thereafter conducted a court-ordered mediation and subsequently reached agreement in principle to settle the case for a total of $9.9 million inclusive of attorney fees, subject to court approval. This amount has been reserved and recorded within loss from discontinued operations, net of tax for the three months ended September 30, 2014. CoreLogic, Inc., is a global property information, analytics and data-enabled services provider operation in North America, Western Europe and Asia Pacific. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Sara L. Roberts, Robin Thomas, Michael Lowery, Machelle Brush, Michael Shane Sullivan, Melissa Nuce, Charles Reece, Ethan Howell, James Fleming, James Polk, Anthony Bennett, Kendrick Sanders, and Marchello Harris, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees v. Corrections Corporation of America, Case No. 3:14-cv-02009 (M.D. Tenn., October 21, 2014), unpaid overtime compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees. Corrections Corporation of America operates facilities across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clinton H. Scott, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC 101 North Highland Ave Jackson, TN 38301 Telephone: (731) 664-1340 Facsimile: (731) 664-1540 E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com - and - Ross Webster, Esq. Saul C. Belz, Esq. GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC 6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400 Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 576-1741 Facsimile: (901) 576-2389 E-mail: sbelz@glankler.com rwebster@glankler.com CVS PHARMACY: Can Move Wage-and-Hour Class Action to Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal appeals court is allowing drugstore chain CVS to move a purported wage and hour class action to federal from state court under a new interpretation of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005's removal rules. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., addressing an issue of first impression for the circuit, ruled that an email containing a damages estimate could qualify as "other paper" justifying a removal motion. The court reversed U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel's March 2014 order granting the plaintiff's motion to send the case back to state court. "We now hold that [the law's] 30-day clocks [related to the post- complaint filings] are triggered only when the plaintiffs' complaint or plaintiffs' subsequent paper provides the defendant with sufficient information to easily determine that the matter is removable. The district court erred in imposing too great a duty of inquiry on the defendant," Chief Judge Sandra Lynch wrote. Judges Jeffrey Howard and Juan Torruella joined her. Whenever a class action is filed in state court, defendants have a 30-day deadline for seeking removal. Damages of more than $5 million allow defendants to shift cases to federal court. Following the initial case filing and deadline, the statute allows later court filings to trigger a new 30-day window for removal. These later filings include: "a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper." A plaintiffs' email to CVS containing information about the class period 17 months into the case gave the company the information to "ascertain the amount in controversy for the first time," Judge Lynch wrote. David Romulus and four other Massachusetts shift supervisors filed their first amended class action against CVS in Massachusetts Superior Court in August 2011. They claim a store policy requiring them to stay on the premises for unpaid rest or meal breaks when there are no other managers or only one other worker on duty violates the state's wage and overtime laws. They are seeking unpaid wages, overtime, triple damages, interest, attorney fees and costs. Their first amended complaint did not specify the number of breaks at issue or total damages. CVS sought removal right away based on its own $10.4 million damage estimate, which assumed that class members lost every meal break during the class period. In March 2012, Judge Zobel rejected that estimate and granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court. During discovery, the plaintiffs informed the defense in a January 2013 email that there were 116,499 meal breaks during the class period when no other shift supervisor was working. The following month, CVS filed another removal motion. Judge Lynch looked to Fifth Circuit and Ninth Circuit precedents holding that informal correspondence from the plaintiff to the defendant could be an "other paper" under the statute. "The correspondence triggers the 30-day clock if it is the first document in which the plaintiff puts the defendant on notice that the criteria for removal are met," Judge Lynch wrote. James Boudreau -- boudreauj@gtlaw.com -- a Greenberg Traurig partner in Philadelphia who chairs the firm's labor and employment practice's class and collective action group, argued for CVS. He declined to comment without his client's permission. "We are pleased with the court's decision that the case belongs in federal court," CVS spokesman Mike DeAngelis said in an email. Thomas Urmy Jr. -- turmy@shulaw.com -- a partner at Boston's Shapiro Haber & Urmy who argued for the plaintiffs, did not respond to requests for comment. DAKOTA GROWERS: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a New Jersey federal judge has deemed done a reported $23 million settlement of a proposed class action alleging the manufacturer of Dreamfields Pasta falsely advertised the product as healthier than ordinary pasta because it contained fewer "digestible" carbohydrates. U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano of New Jersey gave final approval Oct. 20 to the deal between consumers and Dakota Growers Pasta Co., maker of Dreamfields. The agreement in Mirakay v. Dakota Growers, filed in July 2013, will create a settlement of fund of $5 million, from which class members will be eligible to claim $1.99 for each box of Dreamfields pasta they bought, up to a total of 15. Deamfields will pay an additional $2.9 million in attorneys' fees and litigation costs, which the judge found justified, particularly in relation to the value of the injunctive relief won by the plaintiffs. That relief is a vow by Dakota Growers to remove, for one year, claims on the pasta's packaging about its alleged low-carb and other health benefits. That injunctive relief is projected by the parties to be worth about $15 million, a sum arrived at by a Maryland marketing professor's calculation of likely consumer response. The pasta's slogan, on its packaging and in its advertising, was "Healthy Carb Living," and the product, which sold at a higher price than regular pasta, was also falsely advertised as a good alternative for diabetics because of its purported "Lower Glycemic Index," the proposed class action complaint alleged. The plaintiffs said independent scientific tests of the defendants' carbohydrate and glycemic contentions did not back them up. For instance, test subjects had the same blood sugar response curves with Dreamfields' noodles as with ordinary pasta, the complaint says. As of Jan.1, Dakota Growers had replaced those claims with the statement that its pasta is high in dietary fiber. The assignment of value to the injunctive relief is a relatively uncommon feature of a class-action settlement. In this case, Towson University marketing professor Thomas Maronick, who also holds a J.D. from the University of Baltimore School of Law, said he arrived at the estimate by calculating the price differential that existed between a box of Dreamfields pasta with the health claims (selling at about $2.65 a pound) and ordinary Barilla White Pasta (selling for about $1.38 a pound). In other words, according to Mr. Maronick, consumers were willing to pay an extra $1.37 for the purportedly healthier noodles. Multiplying that differential by the amount of Dreamfields sold in 2012 -- 11,310,055 pounds -- results in a $15,494,775 premium Dakota Growers enjoyed because of its label claims of healthier pasta, and, conversely, the possible amount Dakota Growers would forfeit by removing that branding, Mr. Maronick calculated. Between Jan. 1, when Dakota Growers changed the labels, and July 5, sales of Dreamfields pasta fell by 5.2 percent, Mr. Maronick reported. Plaintiffs are represented by Zaremba Brownell & Brown. Dakota Growers' counsel is the firm Coughlin Duffy. DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY: Sued in California Over Violation of ERISA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lynn Morris, Caroline Plaza, Veronica Tench, Jacqueline Murray, Maidaflor Maybir, Jocelyn Manacmul, Donna Gutierrez, Eleanore De Dios, and Elenita Santos-Funai, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Daughters of Charity Health System, Robert Issai, Stephanie Battles, Mike Stuart, Daughters of Charity Ministry Services Corporation, Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, Province of The West, and Does 1-20, Case No. 3:14-cv- 04681 (N.D. Cal., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by failure to provide all promised retirement benefits to Plaintiffs and other Plan participants. The Defendants operate a nonprofit multi-hospital health system. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Lewis, Esq. Margaret Hassleman, Esq. Catha Worthman, Esq. Jacob Richards, Esq. LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 E-mail: jlewis@lewisfeinberg.com mhasselman@lewisfeinberg.com cworthman@lewisfeinberg.com jrichards@lewisfeinberg.com DIALYSIS CENTER: Seeks Dismissal of Product Liability Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a dialysis clinic has moved to dismiss a Missouri plaintiff's lawsuit from federal multidistrict litigation over dialysis products. The clinic's counsel argues that the plaintiff cannot stick with products liability claims and actually must meet the higher standards of a claim for medical malpractice. The Missouri Supreme Court has held that "strict liability claims are not applicable to health care providers," and that same reasoning applies to negligent design and breach of warranty claims, defense counsel Hal Meltzer -- meltzer@bscr-law.com -- and Caroline Tinsley --- tinsley@bscr-law.com -- of Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice in Kansas City, Mo., said. "Plaintiff's negligent design and breach of warranty claims should be dismissed by this court as an impermissible expansion of the liability of health care providers beyond that anticipated by the Missouri Legislature," the clinic's counsel said. "Permitting plaintiff to recover from a dialysis center in an action rooted in design defect claims against a pharmaceutical manufacturer would open all health care providers to such claims regardless of [their] 'culpable state of mind.'" Beverly Coby received dialysis treatment at Dialysis Center Inc. and her survivors allege that dangerous chemicals made by Fresenius Medical North America Inc. and related defendants caused her fatal cardiac arrest. The plaintiffs also allege that Fresenius' GranuFlo Dry Acid Concentrate and NaturaLyte dialysis products causes cardiopulmonary arrest and even death. GranuFlo and NaturaLyte are components of dialysate, which maintains the proper balance of acid and base in patients' blood when undergoing hemodialysis for advanced renal disease. But the powders cause unsafe changes in the blood pH, according to the plaintiffs. Moreover, the plaintiffs only included two paragraphs of allegations against Dialysis Center, and medical records show that Ms. Coby did not receive any dialysis treatment at any of the center's clinics in Missouri on the day she died from cardiac arrest, the clinic's lawyers said. As of Aug. 15, more than 2,000 cases were pending in the multidistrict litigation. DOUBLE D CONTRACTORS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Fidencio Nataren Cruz, and Mario Hernandez, et al. v. Double D Contractors, LLC d/b/a Double D Construction, and Dennis Darrow, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-06520 (D.N.J., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in a work week. The Defendants own, maintain, and operate a construction business throughout the State of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA Lawrence Office Park Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Petition for Writ of Mandate Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Lee and Pedro Chevez were hired by Dynamex Operations West, Inc. (formerly Dynamex, Inc.), a nationwide courier and delivery service, as drivers to make deliveries of packages, letters and parcels to Dynamex customers. Prior to 2004 Dynamex had classified its California drivers as employees and compensated them subject to this state's wage and hour laws. In 2004 Dynamex converted the status of all drivers from employee to independent contractor. A lawsuit was filed in April 2005 alleging that drivers, as a practical matter, continued to perform the same tasks as they had when classified as employees with no substantive changes to the means of performing their work or the degree of control exercised by Dynamex and, as a consequence, the reclassification of Dynamex drivers violated California law. The plaintiff, Charles Lee, sought to represent approximately 1,800 drivers engaged by Dynamex as independent contractors. After its initial denial of class certification was reversed by the court, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County certified the proposed class in 2011. Over the course of the next two years, Dynamex twice moved to decertify the class. When its second motion was denied, Dynamex filed a petition for a writ of mandate, arguing the superior court had improperly adopted the definition of "employee" found in Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders to ascertain the status of class members (see Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 (Martinez)), and had failed to use the common law test for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors discussed in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Borello). According to Dynamex, if the Borello common law test, rather than the IWC standard approved in Martinez, is applied, the class must be decertified because the predominance of individual issues relevant to that test would make it infeasible to litigate the plaintiffs' claims as a class action. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, on October 15, 2014, granted in part the petition for a writ of mandate. The Appeals Court concluded that the Superior Court correctly allowed plaintiffs to rely on the IWC definition of an employment relationship for purposes of those claims falling within the scope of Wage Order No. 9-2001. With respect to those claims falling outside the scope of Wage Order No. 9, the common law definition of employee will control, ruled the Appeals Court. As to those claims, the petition is granted to allow the Superior Court to reevaluate whether, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 522 (Ayala), class certification remains appropriate by focusing its analysis "on differences in [the defendant's] right to exercise control" rather than "variations in how that right was exercised." A copy of the Calif. Appeals Court's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/tyNjbvfrom Leagle.com. The case is DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; CHARLES LEE et al., Real Parties in Interest, NO. B249546. Pope, Berger & Williams, A. Mark Pope -- pope@popeberger.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Kevin Ruf -- kevinruf@yahoo.com -- Boudreau Williams and Jon R. Williams -- williams@bwlawllp.com -- for Real Parties in Interest, Charles Lee and Pedro Chevez. EASTMAN OUTDOORS: Archer Can Pursue Defective-Manufacturing Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that an Ohio federal judge has ruled that an archer injured by a shattering arrow can pursue a defective-manufacturing claim against Eastman Outdoors Inc., but not claims for design defect, inadequate warning or failure to conform to representations. In considering Eastman's motion for summary judgment, Judge James Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio also denied Eastman's request to dismiss plaintiff Trevor Cawley's claim for punitive damages. The court ruled on Oct. 17 in Cawley v. Eastman Outdoors. Mr. Cawley filed suit in 2013 alleging he sustained lasting injuries to his hand while practicing archery in Ohio in 2012. Cawley was shooting Wolverine 6070 carbon fiber arrows when one shattered upon release and pierced Mr. Cawley's left hand and thumb, the court's opinion says. Shin Kwang Corp., a South Korean company, manufactured the arrows and Eastman distributed them in the United States. Mr. Cawley claims the arrow shattered due to a manufacturing or design defect, suing Eastman for products liability, breach of warranty, strict liability, negligence and gross negligence. Eastman argued that it was plaintiff's longtime use of the arrows and failure to follow proper safety protocols that led to his injury. In his opinion, Judge Gwin first addressed Mr. Cawley's common-law negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability and gross negligence claims, saying they are preempted by the Ohio Product Liability Act. In discussing the products liability claim, Judge Gwin said that although Eastman was a supplier and not the manufacturer of the arrows it could still be liable for compensatory damages because it "marketed th[e] product under its own label or trade name." He said there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the arrow that injured Mr. Cawley had a manufacturing defect and it is a jury's job to decide. Judge Gwin ruled that whether punitive damages should be awarded to the plaintiff was a question for the jury and that a statutory damages cap would not be allowed at this stage of the litigation. EASTSIDE PIZZA: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nestor Rodriguez v. Eastside Pizza, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-23922 (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Eastside Pizza, Inc. own and operate a pizza restaurant located at 731 NE, 79th Street, Miami FL 33138. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com EDF ENERGY: Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Sizewell C Project ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Hirst, writing for EADT24, reports that homeowners who claim power plant proposals have left their properties unsaleable are preparing a class action lawsuit against those involved in the project. Leonora Van Gils, who owns a country house in Darsham, close to where EDF Energy is proposing to build a park and ride for Sizewell C construction workers, is leading the legal challenge and inviting others to join her. Speaking during a public meeting about Sizewell C in Yoxford, she said the behavior of EDF and the government, in respect to the project, had been "absolutely scandalous". "The people who cannot sell their homes because of Sizewell C are prisoners in their homes," she said. "I'm hoping if we get enough people together to form a class action lawsuit it will cause huge embarrassment for the government and could maybe get us somewhere." Three other homeowners, who say the threat of increased traffic has affected their property values, contacted Ms. Van Gils after the meeting and have asked to join her legal battle. They were set to meet with solicitors on Oct. 23 to discuss the options available. Ms. Van Gils claims the park and ride would ruin the views from her home and has left it unsalable in the 18 months it has been on the market. She said major projects should not be left hanging over communities unresolved for years. "Many people have been affected by this and we are all in a very tricky situation -- it's extremely stressful." An EDF spokesman said the company was aware of residents' concerns and would be working with the local community to put appropriate mitigation measures in place as it developed more detailed plans for stage two of its consultation. The Department for Energy and Climate Change said local people can have their say in any large infrastructure -- in this case by contacting EDF. EDGER ASSOCIATES: Suit Seeks to recover Unpaid Wages and Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Shearer v. Edger Associates, Inc., and Gerald Terenzi, Case No. 8:14-cv-02689-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla., October 24, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Cardiac Sonographer. The Plaintiff's primary duties and responsibilities included traveling to and from the Defendants' client's facilities to perform ultrasounds of the patient's heart and vascular systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd W. Shulby, Esq. TODD W. SHULBY, P.A. 2800 Weston Road, Suite 101 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 530-2236 Facsimile: (954) 530-6628 E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com EDWARD L. MARRA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Fritts" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valerie Fritts v. Edward L. Marra DMD, PLLC, an Arizona company; Edward Marra and Deanna Marra, husband and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv- 02369-GMS (D. Ariz., October 24, 2014) is brought in connection with, among other things, the Debtors' alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Edward L. Marra DMD, PLLC, was incorporated in the state of Arizona, and has its principal place of business in Gilbert Arizona. Edward Marra is the owner of the Company. Deanna Marra is Edward Marra's wife. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trey Dayes, Esq. Sean Davis, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 288-1610 E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com ELECTRIC-ROOTERMAN: "Hankins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Hankins and David Seegars, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Electric-Rooterman and Handyman, Inc. f/k/a The Electric-Rooterman, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:14-cv- 04094 (D.S.C., October 21, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Electric-Rooterman and Handyman, Inc. owns and operates a one stop shop for all service needs. The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Reckenbeil, Esq. JOHN G. RECKENBEIL LAW OFFICE PO Box 1633 Spartanburg, SC 29306 Telephone: (864) 582-5472 Facsimile: (864) 582-7280 E-mail: john@johnreckenbeillaw.com - and - Lawrence Everett McNair III, Esq. JOHN RECKENBEIL LAW OFFICE 215 Magnolia Street Spartanburg, SC 29306 Telephone: (864) 582-5472 E-mail: lee@johnreckenbeillaw.com ELNA CO: Faces Quathimatine Suit Over Capacitor-Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ Quathimatine Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Divicom, USA, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated v. Elna Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04704 (N.D. Cal., October 22, 2014), alleges that the Defendants and other co-conspirators agreed, combined and conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices, and to allocate market shares for aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors. Elna Co. manufactured, marketed, and sold aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors in and into the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Tabacco Jr., Esq. Todd A. Seaver, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com tseaver@bermandevalerio.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212)-907-0700 Facsimile: (212)-818-0477 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: NRMA, CGU Take Policyholders Out of Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Brown, writing for ABC, reports that people who lost their homes in last year's Blue Mountains bushfire say insurance companies are hijacking their class action. The $200 million Maddens class action is seeking to recoup losses from the power company, Endeavour Energy. But unbeknown to their customers, NRMA and CGU have taken their policy holders out of the class action. The insurance companies want to launch their own. The lower Blue Mountains bushfire that ripped through Springwood and Winmalee in October last year destroyed 193 homes and partially damaged 200 more. Hundreds of residents have launched a class action against Endeavour Energy, alleging poor tree management by the company sparked the blaze. The class action is expected to be heard in the second half of next year -- but it's already taken a knock. NRMA Insurance, and now also CGU Insurance have removed their members from the action without members' blessing or consent. Ken McAnally says claimants are devastated. At the time of the fire, a lot of residents were hit with news they were under-insured because of new 'flame zone' construction regulations, that no-one had told them about. ERICK FLOWBACK: May Not Provide List of Potential Class Members --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti ruled that defendants in JEREMY SAENZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ERICK FLOWBACK SERVICES LLC, and MARK SNODGRASS, Defendants, CASE NO. CIV-14-593-D, (W.D. Okla.) need not provide a list of potential class members to the plaintiff prior to the Court's determination whether conditional certification of a class of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) plaintiffs is appropriate. "[I]nformation regarding individual employees who may fall within the alleged class becomes important only after conditional certification, when potential class members are notified of a collective action and individual differences are considered," Judge DeGiusti added. "Should the Court conditionally certify a class of employees, then a list of individual class members will be relevant to a party's claim or defense and, thus, discoverable." A copy of the Court's October 23, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/pdmWDEfrom Leagle.com. FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued in D. Minnesota Over Forgery of Documents ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Alison Nora, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-04449 (D. Minn., October 22, 2014), is a class action of homeowners whose property rights were injured by the creation and transmission of forged documents by wire and mail. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. is a vertically integrated title insurance and financial services firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wendy Alison Nora, Esq. ACCESS LEGAL SERVICES 210 Second Street NE Mpls, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 333-4144 Facsimile: (612) 886-2444 E-mail: accesslegalservices@gmail.com FUJI HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Zhong Xian Chen, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Fuji Hibachi Restaurant LLC, d/b/a Mr. Sushi & Grill Japanese Hibachi Steak House, James Yu Lam, John Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-08444 (S.D.N.Y., October 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant at Wallkill Plaza Store 2A, 400 RT. 211 East & Carpenter Ave., Middletown, New York 10940. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jahng@hanglaw.com GREAT LAKES HIGHER: Has Invaded Customers' Privacy, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Loker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-08167 (C.D. Cal., October 22, 2014), is brought for willfully employing and causing to be employed certain recording equipment in order to record the telephone conversations of the Plaintiff without consent, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy. Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation is engaged in the business of servicing student loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com GREENSTAR AGRICULTURAL: Faces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Siskinds LLP on Oct. 21 announced the commencement of a securities class action against GreenStar Agricultural Corporation (f.k.a. China Green Star Agricultural Corporation), certain of its current and former directors and officers and its former auditor. The action relates to the circumstances surrounding GreenStar's failure to complete 2013 audit procedures and the resignation of its Canadian directors and management. The action alleges that, among other things, documents released by GreenStar, including certain of its audited and unaudited financial statements and the subscription agreement for its 2014 private placement, contained material representations that were untrue. It is alleged that the defendants have liability for damages sustained by the proposed class. The action is brought to recover losses suffered by all persons, subject to certain exclusions, who held GreenStar securities on June 4, 2014. Inquiries regarding this proposed class proceeding can be directed to Nicole Young at Siskinds LLP at (800) 461-6166 (ext. 2380) or nicole.young@siskinds.com Holders of GreenStar securities on June 4, 2014 who wish to obtain information and updates about this proceeding may complete an online information form at: http://www.classaction.ca/joinaction.aspx?action=greenstar About Siskinds LLP Siskinds LLP -- http://siskinds.com/-- is a full-service law firm headquartered in London, Ontario. Its class actions team has recovered over $450 million for investors over the last 10 years. In each of 2010, 2011, and 2013, Siskinds has been ranked the top Canadian firm in the SCAS 50, an annual global ranking of the world's 50 leading securities class action law firms published by Securities Class Action Services, a unit of Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). GULFVIEW II OWNERS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Cohan v. Gulfview II Owners' Association, Inc., a Florida Non Profit Corporation, d/b/a Gulfview, Case No. 3:14-cv-00580-RS- EMT (N.D. Fla., October 24, 2014) alleges that the Defendant is in violation of the American Disabilities Act Standards and is discriminating against the Plaintiff as a result of, inter alia, its failure to provide sufficient disabled parking spaces based on the total parking spaces available. The Plaintiff suffered from a "qualified disability" under the ADA. The Defendant is the lessee, operator, owner and lessor of the Real Property located in Walton, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Sconzo, Esq. KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. PGA Financial Plaza 3399 PGA Boulevard, Suite 180 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 296-7900 Facsimile: (561) 296-7919 E-mail: gsconzo@kaplansconzolaw.com HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Reached Agreement to Settle Macondo Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in September 2014, the Company reached an agreement, subject to court approval, to settle a substantial portion of the plaintiffs' claims asserted against the Company relating to the Macondo well incident. Pursuant to the MDL Settlement, Halliburton agreed to pay an aggregate of $1.1 billion, which includes legal fees and costs, into a trust in three installments over the next two years, except that one installment of legal fees will not be paid until all of the conditions to the settlement have been satisfied or waived. Under the MDL Settlement, (1) a class of plaintiffs alleging physical damage to property or damages associated with the commercial fishing industry arising from the Macondo well incident agree to release all claims against the Company for punitive damages and (2) class members of the BP Economic Loss Settlement agree to release the claims against the Company that BP assigned to them in that settlement. The Company also agreed to release BP for any damages, consideration, or other relief that the Company provides under the MDL Settlement. Since April 21, 2010, plaintiffs have filed lawsuits relating to the Macondo well incident. Generally, those lawsuits allege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution and contamination (e.g., diminution of property value, lost tax revenue, lost business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability to engage in recreational or commercial activities) or (2) wrongful death or personal injuries. Halliburton is named along with other unaffiliated defendants in more than 1,800 complaints, most of which are alleged class actions, involving pollution damage claims and at least six personal injury lawsuits involving three decedents and at least two allegedly injured persons who were on the drilling rig at the time of the incident. At least six additional lawsuits naming the Company and others relate to alleged personal injuries sustained by those responding to the explosion and oil spill. Additional civil lawsuits may be filed against the Company. HALLIBURTON COMPANY: December 2014 Hearing in Securities Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the district court is scheduled to hold a hearing in December 2014 to consider whether there was an impact on the Company's stock price from the alleged misrepresentations in the Securities litigation. In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an investigation in connection with the Company's change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. The Company said, "In the weeks that followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund). We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004. "In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. "In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than our Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against our CEO and us. "In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The district court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order in November 2008 denying the motion for class certification. The Fund appealed the district court's order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying class certification. In May 2010, the Fund filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. In January 2011, the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and accepted the appeal. The Court heard oral arguments in April 2011 and issued its decision in June 2011, reversing the Fifth Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification. The Court's ruling was limited to the Fifth Circuit's loss causation requirement, and the case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration of our other arguments for denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit returned the case to the district court, and in January 2012 the court issued an order certifying the class. We filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Fifth Circuit, which was granted. In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the District Court's order certifying the class. "We filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking an appeal of the Fifth Circuit decision. In November 2013, the Supreme Court granted our writ. Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court in March 2014. The Supreme Court issued its decision in June 2014, maintaining the presumption of class member reliance through the "fraud on the market" theory, but holding that we are entitled to rebut that presumption by presenting evidence that there was no impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentation. "Because the district court and the Fifth Circuit denied us that opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court decision. In December 2014, the district court is scheduled to hold a hearing to consider whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentations. Fact discovery has been stayed except as it relates to class certification. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend to vigorously defend." HAMTRAMCK CITY, MI: Discriminates Against Workers, Class Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Serafino, Walter Tripp, and Michael J. Szymanski, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated v. Hamtramck, City of, and Cathy Square, Case No. 4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH (E.D. Mich., October 24, 2014) accuses the Defendants of employment discrimination. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert D. Fetter, Esq. MILLER COHEN, PLC 600 W. Lafayette Blvd., 4th Floor Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 964-4454 Facsimile: (313) 964-4490 E-mail: rfetter@millercohen.com HCA INC: Jacksonville Memorial Hospital Sued Over Exorbitant Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Colleen Michele Jones, writing for Jacksonville Business Journal, reports that Memorial Hospital in Jacksonville is defending itself against allegations that it billed "exorbitant and unreasonable fees for emergency radiological services." The class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court by four Florida residents who received care at Memorial Hospital or other Florida medical centers run by parent company HCA, which is based in Nashville. One of the plaintiffs in the case, Nicholas Acosta, was treated at Memorial Hospital's emergency room in October 2013 following a car accident. According to the complaint, Acosta was charged $6,965 for a CT scan of his spine and $6,277 for a CT scan of his brain, which put him over the $10,000 personal injury protection insurance coverage required under Florida's No Fault Car Insurance Law. Those charges, the plaintiffs claim, are "up to 65 times higher" than what the hospital charges patients whose treatment is not being paid for by personal injury protection insurance. "Patients who show up at the emergency room following a motor vehicle accident not only have to pay their 20 percent co-pay, but then are billed far more for their tests, which clearly violates the PIP law that requires 'customary and reasonable' pricing," said plaintiffs' lead attorney Theodore J. Leopold of Cohen Milstein's Palm Beach Gardens office. Because of the higher fees, the lawsuit says, the patients' insurance coverage was "prematurely exhausted," and Acosta and the other plaintiffs in the case were billed thousands of dollars each for radiological services not paid for by their PIP insurers. A spokesperson for Memorial Hospital released this statement: "The allegations are unfounded and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously." HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Inkjet Printer Litigation Deal Gets Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jeremy Fogel issued a final judgment on October 14, 2014, approving a settlement in In Re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, MASTER FILE NO. C053580 JF (PVT), (N.D. Cal.). Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finally certified the action for settlement purposes as a nationwide class action on behalf of: all individual or entity end-users located in the United States who purchased or received as a gift an Affected Model from September 6, 2001, to September 1, 2010. The Court has determined that the proposed Settlement of the claims of the Settlement Class Members against HP, as well as the release of HP and the Released Parties, the significant relief provided to the Settlement Class Members -- in the form of HP's agreement to discontinue the use of certain pop-up messaging and to make certain changes to the disclosures on its website and the packaging, manuals and/or user interfaces for HP inkjet printers, as well as HP's agreement to contribute e-credits to be distributed to Settlement Class Members -- as described in the Stipulation of Settlement, and the award of attorney's fees and expenses requested, are fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court appointed as counsel for the Class these law firms: * Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; * Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP; * Berk Law PLLC; * Chavez & Gertler LLP; * Cuneo, Waldman & Gilbert, LLC; * Edelson & Associates, LLC; * The Garcia Law Firm; * Law Offices of Michael D. Liberty; * Law Offices of Scott E. Shapiro, P.C.; * McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP; * Pearson, Simon, Soter, Warshaw & Penny, LLP; and * Seeger Weiss, LLP. The Court designates named Plaintiffs Daniel Feder, Nicklos Ciolino, Carl K. Rich, David Duran, Jackie Blennis, and David Brickner as the representatives of the Settlement Class. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/7MB54Lfrom Leagle.com. STEVEN N. BERK -- steven@berklawdc.com -- (admitted pro hac vice), BERK LAW PLLC, Washington D.C. HOME DEPOT: Faces Profinium Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Profinium, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03388 (N.D. Ga., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to secure and safeguard its customers' personal financial data, personal identifying information and private information. The Home Depot, Inc. is the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer and fourth largest retailer in the United States, with stores in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, 10 Canadian provinces and Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq. Everett L. Doffermyre, Esq. DOFFERMYRE, SHIELDS, CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC 1355 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-8900 Facsimile: (404) 881-3007 E-mail: kcanfield@dsckd.com edoffermyre@dsckd.com - and - Vincent J. Esades, Esq. David R. Woodward, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com dwoodward@heinsmills.com - and - Brian M. Sund, Esq. Jackson D. Bigham, Esq. MORRISON SUND PLLC 5125 County Road 101, #200 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Telephone: (952) 975-0050 Facsimile: (952) 975-0058 E-mail: bsund@morrisonsund.com jbigham@morrisonsund.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn IL, 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4505 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Hudson City Savings Bank Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hudson City Savings Bank, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated financial institutions v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03387 (N.D. Ga., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to secure and safeguard its customers' personal financial data, personal identifying information and private information. The Home Depot, Inc. is the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer and fourth largest retailer in the United States, with stores in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, 10 Canadian provinces and Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Withers, Esq. GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC 8 East Liberty Street Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 447-8400 Facsimile: (912) 233-6584 E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Jamisen Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP PNC Park, 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com - and - Richard A. Lockridge, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Eric N. Linsk, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com rnlinsk@locklaw.com - and - Karl L. Cambronne, Esq. Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 17 Washington Ave. N. Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2048 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com jbores@chestnutcambronne.com bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com HOME NURSERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Gonzales v. Home Nursery, Inc. & Ann Tosovsky, Case No. 3:14-cv-01140 (S.D. Ill., October 22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a plant nursery in Albers, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite #133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com HUB GROUP: "Lubinski" Suit Transferred From Illinois to Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Lubinski v. Hub Group Trucking, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07117, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis). The Tennessee District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 02843-JPM-dkv to the proceeding. The action is brought on behalf of current and former Illinois drivers challenging Hub Group's alleged unlawful practice of misclassifying delivery drivers as independent contractors instead of as employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. CAFFARELLI & SIEGEL LTD Two Prudential Plaza 180 North Stetson, #3150 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 540-1230 E-mail: acaffarelli@cslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas James Piskorski, Esq. Abigail Anne Cahak, Esq. Kara Lea Goodwin, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: tpiskorski@seyfarth.com acahak@seyfarth.com kgoodwin@seyfarth.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Production Worker Files Overtime Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that in a twist on the axiom that it pays to exercise, a production worker has filed a proposed class action that faults Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama for not paying workers enough for mandatory stretching and exercise sessions. Plant worker Frank Bates alleges in his Oct. 17 filing in U.S District Court for the Middle District of Alabama that workers must participate in daily exercise sessions designed to help prevent injuries on the job. The sessions accompany meetings where the production schedule of the day is presented. During the week, workers are compensated for their time engaged in the activities with a quarter-hour's pay, according to the complaint in Bates v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing. But on Saturdays, workers get no compensation for their time spent in those activities. Mr. Bates contends that is because the company does not want to shell out for overtime for the meetings and exercise. He calculates that, at the overtime rate of $37.47 an hour, Hyundai saves $9.37 per employee per overtime shift by denying them the quarter-hour pay. The 3,000-worker plant, described by the company as one of the most technologically advanced in North America, produces Hyundai Elantra and Sonata cars, along with three types of 4-cylinder engines. The complaint alleges Hyundai's no-overtime compensation policy violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs seek three years of back compensation, damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Mr. Bates is represented by the firm Winston Cooks. I.C. SYSTEM: Court Narrows Claims in "Abramov" FDCPA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Arthur D. Spatt granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss the case captioned ELMAN ABRAMOV, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, NO. 14-CV-4000 (ADS)(ARL), (E.D. N.Y.). Elman Abramov brought this class action on June 26, 2014, on behalf of himself and a proposed nationwide class seeking redress for certain actions taken by the Defendants I.C. System, Inc. and John Does 1-25 allegedly in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. (the FDCPA). I.C. System is a company that operates with the alleged principal purpose of collecting debts alleged to be due another. I.C. System delivered to the Plaintiff on May 26, 2014, a letter in an attempt to collect an alleged obligation owed to a third party, AT&T, by the Plaintiff. On August 28, 2014, I.C. System served the Plaintiff with a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, which provided that: "Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, defendant I.C. System, Inc. hereby offers to allow judgment to be taken against it in this action as to the individual Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") claim of plaintiff Elman Abramov in the amount of (a) One Thousand Five Hundred and One Dollars ($1,501.00) payable to Elman Abramov plus (b) reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be determined by the Court, payable to Elman Abramov for the benefit of all attorneys in this matter, including counsel of record. Any judgment entered pursuant to this offer will be in full satisfaction of the plaintiff's individual claims under the FDCPA for damages, costs, and attorney's fees in this action. See Compl. "If this Offer of Judgment is not accepted in writing within fourteen (14) days after its services, it shall be deemed withdrawn." The Plaintiff's counsel e-mailed I.C. System's counsel advising that "said Offer is improper at this time and therefore Plaintiff can neither accept nor reject said Offer." The Plaintiff also contended that an Offer of Judgment could not moot a putative class action absent undue delay in the filing of a motion for class certification. On September 10, 2014, I.C. System moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge Spatt's October 14, 2014 decision and order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/j3jeTJfrom Leagle.com, rejects the Plaintiff's argument that the Defendant's Rule 68 Offer of Settlement mooted the motion to dismiss. As to the merits of the Plaintiff's claims under Section 1692e and 1692g of the FDCPA, the Court found that the Plaintiff may advance the theory that the second cited paragraph of the Letter "overshadowed" or "contradicted" the first sentence of the first cited paragraph or was "misleading" with respect to that sentence on the basis that the language "in writing" in that paragraph leaves the consumer debtor unsure as to whether disputing a debt requires oral or written communication. However, the Court found that, as a matter of law, the Plaintiff may not proceed on the theory that the second cited paragraph of the Letter "overshadowed" or "contradicted" the first cited paragraph or was "misleading" with respect to that paragraph on the basis that the directive to call the creditor in the event of suspected identity theft leaves the consumer debtor unsure as to whether disputing a debt requires contacting the debt collector or creditor. Finally, the Court found that the Plaintiff has adequately plead materiality. Concepcion A. Montoya, Esq., Of Counsel -- cmontoya@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for the Defendant IC Systems, Inc. INDIGO BOOKS: Recalls Magnetics Spheres and Magnetics 4 x 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 21, 2014 Posting date: October 21, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items, Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-41863 Affected products: Magnetics Spheres and Magnetics 4 x 4 The recall involves small powerful magnetic spheres and 4 x 4 magnetic squares that can be used to build sculptures, puzzles, patterns, or shapes. These magnet sets come in a clear plastic box and are sold with the description: magnetic toy and stress reliever. The products can be identified by the following UPC code: Indigo Books & Music Inc. is voluntarily recalling these products from the market in response to a risk assessment conducted by Health Canada. The risk assessment on these magnet sets has informed Health Canada's determination that they are a danger to human health and safety because they contain small powerful magnets which can be easily swallowed or inhaled by children. Unlike other small objects that would be more likely to pass normally through the digestive system if swallowed, when more than one small powerful magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract one another while travelling through the digestive system. The magnets can then pinch together and create a blockage and slowly tear through the intestinal walls, causing perforations. The results of swallowing small powerful magnets can be very serious and life-threatening. Swallowing incidents have often resulted in considerable damage to the gastrointestinal tissues and required emergency surgical treatment. For survivors, there can be serious long-term health consequences. Neither Indigo Books & Music Inc. nor Health Canada has received reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. For more information on the danger or swallowing magnets, please see Health Canada's page on Magnets. Approximately 1,289 units of the affected products were sold in Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from Aug. 2014 to Oct. 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Zorbitz Inc. Los Angeles California United States Retailer Indigo Books & Music Inc. Toronto Ontario Canada Consumers should stop using the recalled magnet sets immediately and return the product to Indigo Books & Music Inc. for a full refund, no receipt required. For more information, consumers may contact Indigo Books & Music Customer Relations at 1-416-263-5002, Monday to Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, by email or 1-800-832-7569 Monday to Friday 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. ET. INTEGRATED PRODUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Dull" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Billy Dull, Marlin Addison, Latrice Allen, Mark Castin, Paul Dunkel, Christopher Niedzwiecki, Robert Thorpe, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated v. Integrated Production Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01437 (W.D. Pa., October 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages. Integrated Production Services, Inc. is a natural gas services company that provides a variety of support functions related to the production of natural gas at well sites throughout North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP 100 First Avenue, Suite 1010 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com INTREPID USA: Faces "Paine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Shelley Paine, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Intrepid U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02005 (M.D. Tenn., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess if 40 per week. Intrepid U.S.A., Inc. is engaged in the business of providing home treatments and other medical assistance. The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Jerry E. Martin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jmartin@barrettjohnston.com IOD INCORPORATED: Sued Over Overcharged Medical Records Request --------------------------------------------------------------- Demond Moore v. IOD Incorporated and, NYU Hospitals Center, Case No. 1:14-cv-08406 (S.D.N.Y., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for unlawful and deceptive acts and practices of overcharging requests for medical records. IOD Incorporated is a Wisconsin for-profit corporation with a principal place of business in Green Bay, Wisconsin. NYU Hospitals Center is a New York not-for-profit hospital with a principal place of business in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Narwold, Esq. Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 20 Church St., 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860)882-1681 Facsimile: (860) 882-1682 E-mail: bnarwold@mofleyrice.com mjasinski@motleyrice.com - and - Steven L. Hess, Esq. SIMONSON HESS LEIBOWITZ & GOODMAN, P.C. 299 Broadway - Suite 1220 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212)233-3133 E-mail: sh@hessleibowitz.com IRAN: Faces Suit Over 1983 U.S Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a federal lawsuit was filed against the government of Iran on behalf of surviving U.S. military veterans and families of service members killed in the 1983 U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. Relvas, et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran was filed on Oct. 20 in federal court in the District of Columbia by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll attorneys Matthew Axelrod in Washington and Theodore Leopold in West Palm Beach. Mr. Axelrod is co-counsel, and Leopold is co-lead counsel, the firm said in a statement. An earlier lawsuit involving several hundred current and former members of the U.S. military and their families was filed against Iran in 2001. In that case, Peterson et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, the judge entered a default judgment of $2.65 billion. The current case involves a few dozen veterans and other survivors. The Peterson ruling largely rested on arguments and evidence showing terrorist groups that participated in the deadly attack -- Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard -- had the backing of the Iranian government. The suicide bombing killed 241 U.S. service members and severely injured numerous others. In 2008, more than $2 billion of Iranian assets held by Citibank for Bank Markazi, the central bank of Iran, were frozen. The Peterson plaintiffs sued the bank in New York federal court and in March 2013 were granted a summary judgment that ordered the funds transferred to a victims' fund. The judgment was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in July. Bank Markazi indicated it intends to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. "We are optimistic that the Second Circuit's ruling will stand and have faith in the judicial system that all victims of this horrific attack against U.S. military personnel -- those who first filed the lawsuit against Iran and those similarly situated claimants who have come forward since -- will be able to rightfully share in the victims' fund," said plaintiffs co-counsel Jeremy McKenzie of Karsman, McKenzie & Hart in Savannah, Ga. J R STONE: Faces "Lorenzo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Facundo S. Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J R Stone Design, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Jaime Rodriguez, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv- 81292 (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. The Defendants own and operate commercial businesses providing design, fabrication and installation and related services to customers from all locations throughout South Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Charles Copeland, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. COPELAND P.A. 824 W. Indiantown Rd Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 691-9048 Facsimile: (866) 259-0719 E-mail: ChrisCopeland@MyFloridaCounsel.com KPMG US: 200 Female Employees Join Gender Bias Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Reed, writing for FinancialDirector, reports that more than 200 KPMG US female employees, past and present, have signed up to a class action against the firm. Two weeks ago 9,000 KPMG US fee-earning women, from its advisory and tax divisions, were contacted about joining a class action against the firm, with the action alleging gender discrimination. The former and current employees, who have served between October 2008 and the present day, were contacted after a US district judge approved the communication on 3 October. The action revolves around former KPMG manager Donna Kassman, who spent 17 years working in the firm's New York office before resigning, then claiming that she and other females suffered gender discrimination. The firm has been accused of developing a hostile work environment in which women are underpaid and rarely promoted to leadership roles. The UK business is uninvolved in the action. Katherine Kimpel -- kkimpel@sanfordheisler.com -- a managing partner at Sanford Heisler and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, told Accountancy Age that the initial response from women looking to join the claim was "high". "It's indicative of a real interest in this case, and [shows there's] likely a real problem," said Ms. Kimpel. Current employees have joined the case, Ms. Kimpel confirmed, but a ratio of existing versus former staff that have joined the action was currently unavailable. KPMG has previously said: "We will not comment on pending litigation other than to note that plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and KPMG will vigorously defend itself. "As we have noted previously, KPMG is recognized as a leader for its strong commitment to supporting women in the workplace. Diversity and inclusion have long been priorities for the firm, and as such are woven into our culture and everything we do. We continue to believe this lawsuit has no basis in fact." LEAR CORPORATION: Settlement Remains Subject to Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the settlement agreements in a class action lawsuit remain subject to the final approval of the district court. On October 5, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Company and several other global suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and related laws. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce in the United States. The complaints further allege that defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the various civil actions (the "Consolidated Cases"), for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court"). In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to litigate the Consolidated Cases, on May 5, 2014, the Company entered into settlement agreements (the "Settlement Agreements") under which the class plaintiffs will release the Company from all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of action in the Consolidated Cases. The Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the Company of any wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it violated no laws in connection with this matter. Because the conduct alleged by the class plaintiffs overwhelmingly relates to periods prior to the Company's emergence from bankruptcy in 2009, the Settlement Agreements provide that the aggregate settlement amount of $8.75 million will consist of $370,263 in cash contributed by the Company with the remainder paid in outstanding common stock and warrants of the Company held in the bankruptcy reserve established under the Company's plan of reorganization. The Settlement Agreements were approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 27, 2014, and preliminarily approved, on the record in open court, by the District Court on July 1, 2014. The Settlement Agreements remain subject to the final approval of the District Court, which will be decided following the provision of notice to purported class members and hearings, with respect to each class, to confirm the fairness of the settlement. Lear Corporation and its affiliates design and manufacture automotive seating and electrical distribution systems and related components. The Company's main customers are automotive original equipment manufacturers. The Company operates facilities worldwide. LEAR CORPORATION: Dismissed From Public Entities' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the City of Richmond, California filed on February 20, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit in the District Court on behalf of itself and other "Public Entities," comprising states, state subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities and local government subdivisions and agencies, and amended their complaint on October 3, 2014 (the "Public Entities Complaint"). The allegations in the Public Entities Complaint are substantially similar to those in the Consolidated Cases. The Public Entities dismissed the Company, without prejudice, from the Public Entities' lawsuit on October 9, 2014. Lear Corporation and its affiliates design and manufacture automotive seating and electrical distribution systems and related components. The Company's main customers are automotive original equipment manufacturers. The Company operates facilities worldwide. LEAR CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuits in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that beginning in early 2012, putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia against the Company and several other global suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of Canadian laws related to competition (the "Canadian Complaints"). The allegations in the Canadian Complaints are substantially similar to those in the Consolidated Cases. The ultimate outcome of this litigation, and consequently, an estimate of the possible loss, if any, related to the Canadian Complaints cannot reasonably be determined at this time. However, the Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations against it are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in these proceedings. Lear Corporation and its affiliates design and manufacture automotive seating and electrical distribution systems and related components. The Company's main customers are automotive original equipment manufacturers. The Company operates facilities worldwide. MASSEY-YARDLEY INC: Faces "Alson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Latanya L. Alson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Massey-Yardley, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-62415 (S.D. Fla., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages. Massey-Yardley, Inc. is a new and used car dealer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Lloyd Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A. 501 North Reo Street Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com MEIJER: Recalls Halloween Projector Flashlight Due to Burn Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Meijer Distribution Inc., of Grand Rapids, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of about 8,600 flashlight. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The flashlight can overheat and melt the plastic handle, posing a burn risk to the user. Meijer has received one report of a flashlight overheating and the plastic handle melting. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves a Signature Designs Halloween image projector. The projector is a flashlight with cap that holds special lenses to project messages and images onto a wall or other surfaces. The flashlight handle is black with the word Halloween and pictures of a skull and a jack o' lantern printed in white. The handle is about 7 inches long and holds two size C batteries. The cap is orange and is about 3 inches high and about 2 inches in diameter. The projector comes with three lenses: an orange lens with a black jack o' lantern, a yellow lens with a black bat and a purple lens with the words "Trick or Treat" in black. A clear label with "Signature Designs (HK) Ltd, Ningbo, China, 14-121-02, 05/2014" printed in white is on the side of the handle opposite the orange on/off switch. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/UqWaue The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Meijer stores from Sept. 2014 to Oct. 2014 for about $3. Consumers should immediately stop using the flashlight, remove the batteries and return it to the customer service desk at any Meijer store or contact Meijer for a full refund. MIA HOSPITALITY: "Suarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Suarez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Mia Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Fairfield Inn and Suites a/k/a Fairfield Inn Miami Airport and Natalia Fernandez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23925 (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a hotel and motel in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Obtains Final Approval of "Vassalle" Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge David A. Katz issued a memorandum opinion on October 14, 2014, granting final approval of a settlement in the class-action litigation entitled MARTHA VASSALLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, et. al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-00096, (N.D. Ohio). Previously, the Court, in its preliminary order, certified a nationwide class of persons who had been sued by Defendants Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., Encore Capital Group, Inc., and related entities between January 1, 2005 and March 11, 2011 in any debt-collection lawsuit in any court where an affidavit attesting to facts about the underlying debt was used by Midland in connection with the debt-collection lawsuit. The Court also appointed as Class Counsel the law firm of Murray & Murray, counsel for Andrea Brent, Martha Vassalle, Jerome Johnson, and Hope Franklin, the Named Plaintiffs in these suits, and approved the proposed form of notice to the class. Judge Katz concluded in this final order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/adqwKYfrom Leagle.com, that the settlement class satisfies the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "The attorneys' fees for class counsel remain in the same amount of $1,500,000 and are reasonable, particularly in light of the length and breadth of this matter," added Judge Katz. "Motions for attorneys' fees filed by Mr. Clawson's counsel, Charles Delbaum of the National Consumer Law Center and the Pelzer Objectors for their counsel, Ian Lyngklip, will be addressed separately by this Court. Should any fees be awarded, they will not come from the common fund and will not reduce the amount to be distributed to Class Members." State of Illinois, Interested Party, represented by Paul A. Isaac, Office of the Attorney General. MIDWEST POULTRY: May 6, 2015 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ If you purchased Shell Eggs or Egg Products produced in the United States directly from any Producer from January 1, 2000 through July 30, 2014, you could be a Class Member in a proposed class action settlement. This legal notice is to inform you of proposed Settlements between Plaintiffs and Defendants Midwest Poultry Services, LP ("Midwest"), National Food Corporation ("NFC"), and United Egg Producers/United States Egg Marketers ("UEP/USEM"), reached in the class action lawsuit, In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 08-md-02002, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and also to inform you of a second amendment to the Sparboe Settlement. Who is included in the Settlements & Second Sparboe Amendment? The Settlement "Classes" include all persons and entities in the United States that purchased Shell Eggs and Egg Products, in the United States directly from any Producer from January 1, 2000 through July 30, 2014. Due to the recent Settlements, the prior Sparboe Settlement is amended to add to the Sparboe Settlement Class direct purchases of Shell Eggs and Egg Products from March 1, 2014 through July 30, 2014, expanding the Class Period to make it comparable to the more recent Settlement Classes. What is this case about? Plaintiffs claim that Defendants conspired to limit the supply of Shell Eggs and Egg Products, which raised the price of Shell Eggs and Egg Products and, therefore, violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, a federal statute that prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain competition. The settling Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations. What do the Settlements provide? Under the Settlements, Plaintiffs will release all claims against Midwest, NFC and UEP/USEM. In exchange, Midwest will pay $2.5 million; NFC will pay $1 million; and UEP/USEM will pay $500,000, into a settlement fund for the benefit of the Classes. Plaintiffs also will receive documents and information that Plaintiffs' attorneys believe will aid in their analysis and prosecution of this Action. What does the Sparboe Settlement provide? There is no monetary relief under the Sparboe Settlement. Sparboe agreed to provide substantial and immediate cooperation to Plaintiffs, which the Court already found conferred substantial benefits upon the Class. The second amendment merely conforms the Sparboe Class to the recent Settlement Classes. What do I do now? If you are a Class Member your legal rights are affected, and you now have a choice to make. Participate in the Settlements: No action is required to remain part of the recent Settlements or the amended Sparboe Settlement. If the Court grants final approval to the Settlements and the Second Sparboe Amendment, they will be binding upon you and all other Class Members. By remaining part of the Settlements, you will give up any potential claims that you may have against Midwest, NFC, UEP/USEM and Sparboe relating to the claims alleged in this lawsuit. You may be eligible to receive a settlement payment at a future date. Ask to be excluded: If you wish to exclude yourself from the Sparboe Settlement as amended (if you had no purchases before March 1, 2014) and/or the recent Settlements and wish to retain your rights to pursue your own lawsuit relating to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, you must formally exclude yourself from the Classes by sending a signed letter to the Claims Administrator postmarked on or before March 6, 2015. Object: You may notify the Court that you object to the recent Settlements and/or Second Sparboe Amendment by mailing a statement of your objection(s) to the Court, Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Defense Counsel postmarked by March 6, 2015. Detailed instructions on how to participate, opt out or object are on the Settlement website. Who represents you? The Court appointed Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC; Michael D. Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP; Stanley D. Bernstein of Bernstein Liebhard LLP; and Stephen D. Susman of Susman Godfrey LLP as Interim Co- Lead Class Counsel. You do not have to pay them or anyone else to participate. You may hire your own lawyer at your own expense. When will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlements and/or the Second Sparboe Amendment? At 9:30 a.m. on May 6, 2015, at the United States District Court, James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, the Court will hold a hearing to determine the fairness and adequacy of the recent Settlements and the Second Sparboe Amendment, and consider any motion for an award of attorneys' fees and incentive awards and reimbursement of litigation costs. You may appear at the hearing, but are not required to do so. Please note that the Court may change the date and/or time of the Fairness Hearing. Settlement Class Members are advised to check www.eggproductssettlement.com for any updates. How can I learn more? This notice is only a summary. For more information, visit www.eggproductssettlement.com MISSOURI: Court Approves Deal in Suit vs. Corrections Dept ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey approved a settlement resolving the case captioned BOBBIE Y. LANE d/b/a CAGED POTENTIAL, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE LOMBARDI, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12- 4219-CV-C-NKL, (W.D. Mo.). Bobbie Lane filed this class action lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 seeking to enjoin the censorship of books or other publications mailed to inmates held in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections (MODOC) without affording the sender notice of non-delivery and the opportunity to be heard. In November 2012, the Court granted Mr. Lane's motion to certify the class is defined as: All current and future publishers, distributors, and authors of written materials, who mail books, publications, or other written materials to inmates incarcerated in prisons operated by MODOC. The Parties' Settlement Agreement requires the MODOC to provide notice to the sender of censored materials, an opportunity to be heard, and review by a prison official who did not originally withhold the material. Judge Laughrey found the Settlement Agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court also dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims. A copy of the Court's October 22, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/bmgmR9from Leagle.com. Mariann B. Atwell, Defendant, represented by Emily A. Dodge, Missouri Attorney General's Office & Elizabeth Callahan, Missouri Attorney General's Office. MUTUAL PHARMA: Georgia Plaintiffs Can't Sue Over Design Defects --------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that in a case of first impression, a federal judge has ruled that Georgia plaintiffs cannot sue over design defects in drugs that have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. U.S. District Judge David Katz of the Northern District of Ohio ruled that federal law preempts design-defect claims under Georgia law because it would be impossible for drugmakers both to design new, safer drugs and to comply with federal law. Pharmaceutical companies cannot change their drugs without approval from the FDA. The judge noted the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, in which the justices found that a New Hampshire claim for design defect was preempted because the state law requiring drugmakers to make a pharmaceutical product safer "either by altering its composition or altering its labeling" conflicted with federal laws that don't allow manufacturers to unilaterally change the composition of a drug. "The court having carefully read Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. concludes that it was impossible for defendants to comply with both its state-law obligations to alter the drug's composition and it's federal-law duty not to do so," Judge Katz said. New Hampshire and Georgia both analyze design defects for whether the danger of products outweighs their utility and alternative designs would have made the products safer, Judge Katz added. Defendants can't both pursue alternative designs and keep their drugs in compliance with federal regulatory approvals, the judge said. He granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs' claims for design and manufacturing defects, intentional infliction of emotional distress and derivative claims for loss of consortium and others. Judge Katz is presiding over the case because the parties are citizens of different states and because it was centralized in the federal multidistrict litigation over birth control pill Ortho Evra. Raissa Booker allegedly died because of a pulmonary embolism she developed from using the Ortho Evra birth control patch, and her mother Donna Booker prosecuted the lawsuit. The defendants include Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC and Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Lawyers Seek $50 Million in Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs lawyers who scored licensing rights for college athletes at trial this summer want $50 million for their role in what they call "trailblazing litigation" that ended in a "landmark victory." The team led by Michael Hausfeld of Washington, D.C.'s Hausfeld asked the court on Oct. 21 for $45 million in fees and $5.3 million in costs. The plaintiffs lawyers secured injunctive relief for athletes this August in O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, following a widely publicized, three-week bench trial in the Northern District of California. "The result is superlative: a ground-breaking permanent injunction that finally prohibits suppression of competition for college athletes through the sharing of revenue obtained through the use of their names, images, and likenesses," the Hausfeld lawyers wrote. "Along the way, plaintiffs exposed the inequities of college athletics, including the . . . machinations of one of America's oldest cartels." U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland ruled the NCAA must allow colleges to pay athletes up to $5,000 a year in licensing revenue from television and video game contracts. She also ordered the NCAA to increase men's football and basketball scholarships by about $3,000 a year, enough to cover the full cost of attending school. Judge Wilken denied athletes' request to earn endorsement money during their college careers. NCAA lawyers, including partners from Munger Tolles & Olson and Schiff Hardin, have appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and are scheduled to file their opening brief in January. The Oct. 21 motion does not include attorney time or expenses associated with the mediation of claims against Electronic Arts Inc. and Collegiate Licensing Co., which settled last year before trial. Those fees and costs will come in a future motion. The NCAA declined to comment on the proposed fees. Plaintiffs lawyers say the trial verdict, which they estimate could net athletes tens of millions of dollars each season, was not easy to come by. It took five years of "painstaking litigation," they argue, comprised of 10 motions to dismiss, 76 depositions, discovery feuds, extensive summary-judgment filings, and more than a year of class-certification briefing and proceedings. "The complexities of, and risks associated with, this litigation defy comparison to most other contingent antitrust matters in recent history," the Hausfeld team wrote. They calculated their fee request based on lawyers' hourly rates ranging from $175 for junior associates to $985 for senior partners. Hausfeld lawyers also supervised and coordinated with 31 other plaintiffs law firms, they wrote, deploying a "staggering investment of resources." NEENAH, WI: Teachers' Retirement Benefits Class Action Reinstated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a Wisconsin appeals court judge has reinstated a class-action lawsuit filed by more than 250 Neenah teachers seeking to recover more than $61 million in post- retirement benefits. The Second District Court of Appeals ruled on Oct. 22 that a Winnebago County judge wrongly dismissed the lawsuit last year. That judge had said only claims filed by people who included itemized lists of the relief they sought would be considered. Of the 261 teachers named in the lawsuit, only two had filed the required paperwork. The lower court judge dismissed the other 259 claims. But the appeals court says that reasoning was incorrect and overturned the ruling. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, which now goes back to Winnebago County Circuit Court. Joe Forward, in an article for State Bar of Wisconsin, reports that a state appeals court has ruled that a "mass action" filed by teachers against the Neenah Joint School District was not barred by a statute that requires a notice of claim against a government entity to be filed by the claimants. In April 2013, six teachers filed a complaint "on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated" claiming damages of more than $61 million based on changes to the district's retirement plan for district employees. Wisconsin's "class action" statute, Wis. Stat. section 803.08, allows class actions lawsuits to be brought by representatives of a group of similarly situated persons. State statute does not require all class members in a class action to be named. But when the defendant is a government entity, such as a school district, the claimants must also serve the defendant with a "notice of claim" under section 893.80. The notice of claim must identify the injury and all claimants. Thus, class actions with unnamed claimants are not allowed against government entities. But in Townsend et al. v. Neenah Joint School District, 2013AP2839 (Oct. 22, 2014), a three-judge panel for the District II Court of Appeals clarified that so-called "mass actions" of named claimants that bring similar claims are allowed. "Nothing in Wisconsin law bars the other type of class action against a governmental body, a mass action of named claimants bringing similar claims, provided that each claimants has complied with Wis. Stat. Sec. 893.80," wrote Chief Judge Richard Brown. The panel questioned an explanatory note in the official statutes under section 803.08, which cites Hicks v. Milwaukee Cnty., 71 Wis. 2d 401, 238 N.W.2d 509 (1976). It says "the class action statute has no application to making claims against a county." The three-judge panel explained that this note "has created confusion" and said the "record supports that the annotation affected the courts analysis." The circuit court dismissed the claims of all claimants besides the two teachers who filed the notice. The appeals panel clarified that the class action statute does apply to actions against government units so long as the notice of claim identifies all claimants by name. "What matters is not whether the notice was labeled a 'class action' but whether the claimants satisfied Sec. 893.80," wrote Judge Brown, noting that Hicks dealt with unnamed claimants and a different statute that allows counties to require that notices be verified. "We think what may have led to confusion is the failure to recognize that not every 'class action' is the type in which representatives sue on behalf of unnamed persons." Teachers "Substantially Complied" with Notice Statute The district argued that the notice of claim did not comply with section 893.80, because it did not show the two teachers who filed it had authority from the other claimants. The appeals panel explained that a notice is sufficient if it "substantially complies" with section 893.80, which requires the notice to describe the injury and identify the claimants' identity and address, along with the relief sought in an itemized statement. "These two notice requirements give the governmental entity a chance to investigate potential claims, and to compromise and budget for settlement," Judge Brown noted. The district argued that "substantial compliance" applies when determining if the notice of injury is adequate, but "strict compliance" applies when determining if the notice properly identified the claimants. The appeals court panel disagreed. The panel said the attached list that identified the "class" claimants by name and address was sufficient, even though the body of the notice only named two teachers. In addition, the panel rejected the district's argument that the notice of claim was deficient because it did not show it was made by the authority of all claimants. "No court of which were are aware has ever dismissed on 'authority' grounds the claims of claimants whose names, addresses and claim amounts were itemized in a notice of claim," wrote Judge Brown, noting that an attorney signed the notice. "The class actions dismissed by Hicks and its progeny were claims by unnamed, unidentified claimants." NEW YORK CITY, NY: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Forced Resignation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marco Trujillo v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv- 08501-PGG (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2014) is brought against Defendants to redress an alleged pattern and practice of wrongful and unlawful conduct, including disparate treatment, discrimination based upon race, ethnicity and national origin, hostile work environment, retaliation, constructive termination/forced resignation/retirement. Prior to his constructive termination/forced resignation, Mr. Trujillo was a Sergeant with the New York City Police Department and served in the NYPD for over 22 years. He is a male Hispanic and is of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino ethnicity/race/national origin and of Dominican descent. The City of New York is a municipal corporation existing by and under the laws of the state of New York. The City is a governmental subdivision of the state of New York and is the public employer of the New York City Police Department Officers. The Individual Defendants are Police Officers. The Defendants are The City of New York, New York City Police Department, New York City Police Department Captain Deodat Urprasad, New York City Police Department Deputy Inspector John D'adamo, New York City Police Department Chief Thomas Purtell, New York City Police Department Inspector John Danberry, New York City Police Department Sergeant John Rajan, New York City Police Department Lieutenant Ariola, New York City Police Department Captain Nicole Papa Michael, New York City Police Department Deputy Chief McNamara, New York City Police Department Sergeant George Ebrahim, New York City Police Department Inspector Paul Piekarski, New York City Police Department Captain Thomas Traynor, New York City Police Department Lieutenant Frank Basendello, New York City Police Department Lieutenant Jesus Romero, New York City Police Department Sergeant Benevolent Association's Manhattan North Delegate Sergeant Cliff Thieleke and "John Does" and "Jane Does", names being fictitious intended to be officers/representatives/agents/servants of the New York City Police Department, individually and in their official capacities. The Plaintiff is represented by: JoAnn Squillace, Esq. DRUMMOND & CRAWFORD, P.C., 221-10 Jamaica Avenue, Suite 106-108 Queens Village, NY 11428 Telephone: (516) 599-8585 Facsimile: (516) 599-0144 E-mail: jsquillace.drummondcrawford@verizon.net ORBITAL SCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over ATK Merger ---------------------------------------------------- Orbital Sciences Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that putative class action and derivative lawsuits challenging the proposed merger transaction with Alliant Techsystems Inc. ("ATK") have been filed on behalf of Orbital stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On May 9, 2014, a purported class action was filed by Gregory Ericksen; on May 16, 2014, a purported class action was filed by Daniel Walsh; on May 22, 2014, a purported class action was filed by Betty Greenberg; and on May 23, 2014, a purported class action was filed by Michael Blank. On September 16, 2014, Ms. Greenberg voluntarily dismissed her claims. The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits allege, among other things, that the directors of Orbital breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger and that ATK aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek, among other relief, to enjoin the proposed merger or to rescind it in the event it is consummated. Orbital believes the allegations and claims asserted in the complaints in these actions to be without merit and intends to defend these actions vigorously. Orbital develops and manufactures small- and medium-class rockets and space systems for commercial, military and civil government customers. PAN ASIA: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products Due to Undeclared Mustard ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 21, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Pan Asia Food Co. Ltd. Distribution: Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9396 The food recall warning issued on Oct. 17, 2014 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Industry is recalling Ottogi curry products from the marketplace because they contain mustard which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard should not consume the recalled product described. 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 mustard, 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 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: 500 g. Ottogi Curry (medium) with all codes where mustard is not declared on the label. PENFORD CORPORATION: Sued in Colo. Over Illegal Sale of Company --------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Pill, Marilyn Pill, and David Pill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penford Corporation, a Washington Corporation, Thomas D. Malkoski, Paul H. Hatfield, Evan Behrens, William E. Buchholz, R. Randolph Devening, John C. Hunter III, Sally G. Narodick, Edward F. Ryan, James E. Warjone, Matthew M. Zell, Jeffrey T. Cook, Ingredion Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, and Prospect Sub, Inc., a Washington Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02867 (D. Colo., October 21, 2014), is brought in connection with the proposed acquisition of Penford by Ingredion, specifically by agreeing to an unfair Merger Price that fails to adequately value the Company and its potential growth. Penford Corporation develops, manufactures and markets specialty ingredient systems for a variety of food and industrial products. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Penford Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Dyer III, Esq. Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. DYER & BERENS LLP 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 810 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 861-1764 Facsimile: (303) 395-0393 Email: bob@dyerberens.com jeff@dyerberens.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Roy Herrera Jr., Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com rherrera@wolfpopper.com PHILIPS ORAL: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Coe" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMY COE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPS ORAL HEALTHCARE INC., Defendant, CASE NO. C13-518 MJP, (W.D. Wash.) is before the Court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' seventh cause of action -- violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. This putative class action seeks damages and equitable relief for purchasers of Defendant's allegedly defective Sonicare Diamond Clean, FlexCare, FlexCare+, Healthy White, EasyClean, and Sonicare for Kids powered toothbrushes and related replacement parts. Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman, in an order entered October 24, 2014, granted the defendant's motion. "Plaintiffs survived a motion to dismiss their New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim by alleging futility of repair or replacement under the warranty due to underlying defect. Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence, however, that Coe believed replacement under the warranty would be futile when she decided not to seek repair or replacement. Coe's decision not to invoke the warranty, absent evidence of futility, forecloses the showing of loss required to bring a private claim under CFA. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have produced no evidence of a representation by Philips as to the life expectancy of the Toothbrushes, which is what is allegedly affected by the defect. Plaintiffs' CFA claim fails as a matter of law, and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted," ruled Judge Pechman. A copy of the ruling is available at from http://is.gd/wDvlF0 Leagle.com. PRICELINE GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Resort Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Jason Ubay, writing for Pacific Business News, reports that Maui resident Kathleen Soule is pursuing a class action lawsuit against Priceline Group and Marriott International seeking monetary damages "arising from the unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of 'resort fees.'" The complaint was filed by Kathleen Soule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii in Honolulu on Oct. 10. Resort fees are common in Hawaii and cover amenities such as Internet access, use of a fitness center, pool usage, daily newspaper, etc. Although the lawsuit specifically names Marriott, the class includes anyone who was charged a resort fee at any Hawaii hotel after booking a stay on Priceline.com since 2010, although it can be amended. Class action lawsuits against Priceline have been filed on the Mainland and failed, but this could have a different outcome because of Hawaii's pro-consumer laws, says Brandee J.K. Faria-- bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com -- managing member at Perkin & Faria LLC and a representative for the plaintiff. "The use of deceptive pricing practices like resort fees harm consumers and harm competitors, and harm Hawaii's important tourism industry," the lawsuit said. On Aug. 9, 2011, Ms. Soule used Priceline.com to book a reservation at the Wailea Beach Marriott Resort & Spa for Aug. 12, 2011. The room rate was listed at $110 per night. Before finalizing the transaction, Priceline quoted a total room cost of $133.49, which included the room rate and taxes and fees of $23.49. The suit alleges that the mandatory resort fee was known by Priceline but was not included. When Ms. Soule checked out of her room, she was charged a $30 resort fee per night. A call and email to both Priceline and Marriott were not immediately returned. Hotels and third-party booking sites compete for customers by offering the lowest room rates online. "Hotels and third-party booking websites have a huge incentive to post base rates that are as low as possible," the lawsuit said. The lawsuit claims hotels and booking sites "omitted resort fees from posted room rates for certain hotels, in an effort to make certain hotels appear less expensive than they actually were." The suit also alleges that Priceline never adequately informed consumers about resort fees. "Because the 'resort fees' are mandatory, there was no reason to omit them from the base room rate, other than to deceive consumers," the suit said. "If a consumer has to pay this charge for the use of a room, it is not a separate 'fee' at all, but part of the room rate. It should be disclosed as such." The lawsuit also slams mandatory resort fees levied on customers who have no intention of using any of the resort amenities the resort fees cover. "Defendants have devised a mechanism through the use of resort fees whereby they advertise what appears to be a low room rate but then secretly recoup an additional charge," the suit said. Ms. Faria said statute of limitations in these cases is usually four years, but if the court decides the defendants' actions were fraudulent, the statute of limitations can be increased. The lawsuit cites Bjorn Hanson, dean of the Tisch Center for Hospitality, Tourism and Sports Management at New York University, who say hotels took in approximately $1 billion in resort fees in 2012 alone. The lawsuit also cites the Federal Trade Commission, which in November 2012, sent a letter to 22 hotel chain operators warning that online reservation sites may violate the law by providing low estimates to consumers. "Without a class action, defendants will likely retain the benefit of their wrongdoing and may continue the course of their actions, which could result in further damages," the lawsuit said. QUALITY OFFICE: "Infante" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Hector Infante, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quality Office Solutions, Inc. and Gerardo Gonzalez, Individually, Case No. 4:14-cv-02993 (S.D. Tex., October 21, 2014), to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Quality Office Solutions, Inc. is engaged in the business of installing commercial furniture. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq. Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES 440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675 Houston, TX 77002-1637 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net melissa@mooreandassociates.net RALLYE MOTORS: Faces "Siancas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Raul Siancas individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rallye Motors, LLC, Rallye Motors Holding LLC, Rallye Leasing, Inc., Rallye Glen Cove, LLC, Rallye Northern, LLC, Rallye Roslyn, LLC, Rallye Roslyn Holding, LLC, Rallye Westbury, LLC, and Exclusive Detailing, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-06151 (E.D.N.Y., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate automobile dealerships in Long Island. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven John Moser, Esq. STEVEN J. MOSER, PC 3 School Street, Suite 207B Glen Cove, NY 11542 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 Facsimile: (516) 882-5420 E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com RENT-A-CENTER INC: To Get $7.1MM From LCD Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rent-A-Center, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company recorded a $7.1 million credit for payment to be received as a result of a class-action settlement with the manufacturers of LCD screen displays. The Company participated in an anti-trust class-action suit as an entity that indirectly purchased liquid-crystal displays from certain manufacturers during the period from 1999 to 2006. "We will be receiving net proceeds of approximately $7.1 million pursuant to a negotiated settlement of this matter. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, we will receive a specified payment based on the number of LCD units purchased during this time period, and there are no performance obligations or other contingencies associated with our right to receive the specified payment. The settlement proceeds that we will receive are reported as a reduction to cost of goods sold in the consolidated statements of earnings in the amount of $7.1 million for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2014, and a receivable in that amount is included in prepaid expenses and other assets at September 30, 2014, in the consolidated balance sheets," the Company said. RJ REYNOLDS: Motions Pending for New Trial in Wilcox Tobacco Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that attorneys for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco have motions pending for a new trial in the Wilcox tobacco suit. Cleston Wilcox was a career U.S. Marine who signed up weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack. He fought in the Pacific during World War II and later in Korea. Mr. Wilcox married a U.S. Navy nurse in 1946. Lorraine Wilcox and her husband had two sons. She is now 90 and blind. Michael Wilcox, the elder son, is a retired Army helicopter pilot and recipient of the Bronze Star and Distinguished Flying Cross for his service in the Vietnam War. Robert Wilcox is a Miami-Dade police homicide lieutenant and representative of his father's estate. Mr. Wilcox retired from the Marine Corps in 1963 and moved the family to Miami, where he worked as an aviation mechanic for Eastern Air Lines until he retired in 1983. Mr. Wilcox began smoking at 8 in 1932. He smoked Camels for about 40 years before switching in the 1970s to Salem menthols. Mr. Wilcox was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1993 and died in 1994. His wife was the only survivor with a claim because the sons were adults when he died. Plaintiffs case: The jury was told Mr. Wilcox made every effort to quit smoking after he suffered a heart attack in 1973. He switched to Salem based on R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. representations that a filtered cigarette was safer than filterless Camels. He later switched to Salem Light, also for health reasons, James Gustafson Jr. of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, said. "He used everything. He tried Aquafilter, cold turkey, cutting back, smoking half the cigarette. He tried nicotine gum and nicotine patches right when they came out. He went to hypnosis. He was unable to quit," Mr. Gustafson said. Michael Herkov, a psychiatrist from Jacksonville, and Dr. Juan Barrio, Wilcox's pulmonologist in Miami, testified Wilcox was addicted to cigarettes, Gustafson said. Dr. Barrio also testified about the causal link between smoking and cancer and that the lung was the primary source of the cancer. Defense case: Attorneys for Reynolds did not respond to a request for comment by deadline. Mr. Gustafson said Jack Abramson, an Aventura psychiatrist, testified Wilcox was not addicted to nicotine. Dr. Thomas Bennett, a pathologist from Billings, Mont., said Mr. Wilcox's cancer did not originate in his lung but could not say where it originated. A pulmonologist from Los Angeles, Dr. Lawrence Brooks, also claimed the cancer was not primary lung cancer, Gustafson said. Outcome: The jury decided Mr. Wilcox was addicted to cigarettes and his addiction was the legal cause of his lung cancer and death. It found Mr. Wilcox 30 percent at fault and Reynolds 70 percent at fault. The jury also found Mr. Wilcox relied to his detriment on Reynolds' concealed or omitted material facts about the health dangers posed by cigarettes and relied to his detriment on statements by Reynolds and other tobacco companies about the hazards of cigarettes. Lorraine Wilcox was awarded $7 million in compensatory damages and $8.5 million in punitive damages. Because of the fault assigned to Ms. Wilcox, her award was reduced to $13.5 million when the trial judge entered final judgment on Sept. 23. Comments: "R.J. Reynolds always says nobody heard what they said, or paid any attention or relied on what they said. The evidence in this case was that he switched to filters and then to filtered lights in reliance of what Reynolds said," Mr. Gustafson said. Post-settlement: Attorneys for Reynolds have motions pending for a new trial, and Wilcox is seeking attorney fees, Mr. Gustafson said. Case: Robert A. Wilcox v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Case no: 2010-45462-CA Description: Product liability Filing Date: Aug. 20, 2010 Trial dates: Aug. 4-28, 2014 Judge: Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Norma Lindsey Plaintiff attorneys: F. Gregory Barnhart -- FGB@searcylaw.com -- West Palm Beach, and James Gustafson Jr. -- JWG@searcylaw.com -- Tallahassee, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley; David J. Sales, David J. Sales P.A., Jupiter Defense attorney: Frank T. Bayuk Jr., Atlanta, and Ursula Henninger, Charlotte, N.C., King & Spalding, Ga. Verdict amount: $13.4 million SERVICE EMPLOYEES: LA Unified School District Workers File Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A group of Los Angeles Unified School District workers have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 99 for violating their rights. With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation- provided staff attorneys, Los Angeles school district building and grounds keeper Douglas Kennedy; bus drivers Eduardo Berumen and Griselda Moran; and cafeteria worker Magi Shanagian filed the lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In the complaint, the school employees detail how SEIU Local 99 union officials denied their several requests, in one case dating back to October 12, 2012, to refrain from full dues paying union membership. Because California does not have Right to Work protections for workers, workers can be forced to pay union dues and fees to an unwanted union as a condition of employment. However, under Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent, workers who refrain from union membership can also refrain from paying for union politics and members-only events. Despite the workers' requests to refrain from union membership and full union dues payments, the Los Angeles Unified School District continues to confiscate full union dues from the workers' paychecks at SEIU Local 99 officials' behest. The workers are also challenging SEIU Local 99's agreement provision with the school district that illegally restricts workers' ability to resign union membership and dues payments to a period of 30 days over the life of an agreement, which is often for a period of three years. "SEIU officials are stonewalling workers' attempts to refrain from paying for the union bosses' radical political agenda," said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "This case underscores the need for California to pass a Right to Work law making union membership and dues payments strictly voluntary." SMUCKER NATURAL: Falsely Marketed Root Beer Products, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Silva, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Smucker Natural Foods, Inc. and J.M. Smucker Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-06154 (E.D.N.Y., October 21, 2014), alleges that the Defendants' made false and misleading statements in their Natural Brew Draft Root Beer product label, in order to exploit the preference of health-conscious consumers for beverages devoid of artificial ingredients. The Defendants own and operate an international food company that owns ubiquitous food brands such as Jif and Crisco. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP Po Box 581 Hopewell Junction, NY 12533 Telephone: (845) 705-9460 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Peck v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al., Case No. RIC 1409181, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-08274 to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims. The Defendant is represented by: Hilary Ann Habib, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 E-mail: hhabib@sheppardmullin.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Removes "Peck" Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Lawrence J. Peck v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al., Case No. RIC 1409181, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-02206-JGB-KK to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. The Plaintiff is represented by: James S. Cahill, Esq. Neal J. Fialkow, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NEAL FIALKOW INC. 215 North Marengo Avenue, Third Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 584-6060 Facsimile: (626) 584-2950 E-mail: jscahilllaw@aol.com nfialkow@pacbell.net The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP 379 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 815-2600 Facsimile: (650) 815-2601 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com - and - Robert E. Mussig, Jr., Esq. Hilary Ann Habib, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: rmussig@sheppardmullin.com hhabib@sheppardmullin.com - and - Ronald J. Holland, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: rholland@sheppardmullin.com TAKEDA PHARMA: Discovery of E-mails Whitewash, Plaintiffs Say ------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that plaintiffs lawyers fighting Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. over the drugmaker's spoliation of evidence have denounced as a "whitewash" its recent claim that it is on track to restore the evidence. Takeda and five related corporations reported that they have recovered 61,000 emails and attachments after a Louisiana federal judge found them liable for spoliation of evidence in litigation over diabetes drug Actos. The plaintiffs steering committee has moved to strike Takeda's report because, it said, "Takeda's destruction of evidence did not come to light through disclosure, but instead through exposure by the persistence of the plaintiffs steering committee." The document should not be part of the case in which plaintiffs won a $9 billion verdict against Takeda and Eli Lilly and Co., which co-promoted diabetes drug Actos, the committee said. The plaintiffs said the defendants failed to warn of the increased risk of developing bladder cancer from using Actos. U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty of the Western District of Louisiana ruled that Takeda intentionally deleted evidence relevant to the first Actos bellwether case in federal court and instructed the jury that Takeda had been obliged to retain documents about Actos since 2002. The jury was free to infer the plaintiffs would have been helped by now-deleted computer data involving 46 employees intimately involved in the drug's production, the judge said. After ruling that Takeda intentionally deleted evidence, Judge Doherty added that the drugmaker had acted in bad faith and willfully abused the judicial process in destroying evidence indicating it knew about the potential health risks of Actos. Judge Doherty ruled that Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., the Japanese parent of companies based in the United States and Europe, acted in bad faith in its destruction of documents and violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Takeda said in an amendment to its report that it would respond to the plaintiffs' motion separately. The drugmaker also it has determined that searches conducted for emails have sometimes returned emails "actually associated with other individuals who had similar names and email addresses." As a result, Takeda said, it has removed those documents from its production. TAKEDA PHARMA: Judge Cuts Actos Punitive Damages Verdict -------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal judge has reduced a $9 billion punitive damages verdict against the manufacturers of Type 2 diabetes drug Actos to less than $37 million. U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty of the Western District of Louisiana on Oct. 27 denied a motion by the defendants for new trial in the first federal bellwether test of claims that taking Actos increased the risk of getting bladder cancer. She also concluded that the punitive damages award was not "unreasonable given the evidence presented of a high degree of reprehensibility of the defendants' conduct and the need to adequately deter such conduct in the future." However, she reduced the award after finding that the ratio of punitive compared to compensatory damages was unconstitutionally excessive. She issued an amended final judgment reducing punitive damages to $27.6 million against Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and $9.2 million against Eli Lilly and Co. Judge Doherty had previously reduced an award of $1.475 million in compensatory damages to $1.27 million. She had denied a motion by Takeda and Eli Lilly and Co. to reject the verdict as a matter of law. "We view the substantially reduced damage award as a step in the right direction, but we believe a damage award of any amount is not justified based on the evidence presented in this trial and we will appeal," Takeda general counsel Kenneth Greisman said. The company originally faced paying $6 billion of the punitive damages award. "While we have empathy for the plaintiff, we believe the evidence did not support his claims," said Mike Harrington, senior vice president and general counsel for Eli Lilly. "We will continue working vigorously to overturn the verdict." Plaintiffs attorney W. Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston did not respond to a request for comment. TARANTINO PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Mathis" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dora Mathis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tarantino Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Lake Forest Park, Case No. 2:14-cv-14418 (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. Tarantino Properties, Inc. own and operate a senior living facility known as Lake Forest Park in St. Lucie County, located at 2909 S 25th St, Ft. Pierce, FL 34981. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Charles Copeland, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. COPELAND P.A. 824 W. Indiantown Rd Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 691-9048 Facsimile: (866) 259-0719 E-mail: ChrisCopeland@MyFloridaCounsel.com TEACHERS INSURANCE: Two Plaintiffs Added in "Dunn" FLSA Case ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Edward M. Chen granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in KATHLEEN DUNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE & ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, NO. C-13-5456 EMC, (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs have sought to amend the complaint to add plaintiffs Fred Hickson and Karen Hobson, to expand a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action from a California class to a nationwide class and to add a New York class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion as to the addition of Plaintiffs Hickson and Hobson and the expansion of the FLSA collective action to a nationwide class, but denied as to the addition of a Rule 23 New York Class. A copy of Judge Chen's October 24, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/oyFHAnfrom Leagle.com. Pride Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Fraser Angus McAlpine -- fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Mia N Tucker -- Mia.Tucker@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. TEMPUR SEALY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Moved to Feb. 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on October 20, 2014, a stipulation and order modifying the June 4, 2014 Scheduling Order in ALVIN TODD and MELODY TODD, et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TEMPUR SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., formerly known as TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. and TEMPUR-PEDIC NORTH AMERICA, LLC Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04984-JST, (N.D. Cal.). The Parties stipulate and agree to these modified deadlines: Current Proposed Event Deadline Deadline ----- -------- -------- Deadline for Plaintiffs to identify None 1/16/2015 expert witnesses and provide proposed deposition dates Deadline to file motion for class 1/15/2015 2/16/2015 certification Deadline for Defendants to identify None 3/10/2015 expert witnesses and provide proposed deposition dates Depositions of Plaintiffs' expert 1/30/2015- 2/18/2015- witnesses re: class certification 3/3/2015 3/20/2015 Deadline to file opposition to motion 3/25/2015 4/6/2015 for class certification Depositions of Defendants' expert 4/9/2015- 4/15/2015- witnesses re: class certification 5/9/2015 5/9/2015 Deadline to file reply in support of 6/13/2015 No change motion for class certification Class certification hearing 7/2/2015 No change A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at http://is.gd/doUbMpfrom Leagle.com. Douglas B. Brown -- dbrown@rumberger.com -- Daniel J. Gerber -- dgerber@rumberger.com -- RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A., Orlando, FL, Attorneys for Defendants Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC. TRUASSETS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Charity Glick v. TruAssets, LLC, an Ohio company; Steve Johnson and Jane Doe Johnson, husband and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv-02370-NVW (D. Ariz., October 24, 2014) alleges that the Defendants had a consistent policy and practice of requiring its employees to work well in excess of 40 hours per week without paying them time and a half for hours worked over 40 hours per week. TruAssets, LLC, was incorporated in Ohio and does business in Arizona through its principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona. Steve Johnson is the owner of TruAssets. Jane Doe Johnson is Steve Johnson's wife. The Defendants are a "property preservation company that offers property preservation services for pre foreclosure, REO and vacant properties." The Defendants' services include "initial secures, trash-outs, sales cleans, lawn maintenance/landscaping." The Plaintiff is represented by: Trey Dayes, Esq. Sean Davis, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 288-1610 E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com TRUSCAPES INDUSTRIES: Failure to Pay OT Hours, "Raymer" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Raymer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly- situated v. Truscapes Industries, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and Truscapes SW FLA Inc., A Florida Profit Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-02662 (M.D. Fla., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours over 40 per week. The Defendants offer commercial and residential landscaping and property maintenance services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. Christina Jean Thomas, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com cthomas@forthepeople.com UNITED STATES: Motion to File Counterclaims v. Border Agents Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nate Beck, writing for Legal Times, reports that a federal judge in Washington has blocked the government's effort to bring claims against U.S. Border Patrol agents in an overtime pay dispute. U.S. Federal Claims Judge Nancy Firestone dismissed the government's motion to file counterclaims against the border agents as "unfairly prejudicial." The government sought to bring counterclaims against border patrol agents over so-called administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO), which allows agents to collect overtime pay without supervisor approval. The feds wanted to recover AUO payments that the government argued had exceeded the rates allowed by the controlling federal regulation. "The [government] filing is particularly offensive because the government is only pursuing the agents named in this suit . . . not the thousands of border patrol employees that have received the AUO benefits," Raymond Fay, an attorney for the agents, said in an interview. "It's clearly retaliatory." The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately return requests for comment. In March 2012, more than 200 supervisory U.S. Customs and Border Protection instructors sued the government for failure to pay Fair Labor Standards Act overtime. The agents didn't challenge administratively uncontrollable overtime -- base pay plus 25 percent -- in their suit. "Allowing the government to amend its answer and inject these claims into the litigation would fundamentally alter the nature of the case at this late date," Judge Firestone wrote in her ruling. The government first filed a counterclaim in May, asserting most plaintiffs owed the government between $15,000 and $25,000 for AUO overtime payouts, according to court papers. Judge Firestone threw out that claim in July. In the effort to refile the claims, the government said in its papers that "the issues raised by the proposed counterclaims will have to be resolved by the court regardless of whether counterclaims are asserted." Judge Firestone has set a hearing for Nov. 18 to hear arguments over summary judgment. UNITED STATES: Aponte Case Plaintiffs May Amend Notice of Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Victor J. Wolski of the United States Court of Federal Claims granted a motion to amend the notice of appeal filed in JORGE A. DELPIN APONTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, NO. 05-1043C. The plaintiffs filed on September 22, 2014, a motion to amend their notice of appeal filed the previous day, ostensibly to add an additional party to the list of appellants. The government has not filed any opposition to the motion. A copy of the Court's October 23, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/BoT0tVfrom Leagle.com. USA, Defendant, represented by Paul Davis Oliver, United States Department of Justice - Civil Division. US BANCORP: Court Upholds Denial of Discovery Bid ------------------------------------------------- District Judge John R. Tunheim overruled plaintiff's objections and affirmed a magistrate judge's order dated February 10, 2014, in IRON WORKERS MID-SOUTH PENSION FUND, Derivatively on Behalf of U.S. Bancorp, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD K. DAVIS, ANDREW CECERE, PATRICK T. STOKES, O'DELL M. OWENS, JERRY W. LEVIN, VICTORIA BUYNISKI GLUCKMAN, DAVID B. O'MALEY, ARTHUR D. COLLINS, JR., JOEL W. JOHNSON, CRAIG D. SCHNUCK, OLIVIA F. KIRTLEY, DOUGLAS M. BAKER, JR., Y. MARC BELTON, RICHARD D. REITEN, TERRANCE R. DOLAN, RICHARD J. HIDY, DIANE L. THORMODSGARD, BRYAN R. CALDER, Defendants, and U.S. BANCORP, a Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, CIVIL NO. 13-289 (JRT/HB), (D. Minn.). The Plaintiff brought a complaint alleging that Defendants -- who are current and former officers and directors of U.S. Bancorp (US Bank) -- breached their fiduciary duty by failing to properly oversee the performance of US Bank's largest subsidiary, U.S. Bank National Association (US Bank NA) as trustee of several trusts that invested in mortgage-backed securities. The Court previously dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's claim based on failure of oversight, finding that Plaintiff's allegations were "insufficient to plausibly state a claim that Defendants consciously disregard their oversight duties." The Court allowed Plaintiff 45 days in which "to file an amended complaint addressing the noted shortcomings in its breach of fiduciary duty claim." The Plaintiff then brought a motion to conduct limited discovery for the purpose of obtaining documents from US Bank that would allow it to fully and fairly plead its failure of oversight claim. The Plaintiff also sought an extension of the deadline in which to file its amended complaint. United States Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham, on February 10, 2014, denied Plaintiff's motion to conduct limited discovery and allowed a short extension of the time for filing the amended complaint. The Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge's order. "Because the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that discovery is not warranted is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law under these circumstances, the Court will overrule Plaintiff's objections," wrote Judge Tunheim in his memorandum opinion and order dated October 14, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/e24Ob3from Leagle.com. Sarah H. Daggett -- sdaggett@gaskinsbennett.com -- and Steve W. Gaskins -- sgaskins@gaskinsbennett.com -- GASKINS, BENNETT, BIRRELL, SCHUPP, LLP, Minneapolis, MN for nominal defendant. US PARKING: Faces "Amorin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Walter Edmundo Vasquez Amorin and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. U.S. Parking, Inc. and Joseph Padovano, Case No. 1:14-cv-23906 (S.D. Fla., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages. U.S. Parking, Inc. is a premier parking attendant service provider based out of Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Obagi Class Action in Delaware Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery has entered the dismissal of the Obagi shareholder class action with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. Prior to the acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of Obagi, the following complaints were filed: (i) a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, dated March 22, 2013, and amended on April 1, 2013 and on April 8, 2013, captioned Michael Rubin v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.; (ii) a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, dated March 22, 2013, and amended on March 27, 2013, captioned Gary Haas v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.; and (iii) a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, dated March 27, 2013, captioned Drew Leonard v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al. Each complaint is a purported shareholder class action and names as defendants Obagi and the members of the Obagi Board of Directors. The two complaints filed in California also name Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. (the wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Obagi acquisition) as defendants. The plaintiffs' allegations in each action are substantially similar. The plaintiffs allege that the members of the Obagi Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Obagi's stockholders in connection with the sale of the company, and the California complaints further allege that Obagi, Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. In support of their purported claims, the plaintiffs allege that the proposed transaction undervalued Obagi, involved an inadequate sales process and included preclusive deal protection devices. The plaintiffs in the Rubin case in Delaware and in the Haas case in California also filed amended complaints, which added allegations challenging the adequacy of the disclosures concerning the transaction. The plaintiffs sought damages and to enjoin the transaction, and also sought attorneys' and expert fees and costs. On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into an MOU with the plaintiffs in the actions pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of California, pursuant to which Obagi and such parties agreed in principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle those stockholder lawsuits. The parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release on January 31, 2014, which set forth the terms for the settlement and dismissal of the lawsuits and provided, among other things, that Obagi and the other defendants would not oppose plaintiffs' request for a fee award (subject to a capped amount). That settlement and fee award were subject to court approval. On February 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued an Order for Notice and Scheduling of Hearing on Settlement, preliminarily certifying the Rubin case as a non-opt out class action for settlement purposes, directing notice of the proposed settlement to members of the class, and setting a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement for April 30, 2014. At the settlement hearing on April 30, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to approve the settlement or award plaintiff any attorneys' fees. On May 1, 2014, Obagi filed its Answer to Plaintiff's Verified Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. After receiving notice that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the litigation, the Superior Court of the State of California scheduled a "Hearing on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal" and continued the hearing several times pending completion of definitive documentation and approval proceedings in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Following the decision of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware declining to approve the settlement, that "OSC re: Dismissal" hearing in the Superior Court of the State of California has been continued to December 24, 2014 pending the parties' discussions regarding further proceedings. On October 3, 2014, plaintiffs in the action pending in Delaware filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice. The Delaware Court of Chancery entered the dismissal of the action with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs on October 8, 2014. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs in the California actions sought voluntary dismissal without prejudice of each of those actions without notice to the proposed class. The court in the California actions has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' motion. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Solta Class Action Settlement Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement hearing was held on September 29, 2014, in the Solta Medical Shareholder Class Actions and the settlement was approved by the Court, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. Prior to the Company's completion of the acquisition of Solta Medical, several purported holders of then public shares of Solta Medical filed putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, against Solta Medical and the members of its board of directors, as well as the Company, Valeant, and Sapphire Subsidiary Corp. (the wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Solta Medical acquisition). The Delaware actions were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Solta Medical, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9170-CS (Del. Ch.). The California actions were filed under the captions Lathrop v. Covert, et al., Case No. HG13-707363 (Cal. Super.); Walter, et al. v. Solta Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. RG13- 707659 (Cal. Super.); and Bushansky v. Solta Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. RG13-707997 (Cal. Super.). The plaintiffs' allegations in each action were substantially similar. The actions all alleged, among other things, that the directors of Solta Medical breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Solta Medical in connection with the Company's proposed acquisition of Solta Medical. In support of their purported claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the proposed transaction did not appropriately value Solta Medical, was the result of an inadequate process and included preclusive deal protection devices. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Solta Medical on December 23, 2013, in connection with the proposed transaction contained material omissions and misstatements. The complaints claimed that Solta Medical, the Company, Valeant, and Sapphire Subsidiary Corp. aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive and other equitable relief, and money damages. The plaintiffs also sought attorneys' and expert fees and costs. While the defendants believed that each of the aforementioned lawsuits were without merit and that they had valid defenses to all claims, in an effort to minimize the cost and expense of any litigation relating to the lawsuits, on January 11, 2014, following arms-length negotiations, Solta Medical and the other named defendants signed an MOU to settle the actions and resolve all claims asserted by the purported stockholder classes. The settlement, which is subject to court approval and further definitive documentation, provides for a release and settlement by Solta Medical's stockholders of all claims against Solta Medical and the other defendants and their respective affiliates and agents in connection with the Company's acquisition of Solta Medical. In connection with the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs intend to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, which amount is subject to approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 10, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release and the Court entered a scheduling order on July 14, 2014. Pursuant to the scheduling order, a settlement hearing was held on September 29, 2014 and the settlement was approved by the Court. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Responses Due Nov. 24 in Solodyn Case -------------------------------------------------------------- An initial status conference was held on September 29, 2014, in the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions and any responsive pleadings are due on November 24, 2014, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On July 22, 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, filed a civil antitrust class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:13-CV- 04235-JCJ, against Medicis, the Company and various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn(R), alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn(R). The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants orchestrated a scheme to improperly restrain trade, and maintain, extend and abuse Medicis' alleged monopoly power in the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets to the detriment of plaintiff and the putative class of end-payor purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay overcharges. Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleges that defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys' fees. Additional class action complaints making similar allegations against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company have been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly-situated direct or end-payor purchasers of Solodyn(R) (Rochester Drug Co- Operative, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-04270-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed July 23, 2013); Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4642- JCJ (E.D.Pa. filed Aug. 9, 2013); Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4659-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 8, 2013); Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-5021-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 27, 2013); Heather Morgan, Case No. 2:13-CV-05097 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 29, 2013); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 176 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-05105 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 30, 2013); Ahold USA, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-12225 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 9, 2013); City of Providence, Rhode Island, Case No. 2:13- cv-01952 (D. Ariz. filed Sept. 24, 2013); International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 1:13-cv-12435 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 2, 2013); Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-12517 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 7, 2013); Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-06266-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Oct. 25, 2013)). On August 29, 2013, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund voluntarily dismissed the class action complaint it had originally filed on August 1, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed its class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:13-cv-05108). The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund complaint makes similar allegations against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company, and seeks similar relief, to the other end-payor plaintiff complaints. On October 11, 2013, Medicis and the Company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking an order transferring and consolidating the thirteen putative class action cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On February 25, 2014, the JPML ordered that the cases pending outside the District of Massachusetts be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, with the consent of that court, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions already pending in that district. The Multi-District Litigation ("MDL"), captioned In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02503-DJC, is now pending before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper. Two additional end-payor actions have been filed in the District of Massachusetts since the February 25th centralization order: Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-10786 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 14, 2014); and NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-11015 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 19, 2014). These cases have been included in the pending MDL. On September 12, 2014, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action complaint; however, on September 19, 2014, both the Direct Purchasers Plaintiffs and End-Payor Plaintiffs notified Medicis and the Company of errors in their respective complaints. With Defendants' consent, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint on September 22, 2014. The Defendants did not consent to the End-Payor Plaintiffs' filing of a corrected complaint, and the End-Payor Plaintiffs have yet to move for leave to file a further amended complaint. An initial status conference was held on September 29, 2014. Under the current schedule, any responsive pleadings are due on November 24, 2014. The Company is in the process of evaluating the claims and plan to vigorously defend these actions. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against Afexa Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously defending the Afexa Class Action. On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor, Afexa (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold- FX(R) to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result. The Company filed its certification materials on February 6, 2013 and a hearing on certification was held on September 3 to 6, 2013. An additional hearing day was scheduled for January 16, 2014. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of civil claim which seeks to re-characterize the representation claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. As a result, the hearing date scheduled for January 16, 2014 was cancelled and, at the request of the Court, the parties made submissions to address the impact of the amendments. The Court rendered a decision on March 27, 2014 denying costs orders for both parties and directing the parties to obtain a revised certification hearing schedule for the continuation of the certification hearing at an agreeable time. The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: MoistureLoc(TM) Appeal Fully Briefed ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the MoistureLoc(TM) Product Liability Lawsuits have perfected their appeal, the matter has been fully briefed by the parties and is awaiting argument before the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. Currently, Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated has been served or is aware that it has been named as a defendant in approximately 322 currently active product liability lawsuits (some with multiple plaintiffs) pending in a New York State Consolidated Proceeding as well as certain other U.S. state courts on behalf of individuals who claim they suffered personal injury as a result of using a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM). Two consolidated cases were established to handle MoistureLoc(TM) claims. First, on August 14, 2006, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created a coordinated proceeding in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. Second, on January 2, 2007, the New York State Litigation Coordinating Panel ordered the consolidation of cases filed in New York State, and assigned the coordination responsibilities to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. There are approximately 320 currently active non-fusarium cases pending in the New York Consolidated Proceeding. On July 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court overseeing the New York Consolidated Proceeding granted B&L's motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation testimony with regard to non- fusarium infections, which effectively excluded plaintiffs from testifying that MoistureLoc(TM) caused non-fusarium infections. On September 15, 2011, the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Trial Court's ruling. On February 7, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' additional appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to renew the trial court's ruling, and B&L cross-filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss all remaining claims. On May 31, 2013, the Trial Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to renew, and granted B&L's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all remaining non-fusarium claims. On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial Court's ruling. On March 19, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an Application for an Enlargement of Time in which to perfect the within appeal to the September term. A decision was granted on May 13, 2014, pursuant to which the Court granted the requested extension to perfect the within appeal to the October term. The plaintiffs have perfected the appeal, the matter has been fully briefed by the parties and is awaiting argument before the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM). Currently B&L has settled approximately 629 cases in connection with MoistureLoc(TM) product liability suits. All but one U.S. based fusarium claims have now been resolved and there are less than five active fusarium claims involving claimants outside of the United States that remain pending. The parties in these active matters are involved in settlement discussions. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Allergan Seeks Preliminary Injunction -------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan filed its motion for preliminary injunction in the Allergan Securities Litigation, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. On August 1, 2014, Allergan commenced the federal securities litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Valeant, Valeant's subsidiary AGMS Inc. ("AGMS"), Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman (Allergan, Inc. et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-01214- DOC). The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 13(d), 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC under those Sections. The complaint seeks, among other relief, a declaration that the defendants violated Rule 14e-3 and Sections 13(d), 14(a) and 14(e); an order requiring rescission of the defendants' purchases of Allergan securities; an order requiring the defendants to file corrective disclosures; preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief as may be necessary to prevent the defendants from enjoying any rights or benefits from Allergan securities that were acquired unlawfully and to prevent irreparable injury to Allergan or its stockholders arising out of unlawful solicitations; damages under Section 20A of the Exchange Act; and costs and attorneys' fees. On August 4, 2014, Allergan filed an application for an expedited schedule, which was denied on August 21, 2014. On August 19, 2014, the Company, Valeant and AGMS filed an Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses. The remaining defendants filed a separate answer on August 19, 2014. Also on August 19, 2014, the Company, Valeant, AGMS, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman filed Counterclaims against Allergan and the members of the Allergan Board of Directors. The Counterclaims allege violations of Sections 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC under those Sections, and seek, among other relief, an injunction requiring Allergan to issue corrective disclosures; an order enjoining further violations of Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rules 14a-9 and 14a-3, and costs and attorneys' fees. On September 2, 2014, the counterclaim-defendants filed an Answer to the Counterclaims. On September 12, 2014, the Court entered the parties' stipulation, setting a hearing date of October 28, 2014 for Allergan's intended motion for a preliminary injunction. On October 6, 2014, Allergan filed its motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin defendants and their officers, agents, representatives, employees, assigns, and/or anyone acting on their behalf or in concert with them from (1) exercising any of the rights or benefits attendant to any shares acquired by PS Fund 1, including voting or acting in the December 18, 2014 special meeting of Allergan stockholders; and (2) voting any proxies solicited by defendants on the basis of their September 24, 2014 proxy solicitation and the July 22, 2014 Form S-4 and from soliciting any further proxies until corrective disclosures are made. The motion also requests that defendants be ordered to make corrective disclosures to their September 24, 2014 proxy solicitation and the July 22, 2014 Form S-4, including disclosure of the facts that give rise to their alleged potential liability under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14e-3 promulgated thereunder. VALOR HOMES: Faces "Sanders" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Santigo Sanders, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Anthony Alaimo, Anthony Alaimo, Inc., Valor Homes 521 LLC, and Valor Plumbing LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00163 (N.D. Ga., October 21, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours over 40 per week. The Defendants provide affordable home loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Jefferson Kerr, Esq. MAYS & KERR, LLC Suite 202, North Tower 235 Peachtree Street N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 410-7998 Facsimile: (877) 813-1845 E-mail: jeff@maysandkerr.com VARIABLE ANNUITY: Class Certification Hearing Set for January ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that West Virginia's public school teachers are going to trial over losses to their retirement plans after a judge refused to toss out a class action filed on their behalf. Kanawha County, W.Va., Circuit Court Judge Carrie Webster denied summary judgment to the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board, which administers the state's retirement plans, and The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co., or VALIC. The class action, filed in 2008 by a teacher in Wheeling, alleges that VALIC misrepresented to teachers and other school employees the financial risk of an annuity that ended up stripping them of their retirement benefits. The defendants moved for summary judgment in 2011 on statute of limitation grounds. In her ruling on Oct. 16, Judge Webster noted that the plaintiffs were teachers and school employees, not financial experts. "As plaintiff's counsel points out, these teachers and school employees were accustomed to simply having a portion of their gross income withheld from their paycheck with the promise from the State of West Virginia that when they retired they would receive a monthly payment consistent with a statutory formula," Judge Webster wrote. A class certification hearing is set for January and a trial later next year, said plaintiffs attorney Harry Bell, managing partner of The Bell Law Firm in Charleston. He estimated that between 3,400 and 15,000 teachers could comprise the class. "We're getting into and having a very heavy level of discovery this November and December on the class certification and underlying case," Mr. Bell said. Charleston attorney Gary Pullin -- gpullin@pffwv.com -- a member of Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe who represents the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board, did not respond to a request for comment. VALIC, an American International Group Inc. company, is represented by Thomas Hurney -- thurney@jacksonkelly.com -- a member of Jackson Kelly in Charleston. Rick Sdao, associate general counsel of Houston-based VALIC, said the plaintiff had purchased the investment in 1992. "We believe the limitations period had run," he said. "The court has disagreed with us, and we'll have to review our options going forward." The case dates to the early 1990s, when the state's teachers and school employees were offered investment options for their retirement portfolios, including VALIC's annuity, as part of a shift away from the state's pension fund to a defined-contribution plan. The class action alleges that VALIC and the state's retirement board breached their fiduciary duties to teachers and other school employees. Mr. Bell called it a "smoke and mirrors scheme" that started out when representatives aggressively showed up in school break rooms to pitch the annuity to teachers. "They go in there and think they're talking to somebody at the consolidated public retirement board and, instead, it's somebody from VALIC with all their information, all their details, telling them the state will go under and you need to switch to this plan," he said. "VALIC basically made an absolute fortune on this." The case has jumped back and forth twice from the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia to Kanawha County Circuit Court. The class seeks millions of dollars in damages, plus punitive damages. Meanwhile, the retirement board and the West Virginia Investment Management Board, which invests teacher retirement savings, have sued VALIC to get their money back. After losing rulings on summary judgment last year, the boards petitioned the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments on Sept. 30. VENTAS INC: Faces 13 Putative Class Actions Over HCT Acquisition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ventas Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in the weeks following the announcement of the Company's pending acquisition of American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("HCT") on June 2, 2014, a total of 13 putative class actions were filed by purported HCT stockholders challenging the transaction. Certain of the actions also purport to bring derivative claims on behalf of HCT. "Among other things, the lawsuits allege that the directors of HCT breached their fiduciary duties by approving the transaction and that Ventas, Inc. and our subsidiaries, Stripe Sub, LLC and Stripe OP, LP, aided and abetted this purported breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek injunctive relief and damages," the Company said. "Ten of these actions were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland and consolidated under the caption In re: American Realty Capital, Healthcare Trust, Inc. Shareholder & Derivative Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-003534, two actions were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, and one action was filed in the United States District Court of Maryland. "We believe that each of these actions is without merit." Ventas, Inc., an S&P 500 company, is a real estate investment trust ("REIT") with a highly diversified portfolio of seniors housing and healthcare properties located throughout the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves $15MM Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck and Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, report that a California judge on Oct. 20 approved a $15 million settlement that would resolve a class action accusing Verizon California Inc. of issuing inaccurate wage statements that excluded crucial information that made it impossible for employees to determine whether they had been paid properly. Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff approved plaintiffs' Oct. 10 motion for an order to preliminarily approve the settlement and continue to certify the proposed settlement class, which consists of employees paid biweekly in California who received itemized income statements from Verizon between Apr. 1, 2009, and May 2011. The class action, filed by former Verizon field technician Hector Banda in April 2010, alleged the company violated the California Labor Code and the code's Private Attorney General Act by not listing the pay period beginning date, applicable hourly rates and number of hours worked at each rate on the wage statements it issued to employees. Scott Cerkoney filed a similar complaint against Verizon three months later and the cases were consolidated in 2011. Verizon allegedly issued approximately 223,000 wage statements to its roughly 6,800 employees during the class period. "Although the class may be entitled to recover penalties under [the California Labor Code] in the amount of approximately $100 per wage statement, recovery here is a zero-sum game in that any recovery requires continued class certification, and proof at trial . . . that violations occurred, were intentional and that the class suffered injuries as a result of receiving pay stubs with no pay period beginning date and no applicable hourly rate," said an Oct. 10 memorandum supporting the motion. "Thus, success at trial is not a foregone conclusion." In August 2013, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Abraham Khan ruled that issues of material fact existed as to whether he may award less than the maximum penalty "under the circumstances where employees have been able to calculate any missing portions of the wage statements, by doing simple math and viewing a calendar, and did not complain about that to the employer," according to his two-page ruling. In April, Verizon urged Judge Beckloff to toss the class action, arguing Banda had signed the release to all claims against the company to receive $28,000 of a $6 million settlement of a case brought by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Verizon said the plaintiff thus wasn't an "aggrieved employee" and couldn't bring his suit on behalf of the state through the Private Attorneys General Act, which Verizon's counsel described as a way in which California acts as a sheriff, deputizing private citizens to bring actions on its behalf. In their October filings, plaintiffs' attorneys said they would seek $5.25 million in fees and $150,000 in costs from the $15 million settlement payment. The plaintiffs are represented by R. Rex Parris, Alexander R. Wheeler, Kitty K. Szeto and Jacob R. Karczewski of R. Rex Parris Law Firm; and Jeffrey C. Jackson and Kirk D. Hanson of Jackson Hanson LLP. Verizon is represented by Linda S. Husar -- lhusar@reedsmith.com -- Julius Turman -- jturman@reedsmith.com -- and Steven B. Katz -- skatz@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP. The cases are Hector Banda et al. v. Verizon California Inc. et al., case number BC434587, and Scott Cerkoney et al. v. Verizon California Inc. et al., case number BC442358, both in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. VERIZON COMMS: 5th Cir. Upholds Judgment in "Murphy" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment entered in PHILIP A. MURPHY, JR.; SANDRA R. NOE; CLAIRE M. PALMER, Individually and as Representative of plan participants and plan beneficiaries of Verizon's Pension Plans involuntarily re-classified and treated as transferred into IDEARC's Pension Plans, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED; VERIZON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; VERIZON PENSION PLAN FOR NEW YORK AND NEW ENGLAND ASSOCIATES; VERIZON MANAGEMENT PENSION PLAN; SUPERMEDIA EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, formerly known as Idearc Employee Benefits Committee; VERIZON CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP, INCORPORATED; VERIZON ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT PENSION PLAN; VERIZON PENSION PLAN FOR MID- ATLANTIC ASSOCIATES, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-11117. This suit arose from the November 17, 2006 spin-off of Verizon Communications Inc.'s information services unit into a new corporation called Idearc, Inc., which subsequently evolved into SuperMedia, Inc. The spin-off is described in greater detail in U.S. Bank National Association v. Verizon Communications, Inc., No. 13-10752, 2014 WL 3746476, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. 2014). In 2009, several retirees whose pension benefits were transferred from Verizon pension plans to Idearc pension plans as part of the spin-off -- Appellants Philip A. Murphy, Jr., Sandra R. Noe, and Claire M. Palmer -- brought a class action suit against Appellees -- Verizon, the Idearc (and later the SuperMedia) pension plans, and the Verizon pension plans -- asserting a variety of claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq. The claims arose from the Verizon Appellees' alleged breach of their duties to the plan during the spin-off, as well as Appellees' alleged failure to turn over certain documents and disclose certain information to the retirees. The district court resolved Appellants' claims under ERISA Sections 406(b)(2) and (b)(3), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1106(b)(2) and (b)(3), ERISA Section 404(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1104(a)(1),1 and ERISA Section 102(b), 29 U.S.C. Section 1022(b), in a thorough and well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion and Order filed September 16, 2013, granting Appellees' motions for summary judgment and denying Appellants' partial motion for summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on these claims. Appellants' claims under ERISA Section 104(b)(4), 29 U.S.C. Section 1024(b)(4), and ERISA Section 404(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1), relating to Appellees' failure to produce certain documents, were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) in a separate Memorandum Opinion and Order filed October 18, 2010. The Fifth Circuit held that that the lower court did not err in dismissing the Section 104(b)(4) claim. Appellants' claim for disclosure pursuant to Section 404(a)(1) is also moot because they have already received all requested relief, it added. A copy of the Fifth Circuit's October 14, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/ijSTvvfrom Leagle.com. WATERWAY PLASTICS: Recalls Spa Drain Suction Covers --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Waterway Plastics, of Oxnard, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 26,000 Designer Pro Series Suction Covers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The drain suction cover can become disengaged from the spa wall, posing an entrapment hazard to consumers. The firm has received 70 reports of drain covers detaching. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves Waterway Plastics Designer Pro Series suction covers with model number 640-52XX S, printed on top of the outside edge of the plastic. The round covers are black and silver and were installed in select spas manufactured by Catalina Spas, Four Winds Spas, Dimension One Spas, and Sunrise Spas from June 2011 to June 2013. The covers are installed on these model spas: Sunrise Spas Series 989 Aquarian, Bimini (Mermaid brand only), 939 Endeavour, 959 Equinox, Essence 250, Genesis 250, Jewel 250, Legend 250, Medallion 350, S102 (Whitewater brand only), S103, S104, S105, 203LS, 204LS, 205LS, 949 Meridian, 249 Spirit SE, Tonga (Mermaid brand only). Model and series numbers are located on the cabinet panel on the lower right side near the top side control. Dimension One Spa Series At Home Series, Bay Series, Reflection Series The model name is on the inside of the cabinet access door. Four Winds Spa Series XL Swim Spas XL 12000, XL14000, XL 16000 The model name is printed on stainless steel plates mounted on the outside of the spa. They are usually located on the left panel, using the topside as the front panel. Catalina Spas All models manufactured from 2011-2013. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/0FdWs4 The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Pool and Spa dealers nationwide from June 2011 to June 2013 for between $3,500 and $16,000 for the spas. Consumers should immediately stop using spas with the recalled drained covers. Consumers should contact Waterway Plastics for inspection instructions and information on receiving a free replacement cover. WHITEHA VEN: Court Orders "Chestnut" Case Parties to Arbitrate -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul A. Crotty granted defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned DERICK CHESTNUT, on behalf of himself and others, Plaintiff, v. WHITEHA VEN INCOME FUND I, LLC; WHITEHAVEN SHERWOOD FOREST, LLC WHITEHAVEN S.M.H. FUND I, LLC; and ARCHSTONE CASTLE HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, NO. 12 CV 8854 (PAC), (S.D. N.Y.). The Plaintiff brought this class action against Defendants alleging unjust enrichment and violations of New York General Business Law Section 349. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief holding the parties' a litigation funding contract (Agreement) unenforceable because it is unconscionable and illegal. On January 6, 2014, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss. On April 2, 2014, Defendants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the Agreement. A copy of the Court's October 23, 2014 opinion & order is available at http://is.gd/QnP0sQfrom Leagle.com. ZIMMER SURGICAL: Recalls Power System Handpiece (2014-10-21) ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 21, 2014 Posting date: October 27, 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-41895 Reason: Zimmer has initiated a recall of modular electric/battery double trigger and modular electric/battery single trigger handpieces with manufactured serial numbers below 400000, because of a potential malfunction. It is possible that the handpiece could start by itself when the power source is connected. The unexpected output of the device (start by itself) could lead to an injury to the user during usage or preparation of the device. Affected products: Zimmer Universal Power System Handpiece Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: 89-8507-400-00 89-8507-400-10 Companies: Manufacturer: Zimmer Surgical SA, 3, Chemin Du Pre Fleuri, Plan Les Ouates Geneva 1228 Switzerland * Gov Christie Calls on President Obama to Help Enact Tort Reform ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Ramonas, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 21 railing against what he said is a "cottage industry" of class action lawsuits targeting businesses, calling on President Barack Obama to help enact tort reform. Delivering the keynote address at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's annual Legal Reform Summit, Gov. Christie, a potential 2016 Republican candidate to succeed Obama, said the president can help address income inequality by focusing on tort reform, instead of a minimum-wage increase. Gov. Christie, a self-proclaimed "recovering lawyer" who served as New Jersey's U.S. attorney during President George W. Bush's administration, said reducing incentives for class actions could help grow the economy. "Companies would have a lot more income to be able to pay to their folks in their businesses if they didn't have to worry about putting away the billions and tens of millions of dollars they have to put away for legal fees and legal settlements in the system that we have today," he said. The U.S. legal system shouldn't help "a narrow group of people in this country who either have not been truly injured" or have injuries that incentivize class actions as a way to generate revenue, not as "a true redress of grievances," Gov. Christie said. "Everybody in this country wants to have a fair legal system, which gives people the ability to be able to sue for appropriate causes and injuries," he said. "What we don't need is for that tort system to become an industry unto itself. And in America, that's what's happening." In conjunction with the summit, the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform released a report on "swarm" litigation, which it says harms U.S. businesses and their customers. "Unprincipled Prosecution: Abuse of Power and Profiteering in the New 'Litigation Swarm,'" authored by Mayer Brown partner Andrew Pincus, says companies often are forced into settlements when faced with large monetary claims and multiyear litigation on multiple fronts from state attorneys general, as well as state and federal regulators and class action lawyers. Thomas Donohue, the chamber's president and CEO, said after Gov. Christie's remarks that actual wrongdoing should be punished. But companies regularly are finding themselves with "a gun to their head" to reach settlements in cases that have "unclear" allegations and "arbitrary" fines, he said. "The settlement proposal is like a ransom note," Mr. Donohue said. "You comply or someone dies. In this case, your company, along with your jobs, are at stake." Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reichhold Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Stays Fibro Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a North Carolina resin manufacturer and its affiliates that have been named in numerous asbestos lawsuits have filed for protection under Chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to address its current and future asbestos liability. Reichhold Holdings US, Inc. voluntarily filed its petition for relief on Sept. 30 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Reichhold Holdings is joined by affiliates Reichhold, Inc., Canadyne Corporation and Canadyne-Georgia Corporation - collectively known as the debtors. "This action was taken to facilitate a restructuring of the debts of Reichhold, Inc., which represents only the U.S. portion of the global Reichhold organization," the company stated in a release. The company announced that it has arranged $130 million in financing from its bondholders to fund continuing operations, of which $100 million will be available to Reichhold, Inc., in the form of debtor-in-possession financing if the court approves. The financing will also be used in part to repay the debtors' existing secured financing in North American and Europe. As a result of the bankruptcy, defense attorneys Joanna Drozd and Mark Hsu of the Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young law firm filed a notice of bankruptcy and automatic stay of proceedings in the New York City Asbestos Litigation court, addressing plaintiffs attorneys who have named the debtors as a defendant or third-party defendant. The Oct. 3 notice explains that according to the Bankruptcy Code, an automatic stay is imposed for all pending and future lawsuits against the debtors. "[N]o cause of action arising prior to, or relating to the period prior to, the petition date may be commenced or prosecuted against the debtors and no related judgment may be entered or enforced against the debtors outside the bankruptcy court without the bankruptcy court first issuing an order lifting or modifying the automatic stay for such specific purpose," the notice states. The Board of Directors of Reichhold, Inc., resolved which actions to take after holding a meeting to discuss the voluntary bankruptcy petition. It is resolved, "that in the judgment of the board it is desirable and in the best interests of the company, its creditors, stockholders and other interested parties, that the company seek relief under the provisions of Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Code," the directors concluded. The law firm of Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard is representing the debtors as general bankruptcy counsel. The law firm of CDG Group LLC is retained as the financial advisor and investment banker for the debtors. The Hunton & Williams LLP law firm is retained as special counsel to the debtors to handle environmental and similar issues in relation to the bankruptcy proceeding. Kelly Garfinkle Strategic Restructuring LLC is employed as special pension advisor to the debtors. Dickstein Shapiro LLP is retained as special asbestos counsel for the bankruptcy proceedings. Logan & Company, Inc., is employed to provide the debtors with consulting services, including noticing, claims management and reconciliation and other related matters. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Has $1MM Fibro-related Litigation Expense ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lennox International Inc.'s expense for asbestos-related litigation was $1.0 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts known. Costs related to such matters were not material to the periods presented. "Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated into certain of our products. We have never manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos- containing components into our products for several decades. A substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary depending on several factors and are subject to policy limits. As a result, we may have greater financial exposure for future settlements and judgments. For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, and 2013, expense for asbestos-related litigation was $1.0 million, and $0.5 million, net of insurance recoveries, respectively. "It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our results of operations for a particular period." Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold through multiple distribution channels under brand names, including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling, Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration. On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest Investment Partners IV. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Has 8,100 Claimants at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cytec Industries Inc. had 8,100 asbestos-related claimants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that we own or formerly owned, or from products that we formerly manufactured for specialized applications. Most of these cases involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against us have been dismissed without any indemnity payment by us; however, we can make no assurances that this pattern will continue. "For the nine-months ended September 30, 2014, the Company had 8,100 claimants. "Claims are recorded as closed when a claimant is dismissed or severed from a case. Claims are opened whenever a new claim is brought, including from a claimant previously dismissed or severed from another case. "Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third party, which is updated every three years. During the third quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables, which will be updated again in the third quarter of 2015. The study is based on, among other things, the incidence and nature of historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the incidence of malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments for malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049. "In 2012, as a result of our findings, we recorded a decrease of $2.1 to our self-insured and insured contingent liabilities for indemnity costs for pending and anticipated probable future claims and recorded a decrease of $1.0 related to receivables for probable insurance recoveries for these pending and future claims. The reserve decrease was attributable to lower projected claim filings offset by more severe malignancy rates and settlement value projections. The decrease in the receivable was a result of the lower gross liability and a shift in the types of future claims expected. Overall, we expect to recover approximately 48% of our future indemnity costs. We have completed Coverage-In- Place-Agreements with most of our larger insurance carriers. "The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous variables that can affect the amount of the liability and insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii) changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co- defendants and insurers." Cytec Industries Inc. is a global specialty materials and Chemicals Company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling value-added products. The Company's products serve a diverse range of end markets, including aerospace and industrial materials, mining and plastics. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace Materials, Industrial Materials, In Process Separation and Additive Technologies. Its Aerospace Materials segment is a global provider of technologically advanced materials for aerospace markets. Its Industrial Materials product line includes Structural materials and Process materials. The Company's In Process Separation segment product line includes Mining chemicals and Phosphines. Its Additive Technologies include Polymer additives, Specialty additives and Formulated resins. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 3,200 Fibro Claims at Sept. 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pentair plc says its subsidiaries had 3,200 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014. The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third- parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. "As of September 27, 2014, there were approximately 3,200 claims outstanding against our subsidiaries. This amount includes adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted. This amount is not adjusted for claims that identify incorrect defendants or duplicate other actions. In addition, the amount does not include certain claims pending against third parties for which we have been provided an indemnification." Pentair plc provides products, services and solutions for its customers' needs in water and other fluids, thermal management and equipment protection. The Company invents and manufactures solutions for its products, services and technologies related to food, water or energy. The Company serves a range of customers in the food and beverage, residential and commercial, industrial, infrastructure, and energy sectors. It designs and manufactures technologies for the separation of solids, liquids, and gases, and for the treatment of water and steam. Its segments include Flow Technologies, Technical Solutions, Process Technologies and Valves and Controls. The Company's solutions include filtration and desalination, aquaculture systems, communications and electronics protection, controls and electrical protection, crop spray and crop protection, dewatering, flood water and wastewater systems, food and processing, foodservice, industrial heat tracing, and irrigation management. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Had $250.5MM Fibro Liability at Sept. 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pentair plc had $250.5 million estimated liability for asbestos- related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014. The Company states: "Periodically, we perform an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update our estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. "Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors, including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the solvency and creditworthiness of insurers. "Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $250.5 million and $254.7 million as of September 27, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated receivable for insurance recoveries was $116.1 million and $119.6 million as of September 27, 2014, and December 31, 2013, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. "The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the indemnifications we have provided to and received from third parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary significantly from actual results." Pentair plc provides products, services and solutions for its customers' needs in water and other fluids, thermal management and equipment protection. The Company invents and manufactures solutions for its products, services and technologies related to food, water or energy. The Company serves a range of customers in the food and beverage, residential and commercial, industrial, infrastructure, and energy sectors. It designs and manufactures technologies for the separation of solids, liquids, and gases, and for the treatment of water and steam. Its segments include Flow Technologies, Technical Solutions, Process Technologies and Valves and Controls. The Company's solutions include filtration and desalination, aquaculture systems, communications and electronics protection, controls and electrical protection, crop spray and crop protection, dewatering, flood water and wastewater systems, food and processing, foodservice, industrial heat tracing, and irrigation management. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Suits v. Travelers Companies Are Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Class action lawsuits filed against The Travelers Companies, Inc., alleging the company engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims remain pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired by TPC in 2004) in state court in West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs alleged that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs sought to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions. In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs sought damages, including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported common law duties to third parties, were also asserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims. In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the suits violated injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the Johns- Manville bankruptcy (the 1986 Orders). The bankruptcy court issued a temporary restraining order and referred the parties to mediation. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a lump-sum payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies. Among the contingencies for each of these settlements was that the bankruptcy court issue an order, which must become a final order, clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos- related claims against TPC, as well as related contribution claims, are barred by the 1986 Orders. On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (the Clarifying Order). The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct action claims that may be filed in the future. Although the District Court substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order, on February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the Clarifying Order. On December 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court granted TPC's Petition for Writ of Certiorari and, on June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008 decision, finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are final and therefore may not be collaterally challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court further ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order. However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further proceedings on those specific issues. On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to one remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by that objector against TPC. TPC's Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc was denied May 25, 2010 and its Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Petition for a Writ of Mandamus were denied by the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2010. The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the settlements had been met. On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was required to fund the settlements. The court entered judgment against TPC on January 20, 2011 in accordance with this ruling and ordered TPC to pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest. The bankruptcy court's judgment was reversed by the district court on March 1, 2012, the district court having found that the conditions to the settlements had not been met in view of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 ruling permitting the filing of contribution claims against TPC. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 22, 2014, the Second Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court's decision and reinstating the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 order which ordered TPC to pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest. On August 5, 2014, TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit. The parties await the court's decision on that petition. At September 30, 2014, the settlement amount recognized in the Company's consolidated financial statements totaled $579 million, comprising the $502 million settlement amount, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest totaling $77 million. Post-judgment interest will continue to accrue at an annual rate of 0.27% until the settlement is paid. SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings or the settlements, from time to time has been named as a defendant in direct action cases in Texas state court asserting common law claims. All such cases that are still pending and in which SPC had been served are either currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court or have been superseded by amended petitions that do not name SPC. If any of those cases becomes active or are amended to name SPC, SPC intends to litigate those cases vigorously. SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct actions in Ohio state court, which have been dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate courts. From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries have been named in similar individual direct actions in other jurisdictions. Currently, it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and their impact on the future development of claims and litigation relating to asbestos and environmental claims. Any such development will be affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation. Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the Company's current reserves. In addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges that could be material to the Company's results of operations in future periods. The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products and services to businesses, Government units, associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily in the United States. The Financial, Professional and International Insurance segment includes surety and financial liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products that are marketed on a domestic basis. In November 2013, the Company completed the sale of its wholly owned subsidiary The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company to The Travelers Companies, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Companies Has $2.45B Fibro Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc., reported that its net asbestos reserves were $2.45 billion, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers. The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per- occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement opportunities. In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions. TPC had previously entered into settlement agreements in connection with a number of these direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements). The Company has been involved in litigation concerning whether all of the conditions of the Direct Action Settlements have been satisfied. On July 22, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the Company and found that all of the conditions have been satisfied. Because each policyholder presents different liability and coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the factors which the Company may consider in the course of this review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved; past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if any, for that claim. In the third quarter of 2014, the Company completed its annual in- depth asbestos claim review, including a review of active policyholders and litigation cases for potential product and "non- product" liability, and noted the continuation of the following trends: * continued high level of litigation activity in certain jurisdictions involving individuals alleging serious asbestos- related illness, primarily involving mesothelioma claims; * while overall payment patterns have been generally stable, there has been an increase in severity for certain policyholders due to the continued high level of litigation activity; and * continued moderate level of asbestos-related bankruptcy activity. While the Company believes that over the past several years there has been a reduction in the volatility associated with the Company's overall asbestos exposure, there nonetheless remains a high degree of uncertainty with respect to future exposure from asbestos claims. In the Home Office and Field Office categories, which account for the vast majority of policyholders with active asbestos-related claims, both the number of policyholders with open asbestos claims and net asbestos-related payments were essentially unchanged in the first nine months of 2014 when compared with the same period of 2013. Payments on behalf of policyholders in these categories continue to be influenced by the high level of litigation activity in a limited number of jurisdictions where individuals alleging serious asbestos-related injury continue to target defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation. The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year- by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity. Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or indemnity payment. The completion of these reviews and analyses in the third quarters of 2014 and 2013 resulted in $250 million and $190 million increases, respectively, in the Company's net asbestos reserves. In both 2014 and 2013, the reserve increases were primarily driven by increases in the Company's estimate of projected settlement and defense costs related to a broad number of policyholders in the Home Office category due to a higher level of litigation activity surrounding mesothelioma claims than previously anticipated. In addition, the reserve increase in 2013 also reflected higher projected payments on assumed reinsurance accounts. The increase in the estimate of projected settlement and defense costs resulted from payment trends that continue to be higher than previously anticipated due to the impact of the current litigation environment discussed above. Notwithstanding these trends, the Company's overall view of the underlying asbestos environment is essentially unchanged from recent periods and there remains a high degree of uncertainty with respect to future exposure to asbestos claims. Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first nine months of 2014 were $154 million, compared with $145 million in the same period of 2013. Net asbestos reserves were $2.45 billion at September 30, 2014, compared with $2.42 billion at September 30, 2013. The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV) is a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products and services to businesses, Government units, associations and individuals. The Company is organized into three business segments: Business Insurance; Financial, Professional and International Insurance, and Personal Insurance. The Business Insurance segment offers an array of property and casualty insurance and insurance-related services to its clients primarily in the United States. The Financial, Professional and International Insurance segment includes surety and financial liability coverage's, which primarily use credit-based underwriting processes, as well as property and casualty products that are marketed on a domestic basis. In November 2013, the Company completed the sale of its wholly owned subsidiary The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company to The Travelers Companies, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Continue to Defend PI Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subsidiaries of Ingersoll-Rand plc continue to defend themselves against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims have been filed against either IR-New Jersey or Trane U.S. Inc. and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-containing components such as gaskets and packings purchased from third-party suppliers. The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to update its estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. The methodology used to project the Company's total liability for pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims relied upon and included the following factors, among others: * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally exposed to asbestos; * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer; * the Company's historical experience with the filing of non- malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung cancer claims filed against the Company; * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the Company's most recent three-year claims history; * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease claimed and by year filed; * an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history to determine the average settlement and resolution value of claims, by type of disease claimed; * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the future. At September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, over 80% of the open claims against the Company are non-malignancy or non-specified claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly in light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such claims. As of September 30, 2014, the Company's total asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries was $308.3 million. The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to IR-New Jersey and Trane was $129.1 million and $179.2 million at September 30, 2014, respectively, and $137.6 million and $184.2 million at December 31, 2013, respectively. The total cost associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, was $1 million. IR-New Jersey records income and expenses associated with its asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries within discontinued operations, as they relate to previously divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold in 2000. Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded within continuing operations. Trane has now settled claims regarding asbestos coverage with most of its insurers. The settlements collectively account for approximately 95% of its recorded asbestos-related insurance receivable as of September 30, 2014. Most of Trane's settlement agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications. Trane remains in litigation in an action that Trane filed in November 2010 in the Circuit Court for La Crosse County, Wisconsin, relating to claims for insurance coverage for a subset of Trane's historical asbestos-related liabilities. In January 2012, IR-New Jersey filed an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims. The defendants are several dozen solvent insurance companies, including companies that had been paying a portion of IR-New Jersey's asbestos claim defense and indemnity costs. The action involves IR-New Jersey's unexhausted insurance policies applicable to the asbestos claims that are not subject to any settlement agreement. The responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to recovery, and raised various coverage defenses. In December 2013, IR-New Jersey filed a similar action in the same court against an insurer that was not a party to the 2012 action. The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the Company's various insurance policies. The Company has concluded that its IR-New Jersey insurance receivable is probable of recovery because of the following factors: * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to IR- New Jersey, including Trane, and the success of other companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including Trane's favorable settlement discussed above; * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and * the Company's history of receiving payments under the IR-New Jersey insurance program, including under policies that had been the subject of prior litigation. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently available information. The Company's actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over many years and from many different carriers, is substantial. However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the considerations described above, are expected to result in the projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable insurance recovery. Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. IR- Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions, Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of industrial and commercial products that include Club Car, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30, 2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the Hussmann business. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the spinoff of the Company's commercial and residential security businesses named Allegion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $9-Mil. Fibro Liability ---------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation had $9 million asbestos-related liability, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014. The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following assumptions: * The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation. * The number of claims filed against us will decline each year. * The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted claims will be equivalent to historical averages. * The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be equivalent to historical averages. "Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of future payments. Approximately 19% of the recorded liability is related to asserted claims and approximately 81% is related to unasserted claims at September 30, 2014. "For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company's asbestos-related liability was $9 million. "We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at September 30, 2014, and December 31, 2013. "We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year, average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants." Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) owns transportation companies. Its principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links 23 states in the western 66% of the country. Union Pacific Railroad Company's business mix includes agricultural products, automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products and intermodal. Union Pacific Railroad Company connects with Canada's rail systems and is the railroad serving six gateways to Mexico. Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) is a Class I railroad operating in the United States. In June 2012, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, PS Technology (PST), acquired the Yard Control Systems division of Ansaldo STS USA. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had $352.9-Mil. Fibro Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation reported that its long-term asbestos liability was $352,922,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014. The Company states: "During the three months ended September 26, 2014, the Company received judicial rulings in two of our subsidiaries' coverage litigation matters. In the New Jersey case, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court rulings. In the Delaware case, the Superior Court issued a final judgment concerning the payment obligations of the excess insurers related to a trial that concluded during the year ended December 31, 2012. Appeals have been entered in both of these matters. These rulings did not impact the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. "Due to a higher number of asbestos claims settlements, and a decline in the insurance recovery rate that have occurred for one of the Company's subsidiaries, the Company recorded a $5.0 million pre-tax charge during the three and nine months ended September 26, 2014. This was partially offset by a reduction of allowances for collectibility of $4.1 million related to insurance receivables of another subsidiary during the three and nine months ended September 26, 2014. "Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow." Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing and engineering company. The Company provides gas- and fluid- handling and fabrication technology products and services to commercial and governmental customers worldwide under the Howden and ESAB brand names and by Colfax Fluid Handling. Colfax's products are marketed principally under the brand names Allweiler, Baric, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, COT-Puritech, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith. The Company has production facilities in Europe, North America and Asia. It offers customized fluid handling solutions to meet individual customer needs. In February 2011, the Company acquired Rosscor Holding B.V. In December 2011, it acquired COT-PURITECH. On January 13, 2012, Colfax acquired Charter International plc. In May 2012, the Company acquired 91% interest in Soldex S.A. In April 2014, Colfax Corporation completed the acquisition of Victor Technologies Holdings Inc from Irving Place Capital. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bartel" Suit Recommended for Remand ----------------------------------------------------- William E. Bartel, personal representative of the estate of Guy M. Thrasher, filed an action in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rogue, Louisiana. The Plaintiff alleges that between the years 1946 and 1963, decedent was employed by the following defendants: Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc.; Crowley Marine Services, Inc., as successor by merger to Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., f/k/a Mississippi Shipping Co.; Delta Steamship Lines, Inc.; Mississippi Shipping Company; and Waterman Steamship Corporation. The Plaintiff alleges that the Decedent contracted and died of lung cancer as a result of asbestos exposure while working on vessels owned or operated by Defendants. Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc., filed a Notice of Removal on May 29, 2014. The remaining Defendants consented to the removal. The Plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court. Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle of Louisiana, in an Oct. 2, 2014, report and recommendation recommended that the the motion should be granted and the case remanded to state court. The case is WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF GUY M. THRASHER v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-339-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.). A full-text copy of Magistrate Bourgeois' Decision is available at http://is.gd/byAvIpfrom Leagle.com. Waterman Steamship Corporation, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Esq. -- john.bolles@phelps.com -- Annette N. Peltier, Esq. -- annette.peltier@phelps.com -- Kevin Jacob LaVie, Esq. -- kevin.lavie@phelps.com -- Meredith W. Blanque, Esq. -- meredith.blanque@phelps.com -- and Robert J. Barbier, Esq. -- robert.barbier@phelps.com -- at Phelps Dunbar. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit Recommended for Remand to State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- William E. Bartel, personal representative of the Estate of Jose A. Spina, filed an action in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, alleging that between 1946 and 1991, the Decedent was employed by the following Defendants: Delta Steamship Lines, Inc.; Crowley Marine Services, Inc., as successor by merger to Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., f/k/a Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc.; and Mississippi Shipping Company. The Plaintiff alleges that the Decedent contracted and died of asbestosis as a result of asbestos exposure on vessels owned or operated by Defendants. Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. and Mississippi Shipping Company filed a Notice of Removal on May 23, 2014. The Plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court. Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, on Oct. 2, 2014, issued a report and recommendation recommending that the Plaintiff's motion should be granted and the action should be remanded to state court. The case is WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOSE A. SPINA v. CROWLEY MARINE SERVICES, INC., ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-329-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.). A full-text copy of Magistrate Bourgeois' Decision is available at http://is.gd/FGvMyD from Leagle.com. Mississippi Shipping Company, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Esq., Kevin Jacob LaVie, Esq., Meredith W. Blanque, Esq., Robert J. Barbier, Esq., and Annette N. Peltier, Esq., at Phelps Dunbar. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Drumgo" Suit Junked for Failure to State Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- DeShawn Drumgo, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, in Smyrna, Delaware, filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He alleges that the vents are filthy and have not been cleaned in decades, there is a gas leak, and asbestos is airborne and is coming through the vents. Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a memorandum on Oct. 24, 2014, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) and Section 1915A(b)(1). Judge Sleet, however, gave the Plaintiff leave to amend the conditions of confinement claims. The case is DESHA WN DRUMGO, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL, et al., Defendants, CIV. ACTION NO. 14-1134-GMS (D. Del.). A full-text copy of Judge Sleet's Decision is available at http://is.gd/LWtRn5from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Grants 32 Motions to Junk MARDOC Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are 32 motions to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction in cases originally filed in the District Court for the Virgin Islands. The cases were later transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated as part of the maritime multidistrict asbestos litigation. The plaintiffs in these cases are various merchant marines and their representatives, survivors, and spouses. The 18 affected defendants assert that the Pennsylvania Court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over them as they lack sufficient contacts with the Virgin Islands. In their responses, and in addition to several novel arguments the Pennsylvania Court has previously rejected, the plaintiffs allege that the Pennsylvania Court has general jurisdiction over the defendants. They do not assert that the Pennsylvania Court may exercise specific jurisdiction -- either through the Due Process Clause of the Constitution or through the Virgin Islands long-arm statute -- as there are no cases in which the plaintiffs' damages arise from the defendants' contacts in the forum. U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno in Pennsylvania granted the 32 motions, after finding that the Plaintiffs do not allege, and cannot allege, that the Pennsylvania Court has specific jurisdiction (based on the long-arm statute or constitutional due process) over any of the defendants as their claims do not arise from the defendants' activities in the Virgin Islands. The plaintiffs also have failed to adequately plead facts which would allow the Pennsylvania Court to exercise general jurisdiction over any of these defendants under the restrictive holding in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 758 (2014). The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI) relating to COWART, ET AL. v. VARIOUS DEFENDANTS, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL DOCKET NO. 875 (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision dated Oct. 23, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/7udehffrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Izell" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs Bobbie Izell and Helen Izell on claims for personal injuries and loss of consortium stemming from Mr. Izell's alleged exposure to Union Carbide asbestos and subsequent diagnosis with mesothelioma. After a four-week trial the jury returned special verdicts finding Union Carbide 65% comparatively at fault for the Plaintiffs' injuries and awarding the Plaintiffs $30 million in compensatory damages plus $18 million in punitive damages against Union Carbide. By remittitur, which the Plaintiffs accepted, the trial court reduced the compensatory damage award to $6 million, but declined to disturb the punitive damages. On appeal, Union Carbide contends the evidence was insufficient to support the liability finding, apportionment of comparative fault, and the remitted compensatory damage award. Union Carbide also challenges the punitive damage award as excessive. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three, concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, as well as the compensatory and punitive damage awards. Accordingly, the California Court of Appeals affirmed. The appeals case is BOBBIE IZELL et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant, NO. B245085 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated Oct. 22, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/25EHrn from Leagle.com. Baron & Budd, P.C., John Langdoc, Denyse Clancy and Christine Tamer for Plaintiffs and Respondents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Superior Court Affirms "Krauss" Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Appellant Colleen M. Krauss, Executrix of the Estate of Henry M. Krauss, appeals from the orders granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees General Electric Company; Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C; CBS Corporation-Westinghouse; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; Zurn Industries; and Trane US Inc., f/k/a American Standard. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an opinion dated Oct. 22, 2014, affirmed, after determining that the Appellants failed to establish that Zurn boilers found at the worksites where the Decedent worked contained asbestos. The Superior Court adds that Mike Morgan presents no testimony through his deposition establishing that the Decedent worked frequently and regularly in proximity to an asbestos- containing product manufactured by Zurn Industries. Thus, pursuant to Eckenrod v. GAF Corp., 544 A.2d 50, 52 (Pa. Super. 1988), and Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Company, 943 A.2d 216, 226 (Pa. 2007), the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Zurn Industries. The appeals case is COLLEEN M. KRAUSS, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY M. KRAUSS, Appellant, v. TRANE US INC., f/k/a AMERICAN STANDARD, et al; ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPORATION; AQUA CHEM, INC., d/b/a CLEAVER BROOKS DIVISION, INDIVIDUALLY AND SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SPRINGFIELD BOILERS; AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE USA, INC., a/k/a AMCHEM PRODUCTS INC., now known as BAYER CROPSCIENCE INC., f/k/a BENJAMIN FOSTER CO., c/o CORPORATION SERVICES CO.; A.W. CHESTERTON CO.; BABCOCK POWER, INC., f/k/a BABCOCK BORSIG POWER INC., f/k/a D.B. RILEY STOKER CORPORATION; BONDEX INTERNATIONAL INC., c/o DANIEL J. RYAN, ESQUIRE; CRANE COMPANY; CROWN CORK AND SEAL COMPANY INC.; DURABLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; ELLIOT TURBOMACHINERY COMPANY, a/k/a ELLIOT COMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.; GEORGIA- PACIFIC CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO BESTWALL GYPSUM COMPANY; GOODRICH CORPORATION; GOULDS PUMPS INCORPORATED; GUARDLINE INC.; INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, f/k/a THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LOCKPORT FELT, A DIVISION OF THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY; INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; KCG INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO RUCO; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; MURCO WALL PRODUCTS, INC.; OAKFABCO, INC., f/k/a KEWANEE BOILER CORPORATION; OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY; RAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION f/k/a GLEN ALDENCORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO GLEN ALDEN CORPORATION, BRIGGS MANUFACTURING CO., PHILIP CAREY CORPORATION AND PHILIP CAREY MANUFACTURING COMPANY; RPM INC., AS SUCCESSOR TO REPUBLIC POWDERED METALS, SUCCESSOR TO BONDEX; SEPCO CORPORATION; THE SHERWIN- WILLIAM COMPANY; T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION LLC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND f/k/a UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTIC COMPANY, INC.; UNIROYAL HOLDING, INC., AS SUCCESSOR TO UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY; VIACOM, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; WICKES CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WICKES BOILER CO.; ZURN INDUSTRIES INC., a/k/a AND AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO ERIE CITY IRON WORKS; KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY INC.; BORDEN CHEMICAL INC., f/k/a BORDEN CHEMICAL COMPANY AND n/k/a HEXIO SPECIALTY CHEMICALS INC., PRENTICE HALL CORPORATION; CERTAIN-TEED CORPORATION f/k/a CERTAINTEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FREEPORT- McMORAN INC., f/k/a FREEPORT CHEMICAL COMPANY, AND SUCCESSOR TO AGRICO INC.; THE PEP-BOYS MANNY, MOE & JACK; A.P. GREEN a/k/a A.P. GREEN REFRACTORIES, INC., f/k/a A.P. GREEN REFRACTORIES COMPANY, AND A SUBSIDIARY OF ANH REFRACTORIES COMPANY; BENJAMIN FOSTER COMPANY, A DIVISION OF AMCHEM; HARBISON-WALKER, f/k/a HARBISON- WALKER REFRACTORIES COMPANY AND A SUBSIDIARY OF ANH REFRACTORIES COMPANY; KAISER ALUMINUM AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Appellees. COLLEEN M. KRAUSS, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY M. KRAUSS, Appellant, v. CBS CORPORATION, et al; ANCO INSULATIONS, INC.; BORDEN CHEMICAL INC., f/k/a BORDEN CHEMICAL COMPANY AND n/k/a HEXION SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC., PRENTICE HALL CORPORATION; CBS CORPORATION; CERTAIN-TEED CORPORATION, f/k/a CERTAINTEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FREEPORT-McMORAN INC., f/k/a FREEPORT CHEMICAL COMPANY AND SUCCESSOR TO AGRICO INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS INC.; THE PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK; TRANE US INC., f/k/a AMERICAN STANDARD INC.; ZURN INDUSTRIES INC., a/k/a AND AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO ERIE CITY IRON WORKS; A.P. GREEN a/k/a A.P. GREEN REFRACTORIES, INC., f/k/a A.P. GREEN REFRACTORIES COMPANY, AND A SUBSIDIARY OF ANH REFRACTORIES COMPANY; BENJAMIN FOSTER COMPANY, A DIVISION OF AMCHEM; HARBISON WALKER f/k/a HARBISON WALKER REFRACTORIES COMPANY AND A SUBSIDIARY OF ANH REFRACTORIES COMPANY; KAISER ALUMINUM AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Appellees, NOS. 644 EDA 2013, 671 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super.). A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at http://is.gd/c5ldMvfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand "Laurent" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Scott Laurent filed a motion to remand his asbestos- related wrongful death and survival action to the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, after the action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana by General Electric asserting that the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier in Louisiana issued an order and reasons on Oct. 23, 2014, denying the motion, after finding that the GE has demonstrated that (1) it is a person within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1) and (2) it has a colorable federal defense, thus the removal of the matter was proper. The case is SCOTT LAURENT v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., SECTION "J" (5), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2022 (E.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at http://is.gd/QlobGUfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leave to Appeal in "Suttnet" Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- Motion for leave to appeal granted in the IN THE MATTER OF EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to JOANN H. SUTTNER, ETC., Respondent, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, CRANE CO., Appellant, MOTION NO. 2014-843 (N.Y. App.). A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of New York dated Oct. 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/zkijDFfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Palazzo" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the asbestos personal injury action styled IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to CATHY PALAZZO, AS EXECUTRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JACK P. SCAINETTI, AND MARGARET SCAINETTI, INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190278/13, MOT. SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.), defendant The Fairbanks Company moves for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against it on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to come forward with any proof that decedent Jack Scainetti was exposed to an asbestos- containing product manufactured, distributed, sold, or installed by Fairbanks. Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated Oct. 8, 2014, denied Fairbanks' motion, holding that the identification of Leonard Gropper, in his asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit, of the Fairbanks valves as among the valves used at the Astoria powerhouse in the 1960s, create a reasonable inference that Fairbanks' valves were a source of Mr. Scainetti's asbestos exposure. A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/JESUDwfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Oneal" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff James A. Oneal served in the United States Navy for about twenty years between June 7, 1958, and March 30, 1980. During his naval career, Oneal worked aboard several different vessels, mainly in the boiler rooms. His work mainly involved servicing equipment associated with the boilers, including steam pipes, valves, gaskets, pumps, and doors. Much of this work included removing and replacing packing or insulation materials that contained asbestos. Further, while serving on repair ships, Oneal boarded other ships to work on their boilers. Later in his career, Oneal also supervised other sailors performing these tasks, coordinated repair projects, and conducted quality-control inspections of boilers. Defendants Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation and Crane Co. filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment. Judge James I. Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in an order dated Oct. 19, 2014, granted Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment. Judge Cohn also granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment as it concerns Oneal's alleged exposure to asbestos from Crane valves, but is denied with respect to Oneal's claimed exposure to Cranite sheet gasket material. The case is JAMES A. ONEAL and LINDA ONEAL, Plaintiffs, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-61510-CIV- COHN/SELTZER (S.D. Fla.). A full-text copy of Judge Cohn's Decision is available at http://is.gd/TXhaygfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Podedworny" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Constance Podedworny, Executrix for the Estate of Joseph Podedworny, by her agent, The Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, filed an asbestos-related negligence claims against a number of defendants, including Turner & Newell. The Defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 56 and the Plaintiff objects. The Superior Court of Rhode Island, in a decision dated Oct. 24, 2014, denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, after finding that the Plaintiff has demonstrated that there exist material questions of fact precluding the granting of summary judgment. The Superior Court pointed out that Section 4.5 of the Federal-Mogul Chapter 11 Plan specifically conditioned the Defendant's discharge upon the exhaustion of the asbestos liability policy purchased from Curzon Insurance, Ltd. At this point in time, the Hercules Policy has yet to be exhausted, the Superior Court said. The Superior Court ruled that the Defendant has not been provided with a discharge, the automatic stay has not lifted, and the statute of limitations has not begun to run. With regard to the facts of the case, there remain material questions of fact as to whether T&N's product caused the Plaintiff's injury, the Superior Court said. Accordingly, the Superior Court denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The case is CONSTANCE PODEDWORNY, Executor for the ESTATE of JOSEPH PODEDWORNY, by her agent, THE FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INSULATED WIRE CORP., T&N LIMITED, f/k/a T&N plc, TURNER & NEWALL PLC, and TURNER & NEWALL LIMITED, TAF INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, f/k/a TURNERS ASBESTOS FIBRES LIMITED and RAW ASBESTOS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED, and JOHN DOE Defendants. A full-text copy of the Superior Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/ZcpDDSfrom Leagle.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *